Words Of Wisdom On Same-Sex Marriage

March 16, 2005
The Santa Cruz Sentinel
As We See It: Government and marriage

COURT RULING: The state ought not to be involved in the debate over morality and religion when it comes to same-sex marriage.

What is the government's proper role when it comes to marriage?

Americans are having trouble answering that question, because marriage carries with it a tremendous amount of cultural, moral and financial weight.

The government sanction of marriage makes sense to us when it comes to the least debatable of those choices, the financial. It makes little sense to us that some people have to pay more in taxes simply because they choose to sleep with someone of the same sex.

In other words, a man living with a woman to whom he's married pays the government less in taxes and enjoys other financial benefits than a man who lives in a committed relationship with another man.

Unfortunately, most people don't think of state-sanctioned marriage in this sort of financial and legal context, even though that’s what the government’s most prominent role is. For example, is it fair for same-sex couples not to have inheritance rights or hospital-visitation rights that most of us take for granted?

Those who are in same-sex relationships would love to receive the same kind of financial benefits that married people enjoy. Yet they’re not allowed to do that under our current law.

But it’s not financial issues that people focus on. Most of those opposed to a San Francisco Superior Court judge’s decision Monday to allow same-sex marriage don’t even discuss the legal and financial aspects.

Instead, they question the morality of allowing the state to recognize same-sex couples. Whenever the government gets involved in moral issues like prohibition, things turn out badly.

We agree with some that the time has come in our society to give same-sex couples the same opportunity that other couples have: to live together in a government recognized relationship. We’ve never understood the accusation that same-sex marriage undermines conventional marriage.

For example, if a pop music star flies to Las Vegas, gets drunk, marries someone and then gets an annulment a few days later, that's their business. We might pass judgment and say that the three day marriage makes a mockery of the institution, but we don't say that it takes away from anyone else's marriage.

Yet that’s what some same-sex opponents say.

But we do understand that some people think that same-sex marriages are wrong. And they have every right to believe that it’s still a free country.

People have every right to worship at a church that doesn't sanction gay marriages, and we don’t think anyone should have to change their mind about what's right or wrong.

Of course, we also support those churches and other institutions who embrace the idea of gay marriage. Again, it's a free country.

The problem arises when the government moves in. Banning same-sex marriages has a verifiable cost to homosexuals. They are not given the same chance as others to live in a committed relationship with a person of their choosing and enjoy the same legal and financial benefits as others.

This issue is what separation of church and state is all about. What matters is people’s personal rights, not what the governor of California thinks or what the president of the United States thinks.

People's moral standards are their own. But the state's protection of its people should extend to all. And that's why the judge's decision this week was right.

Copyright © Santa Cruz Sentinel. All rights reserved.