On Monday, opponents of same-sex marriage submitted petitions containing in excess of 475,000 signatures that support defining marriage as a union between only a man and a woman. Should 317,757 of those signatures prove valid, Michigan voters could be asked to define what marriage really is on this November's ballot.

If the institution of marriage is being threatened, we'd like to know what exactly the threat is, and who's responsible for it. What are the discernible and tangible harmful affects that gay marriage imposes on a heterosexual union? Really, we'd love to hear some actual proof devoid of residual ignorance.

Furthermore, why has it only been within the last two years or so that heterosexual marriage has been in need of protection? Have gay couples only wanted a state-recognized union since the ball dropped on 2000? Or, perhaps it's only been since 2000 that heterosexual couples have felt threatened by unions independent of their own and taken a proactive, conservative agenda against them.

There is absolutely no solid footing within the current arguments for a state definition of marriage. The concept that same-sex marriage poses any threat to the welfare of "traditional" marriages is not only ludicrous, it's completely and entirely farcical.

In its intent, legislation that would formally prohibit same-sex couples from enjoying the full benefits of legal marriage suggests that a person's civil rights are only justified should a majority of constituents think accordingly. If most people don't believe a particular person or group is entitled to full rights under the law, actions like this petition propose that civil rights are only for those whose rights do not face significant opposition. That notion of selective civil rights is a slap in the face to all of us.

Same-sex marriage will not affect religious bodies or religious practices, for any church is always permitted to marry who it chooses, regardless of sexual orientation.

Same-sex marriage will not loosen or diminish the sanctity of "marriage," for heterosexual couples have done an admirable job of doing that for years. A definition of marriage could possibly end the domestic partner benefits currently in use in Ann Arbor, at the University of Michigan and at this very university.

A formal definition of marriage that limits the bond to men and women would infinitely do more harm than good. We could fill volumes of this newspaper dispelling myths that propagate this benign approach to discrimination, but we have restrictions of space to bind us.

We encourage all readers of The State News to inform us of any actual, provable threat that the institution of marriage would face by legalized gay unions. Just one fact, one sliver of proof to legitimize this needlessly proactive offense is all we'd need to understand the flimsy footing proponents are standing on.

The only fact apparent to us thus far is that opponents of same-sex marriages are still without a leg to stand on.