The debate over gay marriage is exposing some irreconcilable differences in our communities, between people who take a more secular view of marriage and those who believe that the word connotes a religious sacrament.

Question 1, as many now know, is an effort to repeal the gay marriage law that was approved this spring by the Maine legislature and signed into law by Gov. John Baldacci.

As the vote nears, it seems clear that the way citizens will decide on Question 1 will be based on their deepest held values, not just their beliefs or opinions, so the efforts of the Yes on 1 and No on 1 campaigns seem largely in vain. Psychology holds that values are the one thing that just do not sway, under any form of persuasion.

The conservatives who tie orthodox religion, procreation and tradition into their definition of marriage will not be convinced into thinking that it’s just fine for two men or two women to be defined as “married.”

Just the same, those who take a more liberal view of marriage don’t see any reason to deny two people who love each other the ultimate expression of that love.

We at the Journal Tribune fall into that latter category and publicly state our support of the same-sex marriage legislation. We do not believe that any harm can come from allowing gay couples the same definition that heterosexuals have for a life-long commitment to another human being.

The arguments against same-sex marriage seem hollow and some of them reminiscent of the arguments of old, against interracial marriage: It’s not natural, it’s immoral, it’s bad for the children.

It might not be something we’re used to ”“ just as people once were not used to seeing a white hand and a black hand clasped firmly together ”“ but that doesn’t make it wrong. Some people may still be uncomfortable with those of another race, culture or lifestyle, but it has largely been agreed that the predominant race or culture’s “comfort zone” should not dictate everyone else’s rights.

We agree with Marvin Ellison, the Presbyterian minister who is active in the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry, who said that the ultimate human right is the right to choose whom you marry.

Those of us who know gay couples ”“ many of whom are raising children ”“ see them living and loving in their regular everyday lives. We have a hard time imagining why anyone would want to deny these couples ”“ indeed, these families ”“ equal status with heterosexual couples who deal with the same struggles and joys of being in a monogamous lifelong relationship.

Though some religious groups may argue otherwise, the fact is that marriage is a civil institution ”“ one that can be brought to another level in a religious tradition. While baptism, confirmation and ordination are the purview of the church alone, those who are joined in marriage before their God must still get a marriage license from their municipality if it is to be legitimate in the eyes of the government.

The current gay marriage law does not require any religious tradition to perform same-sex marriages, and in fact, explicitly protects their right to refuse to do so.

The efforts to provide gays the same rights as those of marriage, via domestic partnerships and civil unions, without allowing them to be “married” was thought to be a valid compromise. It is not. Equality is equality, plain and simple, and the same rights by a different name isn’t equal, nor does it make any sense. How can conservatives say they’re just fine with gays having the same rights, but not by the same name? Hypocrisy rears its ugly head.

By our consideration, if two consenting adults decide they want to get married, no law should tell them that they’re not able to do so. The time has already come when gay people no longer have to hide their feelings or lie about who they are. The laws change with the times and it’s time for this law to reflect the true nature of our diverse society.