A phrase in law, "similarly situated," refers to parties in similar circumstances and situations. The words are used to determine whether or not they should be given similar treatment under the law. I have thought about this a lot when thinking about the gay-marriage debate.

Should homosexuals be treated exactly the same as heterosexuals when it comes to marrying? Is there something inherently different between the two groups that it would be in the best interest of society to preserve the special treatment for heterosexual unions?

There is no doubt in my mind that many homosexuals are loving, stable parents who pay taxes and contribute to society. They are from every imaginable walk of life. But is there something uniquely special about the union of a man and a woman that a man and a man or a woman and a woman just can't duplicate?

The obvious answer would be children. However, the making of babies in a Petri dish, using a sperm donor, or using a surrogate mother can change all that. And we have men and women marrying who can't or won't create offspring. So I ask again, is there something special, something unique about the union of a man and woman that gays cannot or will not duplicate? If so, how can they be "similarly situated"?

It would seem that something is missing from a same-sex union. It just doesn't seem like the same thing as a heterosexual union. Does that mean that I am a bigot for feeling this way? Maybe I am used to having diversity in these kinds of unions to the point that not having sexual diversity in a marriage would make it.not a marriage. In other words, marriage by definition would require a diversity of sex. Maybe I can chalk some of my discomfort with same-sex unions to familiarity. Maybe if I know lots of gay people who are married that will change. Maybe if we embrace gay marriage we will all just get used to it.

Or maybe it is because I can see things from the point of a child. Even as a child of good gay parents, wouldn't I want a mother and a father? After all, don't they have mothers and fathers? And maybe some of those thoughts are transferring to my opinions of marriage in general. I'm not sure.

If we are talking of giving civil rights, I am all for that. What most people are not comfortable with is calling it the same name that has defined the human family for over a millennia.

The silent majority of America is not comfortable with same-sex marriage. This is why the Massachusetts Legislature would not bring the marriage bill to a vote. Even here in so-called liberal Massachusetts, the courts have to do the work because the people are not ready to swallow this.

Whatever it is that homosexuals lack in a civil union, will it feel better if it is called "marriage?" Will it feel even better if it has the kiss of approval from society at large? I can say that much of the opposition directed at same-sex marriage comes from fears that if it is legalized in most states then gays will litigate to have it taught right alongside reproduction in the public schools. Would it come to that? Should it come to that? Should gay sex be taught just as if it were the same as biological reproduction? Would that be the end result of openly embracing gay marriage? Is it reasonable to look at the possible unintended consequences of these things?

I think I am in a unique position to handle these questions as my mother came out several years ago. Do I love her? Of course I do. But is that enough to say that a gay relationship is the same as a straight relationship? Or is there something special about having a diversity of sexes in a union that makes that union unique enough to treat it differently?

CHERIE M. FELOS lives in Attleboro.