Lost in much of the debate over gay marriage is that this is a rights issue, not a religious issue.

No one is asking any religious organization to sanctify marriages of homosexuals. The advocacy is for the right to a legal union under civil law, which is now denied to gays and lesbians. It's beside the point whether our laws stemmed from the religious traditions of the country's founders.

Laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman are passe, just as were the laws against interracial marriage.

Society has evolved to the point where gay unions are commonplace and open. Extending the legal protections of marriage to these couples is only logical, and only fair. It is discriminatory, in fact, to deny them the benefits of marriage.

And those rights and benefits are many. John Jacobi of Attleboro gave an indication of the breadth of such protections in a letter to the editor that appeared in Friday's Sun Chronicle.

Jacobi is a lawyer. Responding to another letter writer who contended that gay couples can obtain all the rights of straight couples without being married, Jacobi said that simply isn't true.

``Without trying too hard,'' he wrote, `` I can list health insurance, the right to inheritance from a spouse, alimony and property division, ERISA (pension) rights, Social Security benefits, retirement benefits, damages for wrongful death, loss of consortium, and COBRA (health insurance) rights as flowing from a marriage.''

Defenders of traditional marriage sometimes argue that inequities can be rectified by changing the laws. The reality is that ``marriage'' is so intertwined in the statutes and legal conventions that this is not a realistic alternative, nor an appropriate one.

Massachusetts has an opportunity to lead the way to equal rights under marriage in one stroke.

Seven same-sex couples have petitioned the state Supreme Judicial Court for the right to marry. That's marriage under civil law, not in any church -- though some religions no doubt will welcome such weddings.

A ruling from the SJC is said to be near. To decide in favor of same-sex marriages, it must reject the argument that the ``main object'' of marriage is having and raising children. That will not be difficult.

About 25 percent of children are born out of wedlock today, something that is no longer a scandal and something that is generally accepted in society.

Child rearing is also part of gay life, and protected by government. The state's highest court and the Legislature have already granted rights to gay couples to bear, adopt and raise children.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down sodomy laws is another step on the road to legalizing same-sex marriage.

Two provinces in Canada have now redefined marriage as the union of two individuals, not of a man and a woman. The Canadian prime minister has promised to extend these rights nationwide.

It really seems to be only a matter of time before the United States does the same.

Same-sex marriage is no threat to anyone else or to the social order. In fact, the rush of gay couples to Canada to marry and to Vermont for civil unions is a counterweight to homosexual promiscuity that so concerns some opponents.

Gay couples are already living in committed, stable relationships no different from those of heterosexual couples -- except that they are denied the benefits of marriage.

Imagine, if you will, your life partner being rushed to the hospital, and being denied the right to stay with him or her because you're not a `` spouse.''

That's what happens in some places now, and it's just one of many examples of discrimination that cannot stand under the Massachusetts Constitution which guarantees ``equality under the law.''

NED BRISTOL is editor of The Sun Chronicle. Contact him at nbristol@thesunchronicle.com or 508-236-0344.