My father's stern comment still rings: "Think before you act." We must apply this common-sense advice to laws affecting same-sex marriage. Too often we regret making laws based on visceral reactions, and poor public policy can result when our government reacts to the emotions of its constituency.

But laws addressing same-sex marriage affect a more fundamental issue: under what circumstances are we to deny civil rights to a group of people? We recognize that disagreements exist in families, between friends, and among strangers. Often our opinions are deeply held, and we engage in heated arguments. We may choose not to associate with those we view as immoral. But rarely do we advocate a denial of civil rights over these differences, because we understand that denying such rights to some threatens those rights for us.

Clearly, we must have laws to regulate some human behavior. Otherwise, anything goes. But where do we draw the line? Generally, we tolerate behavior if it does not cause physical harm to others. Tolerance does not mean agreement or acceptance. Those who worship in one faith, for example, may not agree nor accept those of another faith, but they must tolerate it.

Civil rights aside, there is a more compelling reason to allow same-sex marriage: the humanity of supporting two people who wish to make a loving commitment. To deny such joy in humans is simply mean-spirited. And those who congratulate themselves for passing referendums and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage need to question why they derive joy from destroying love. As my father had said, "Think before you act."

PAUL STUART, PITTSFORD