In Tuesday’s “Looking at both sides of gay marriage,” the Technician regrets these errors:

United States district court Judget Vaughn R. Walker over turned Proposition 8, of the California Marriage Protect Act, in the case Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, on Aug. 4, 2010. This ruling was put on hold, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has continued the stay on the ruling, which is pending appeal.

The Technician staff regrets the misrepresentative title of the column, “Looking at both sides of gay marriage.” The title does not represent the content of the column.

For centuries, homosexuality has been an issue, but it did not come to a head until the 1960s during the “Free Love” movement. Homosexuality is becoming an even more prevalent issue nowadays. States are fighting for or against homosexuals to possess the right to be married legally. The recent Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 in California held to the Conservative side of the argument by ruling against its legalization, however there are interesting and valid points to each side of the argument.

On one side, marriage or civil unions by themselves should not be an establishment of the U.S. government. This issue is not something state or federal governments should have to be wasting their time on. Marriage should be a religious institution. Whether or not you agree with homosexuality is your business, but allow the religious institutions to decide for themselves. If there truly is a separation of church and state, the church should be left to determine whether or not they want to marry homosexual couples.

If you do not agree with a particular church’s view, simply do not attend that church. The government has no right to impose a particular religion on someone else by forcing them to adhere to their moral definition of the law. If you really want to change someone else’s view to a Judeo-Christian moral standpoint, as many of its Conservative adversaries do, they should use the practices Jesus used to persuade his crowds: by presenting them with what he believes, then targeting their hearts and interests, not encouraging a rebellion against the Caesar to amend the laws. He never demanded his own rights and was entirely peaceful in his approach while holding his own ground. Jesus says, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s,” in Mark 12:17.

The other side is, the government has a say in marriage. They are going to interfere whether we like it or not. Based on this, allowing them to legalize gay marriage simply entices more immoral, Nanny-state laws. If you are arguing from a moral standpoint, one sin is not greater than the other. Two homosexuals committing an unnatural act are no greater than the government ruling against your beliefs and allowing them to do so.

You could also argue that in nature, species are not able to reproduce with the same sex. I am not a biologist, but from my understanding, the purpose of mating rituals in animals is the continuation of the species. It is more the importance for humans, as they are able to interpret the deeper emotions felt in their act. It contradicts the purpose if the two are opposite genders of the species.

While each argument is compelling, I leave it up to the reader to decide where they stand. While this issue should not be in the hands of the government, it is in the hands of their voters. It is in their best interest to examine both sides of the argument, while keeping in mind the consequences that may occur in the future.