Constitutional marriage rule isn't necessary

Opponents of gay marriage took another step toward putting a measure on the November ballot to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman in the Arizona Constitution.
 
The Arizona House approved the plan Monday, which now goes to the Arizona Senate for its consideration. If the ballot measure is eventually approved, it will be the second time Arizona voters have taken up the issue.
 
A similar measure was rejected by Arizona voters in 2006. That version, however, also had a provision which was interpreted as an attack on civil unions between couples and on domestic partnerships.
 
Supporters of the marriage definition believe it is essential to have it as part of the state's constitution despite the fact that it is already defined in exactly the same way in state law, preventing same sex partners from marrying. That law was approved in 1996 and has since been upheld by an appeals court.
 
That, of course, raises the question of why this election measure is even necessary, a question that was also raised in 2006.
 
Those who want the new ballot measure say the law could be changed in the future and it is therefore necessary to put it in the state constitution. That contention ignores the fact that the constitutional definition could as easily be deleted as it is added. Neither provision is absolutely secure.
 
Society's view of relationships - if not necessarily marriage itself - is undergoing change, something which traditionalists fear. The idea of same sex couples and unmarried couples is increasingly being accepted, especially by younger people.
 
Many private companies, and indeed the state government, have chosen to view these unmarried partnerships and equivalent to marriage when deciding to provide employment benefits to families.
 
There is also a growing recognition that these couples need to have certain contractual and legal rights under the law so that they can function as a family unit.
 
Traditionalists like those supporting the ballot measure view this as an attack on traditional marriage, but we disagree.
 
In a free society, individuals should be allowed to live their lives as they choose as long as they don't harm others and do not intrude on the right of others to live their lives as they choose. Two people voluntarily sharing their lives, married or not, don't do either of these things.
 
Arizona voters recognized that fact in 2006 and will likely do the same again this year if the marriage amendment should make it to the ballot.