Last week I praised a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that will allow homosexuals to marry. I'm stunned by the number of people who have written me to complain that gays have successfully "imposed" their will on the rest of us.

That's the word that appears over and over - "imposed."

I thought about it for a while, but I couldn't think of a single way in which my life would change if gay people were allowed to marry. The only conclusion I can see is that nothing has been imposed on me.

Compare that to the impact terrorists had after they hijacked planes during the 1960s and '70s. Eventually the Supreme Court ruled that if you wanted to get on a plane you had to submit to a search, which legalized security systems at all U.S. airports. And since the Sept. 11 attacks, we've been forced to endure even more stringent screening.

That is an imposition. The terrorists indirectly imposed security on the rest of us.

Is gay marriage a similar situation? Is your life - work, family, travels, etc. - affected in any way by gay marriage?

This is the argument that people make repeatedly: Gays don't like the fact that the majority has shut them out of marriage, so they've gone to court to impose their will on the rest of us.

But is that what's really happened?

Let's look at this in a different context.

Imagine there were a law in the United States that said you could eat in a restaurant only if you had meat as your main course. Vegetarians obviously have chosen a different diet, so they'd have to cook at home or go to a friend's house to eat, but they could not legally order a meal in a restaurant.

Eventually the vegetarians get fed up. They don't think it's reasonable to tell them that they can't eat in a restaurant just because they want to order tofu, portabella mushrooms, salads or some other non-animal product. So they take the matter to court, and the Supreme Court rules that vegetarians don't have to eat meat in order to visit a restaurant.

If we follow the logic of people opposed to gay marriage, this ruling would have the effect of "imposing" the will of vegetarians on the rest of us.

But how can that be when the rest of us are still free to order steaks, hamburgers, lamb or whatever else we like?

Let's take it a step further. Suppose the court not only gave vegetarians the right to choose for themselves, but also outlawed all eating of meat products in restaurants.

In that case, critics could correctly argue that vegetarians had imposed their lifestyle on the rest of us.

But that's not what happened in Massachusetts. The court didn't invalidate heterosexual marriage, didn't say that only homosexual marriage is legal, didn't do anything that could be construed as "imposing" something on the rest of us.

The Massachusetts court has merely taken a step toward giving equal rights to homosexuals. It may offend you to know that gays are allowed to marry - it may be a violation of your religious beliefs or you may think it goes against societal morals. Those are all debatable points, but you can't logically argue that gays have imposed anything on the rest of us.

Choosing a spouse is an incredibly personal decision, and the courts are merely saying that governments should stay out of that decision except as necessary to protect people who cannot consent (e.g., minors and mentally disabled people).

Beyond that, all consenting adults should be free to order what they like from the menu.

Former Denver Bronco Reggie Rivers (regrivers@msn.com) ) is the host of Drawing the Line Wednesdays at 8 p.m. on KBDI Channel 12. He writes Fridays on the op-ed page.

Copyright 2003 The Denver Post

###