EDITORIAL - I oppose gay marriage – more strongly than I can put into words. That certainly does not mean, however, that I want to see our unfathomably large federal government regulate what it believes marriage should be. In the year 2006, we have terrorists from all parts of the globe hell bent on the United States' complete destruction. Is banning gay marriage really something that the Congress should worry about?

More than that, is a ban on gay marriage something that the Constitution authorizes the federal government to get involved in? No, of course not. The Constitution provides the federal government with few and specific rights, none of which includes the regulation of what it believes marriage truly is. The federal government was formed to protect our national security. It was not formed to pen regulations on marriage.

Why do gay people wish to marry? One major driving force behind gay marriage is the tax implications, which brings up another issue that the federal government has unconstitutionally got itself involved in. The federal government should not distinguish between married and unmarried people. Everyone, regardless of race, nationality, color – and marriage – should be treated equally under all facets of the law, and that includes taxation. If the government removes the tax incentive of marriage, the gay marriage entanglement would probably die quickly.

The federal government says that they believe marriage leads to a more stable home environment and, ultimately, a longer and more satisfying [tax-paying] life. I would submit, however, that marriage may only lead to a more satisfying life if the married couple truly loves each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together in mutual support. The thought that the government can magically create that support with tax incentives rings insulting to the institution of marriage and, once again, oversteps the bounds of what the federal government is supposed to be doing.

In a true small government society, the federal government makes no distinction between married and unmarried couples. Taxes are applied evenly. Churches decide who they wish to marry and who they do not. This means if a church in Massachusetts wishes to marry a gay couple according to the church's interpretation of their faith, they should have every right to do that without federal government involvement. Likewise, if another church rejects gay marriage and refuses to marry a gay couple, the same right applies. Every unmarried person should be afforded the right to designate a legal "partner", which provides them with hospital visit privileges, for example, without tax implications.

President Bush supports a Constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage. Even if that absurd amendment gets ratified by 3/4ths of the states, who is to say it will be enforced? When was the last time you saw Congress, or the White House, or any politician, read and enforce the Constitution? When have you ever seen our politicians operate under the rules of the Constitution and use it as their true guiding force in the legislation they write and support?

I do not support gay marriage, but I also do not support the federal government getting involved where it should not be. Let churches decide the issue of marriage. Let everyone take advantage of those tax incentives normally reserved for married couples. Remove the federal government from these social issues and force it to do its job, which happens to be preventing devastating attacks like that of September 11th, 2001.