In regard to the Nov. 21 op-ed "Conservatives and the Politics of Marriage: The Wisdom of Upholding Tradition" by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George and "Making the Same-Sex Case" by Ken Mehlman :

Mr. Mehlman asserts that we should align our "core beliefs" with the "ever-improving citizenry" for political gain. Anyone who actually has "core beliefs" isn't swayed to change them for the sake of politics. The mythical "ever-improving citizenry" that Mr. Mehlman speaks of is rooted in his misguided belief in social evolution.

Mr. Mehlman states: "Allowing civil marriage for same-sex couples will cultivate community stability, encourage fidelity and commitment, and foster family values." The first two assertions here are pure opinion. His assertion about fostering family values is obscene.

Mr. Mehlman states that "A majority of Americans favor civil marriage for same-sex couples." He neglects the fact that more than 30 states have constitutional or statutory provisions stating that marriage is between one man and one woman. He would have us redefine the centuries-old institution of marriage because "same-sex marriage" is the current media rage and is backed up by his carefully selected polling statistics.

James K. Smith

Columbus, Ga.

It is time for conservatives to reconcile themselves with acceptance of gay marriage. I have, because one of my relatives is gay. I have attended my relative's "marriage" ceremony to his partner and found two people committed to each other, much like any heterosexual couple. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business alone.

When the Supreme Court takes up the question of gay marriage, it will find no guidance from the Constitution. Much like abortion, the right to privacy will be used to find for gay marriage rights.

Inclusion is what the Republican Party should be about, not exclusion. Conservatism needs to evolve with the times, while maintaining its core values.

Joseph J. Kondalski

Toledo, Ohio

The two viewpoints you publish on marriage reveal how world views can be irreconcilable. Messrs. Girgis, Anderson and George explore the definition of the word "marriage" and explain how the word is more than an arbitrary symbol that can be redefined for contemporary purposes. The word marriage has content that is inapplicable to same-sex relationships.

Mr. Mehlman implicitly denies that words have enduring meaning. Yet he accepts a new definition of marriage and justifies this change because that is what he wants and what he thinks people want, and what he thinks is politically pragmatic, regardless of the reality.

When we believe that we can change the meaning of the words we use, and accept that words have no real content except that which we choose to assign them personally, then we are truly insane.

Ian Santoro

Albany, N.Y.

The colloquy on same-sex marriage ignores the most compelling alternative: abolish civil marriage. The classic way for a diverse polity to resolve contentious issues with minimum strife is to decentralize and privatize those issues. A world without civil marriage would be a world in which everyone can pursue his or her own vision of marriage without imposing those views on others.

Abolishing civil marriage would ultimately be good for marriage by ending the government's legal monopoly defining the family. The resulting competition among alternative forms of marriage would strengthen the institution, just as competition among religions has made America a more religious society than societies with established churches.

Though not without its complications (including the problems of transition), abolishing civil marriage is the best alternative for our diverse society.

Edward A. Zelinsky

Benjamin N. Cardozo

School of Law

Yeshiva University

New York