David Anderson’s March 25 letter to the editor makes the case for retention of the present law in Delaware and for the proposed law which institutionalizes marriage as exclusively between a man and women. This letter makes the opposite case, one that supports gay marriage as a civil right.

    Support for gay marriage has reached an important crossroad. Full rights for gay couples in marriage are supported by Connecticut and Massachusetts, while civil unions and domestic partnerships are permitted in eight states and the District of Columbia. Although the status of gay marriage is presently unsettled in California, it is apparent full gay marriage rights may soon be enjoyed in New York. Meanwhile, six nations around the world — Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa and Spain — recognize gay marriage while another 16 allow same-sex partnerships or unions.

    Mr. Anderson notes in his article that marriage in its current form promotes stability and a clear family structure. Yet he neglects the most important ingredient in any marriage: love. That cannot be limited to people of different gender any more than can procreation or raising children. As for stability, the divorce rate for heterosexual couples remains significantly higher by percentage than for breakups among gay couples.

    Maintaining consistency with tradition and history is also a rationale employed by Mr. Anderson to preserve his form of marriage. But history is full of aged-old injustices, such as the second-class treatment of women, the perpetuation of slavery and the imposition of the death penalty for holding political views among others. Indeed, the passage of time may change laws and attitudes, but the basic universal right of equality remains unaffected by how the prevailing winds blow.

    Some opponents of gay marriage utilize religious arguments to back their position. Yet, certain parts of the Holy Scripture seem to legitimize group marriage and polygamy. It is inconsistent to pick and choose what Bible verses will make one’s secular point look good. Like the Constitution, the Bible is open to interpretation and the adaptability to modern times.

    The presumed constitutionality of the present Delaware proposal to “protect” the traditional definition of marriage is likewise cited by Mr. Anderson for his support of SB 27. Really? It is clear that both the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws either defining or limiting marriage to a union between a man and women are unconstitutional, violating not only the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment but the preamble of the Constitution as well. Gay marriage is undoubtedly a human right. That it will be recognized as a civil right of all Americans is not a question of whether, but when.

    Dr. Samuel B. Hoff is George Washington Distinguished Professor of History and Political Science and Law Studies Director at Delaware State University. He is chairman of the Dover Human Relations Commission.