Illustration by Arnie Bermudez

All those Republicans are right: Gay marriage should be illegal. But why stop there? Straight marriage should be illegal, too.

It makes sense, really.

As our country debates this marriage business, part of the confusion seems to be that some people think the legal, secular form of marriage that is performed by the state is somehow religious.

See, right-wingers are right when they say that "marriage" (the word, anyway) has its roots in religion. To most, it is still more about religion than about state. Of course, no one is proposing that the Catholic Church allow same-sex marriage. After all, when the government made it easy for couples to divorce, the pope didn't follow suit.

But really, all unions between two people should be called "civil unions," not marriage. That way, there would be no confusion over the fact that a city hall ceremony in front of a judge is not religious.

Of course, that wouldn't pacify those on the right. What they want are less rights for some and more for others, even if it's as petty as a term. They also want to use the government to set certain codes of conduct, which are rooted in religious beliefs.

On the other hand, while it's understandable that the gay movement has its heart set on marriage, it's unfortunate that it wants to make such a flawed civil system available to more people.

There is no moral reason why people must participate in legal marriage. Two people could marry in their synagogue, church, whatever, and who would really ever know or care whether they have a piece of paper from the state?

Daniel Scarpinato Columnist

The legal reason for marriage is really to protect both people and their assets, and to provide them with certain benefits ÷ legal and financial.

But why should everyone be required to enter into the same legal marriage contract? We should allow people to decide what they want the terms to be, just like any legal union or contract between people.

People should make thoughtful, educated decisions about their own marriages and what they want the marriage's legal terms to be. Perhaps if people were more involved, they would take the process more seriously.

And no one should feel obligated to legally marry another person. After all, two people could make a commitment to each other, it could be public, even religious, and they could opt out of adding the legal component.

Maybe they aren't fond of community property laws. Perhaps they are philosophically opposed to taxing people differently to encourage certain patterns of behavior in society.

But moreover, it's wrong for the government to be in the business of deciding who is worthy of marriage. For God's sake, prisoners are allowed the right to marry ÷ straight prisoners, anyway.

The right-wing conservatives are right. Marriage is rooted in religion and tradition. And that's why it should remain a matter for the churches and people's inner souls. Civil unions are the way to go for everyone ÷ straight or gay.

It's odd that even most liberals are uncomfortable with allowing gays the right to marry.

For months, the leading Democrats for president lied about their positions on gay marriage. Wes Clark, John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean ÷ did anyone really buy that they are against gay marriage but in favor of civil unions? Of course not.

They couldn't give a damn one way or another. But rather than standing behind their supposed principals of equality and liberty, they are playing semantics and trying helplessly to conjure up illogical reasons for their positions on the issue.

Yes, it's disturbing that they are not willing to stand up for what is right, but what is even more disturbing is that they are taking the Democratic Party down the wrong route. Now, not only is it the party of government intrusion in your financial, material life, but it is also the party of intrusion in your personal ÷ in this case sexual ÷ life.

True, it would seem extreme for the Democrats to come out in opposition of legal marriage ÷ straight or gay. But they must draw a line between secular and spiritual unions if they have any chance of winning the debate.

Right now, their position is illogical and misleading.

Daniel Scarpinato is a former Daily Wildcat editor in chief and current editor of The Desert Yearbook. He is a political science and journalism senior and can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.