Editorial

The California referendum vote this month that banned gay marriages won by a slim margin. It shows how divisive this issue is in that state and all across the country.
It’s a divisive issue that will continue because our view of marriage is a mix of religious conviction and secular regulation. So as one state, California, votes to make same-sex marriages illegal, another, Connecticut, allows them on a ruling by its Supreme Court.
The Connecticut high court ruled in October that the state’s 2005 civil union law conflicted with the state constitution’s marriage law. The court said that failing to give same-sex couples the full rights, responsibilities and name of marriage was against the equal protection clause.
But government should not be in the marriage business. That is a religious matter. Historically, religion has mandated the limits of marriage, and it’s not government’s duty to sanction or not sanction one type of marriage over another.
Government’s interest should be in seeing that all people have the same rights — as the Connecticut Supreme Court did. However, the Connecticut court decision confused the matter because it was still managing marriages, not civil unions.
So instead of defining marriage and giving out marriage licenses, states should be licensing civil unions. The states’ and federal government’s responsibility is to see then that people who choose to live together and share their lives, whether they marry or not, all receive the same benefits under a civil union law.
Churches and other religious organizations can dictate, define and sanctify marriages how they want, just as they have been doing for centuries.

Muskogee Phoenix, Muskogee, Okla.