Over the past few years, there has been much talk of freedom, the fight for freedom and the preservation thereof. So why is that not reflected in our legislation? Furthermore, why is the opposite often the case?

These questions certainly come up in regard to the proposed gay marriage amendment of the Wisconsin Constitution. Nov. 7, 2006, the citizens of Wisconsin are voting whether or not marriage should be strictly defined as being between a man and a woman.

The state should not be involved in deciding who can or cannot be married.

Gay marriage has gained so much attention as it is a primarily religious issue. So what are we doing trying to make amendments to our constitutions regarding gay marriage? The U.S. Constitution states in the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …”

The reality of the matter is that the religious beliefs of some citizens of this nation are not to be impressed on all. The Constitution is meant to ensure the rights of the minority against the majority.

People risked much in order to come to this country and to gain the freedoms we are guaranteed, yet some are now trying to write these away.

If your religious beliefs lead you to find fault with gay marriage, that is your interpretation and that is what you believe, but those beliefs should not be impressed on others.

If you read the Bible, or another religious book, in such a way that you find gay marriage against that text, then please don’t forget to read the parts about loving your neighbor and caring for the poor and less fortunate. Reading the Bible literally includes that, too. Most of all, please remember that Jesus is love, not hate.

Beyond the religious issues inherent in the gay marriage debate, there are other important matters that may not be as visible upon first inspection.

The economic impacts of gay marriage regulation may be much more pervasive and diverse than one initially expects. There is, of course, the fact that married couples have different economic rights than unmarried couples. However, there is so much more to it than that.

It is a wonder those who are most often supporters of the free market are also those in favor of amendments and other laws prohibiting gay marriage.

After all, the concept of a free market is based on the idea that individuals are free to make decisions based on their preferences.

If individuals are not allowed to make their own decisions, a major aspect of the free market is lost.

It seems odd to grant more freedoms to corporations, yet to restrict the liberties of individuals, as has happened in this country more than once. This is not to say that corporations are evil or anything of that nature, but simply that in economics, supply and demand are studied, not just supply.

The free market relies on free individuals. These individuals must be allowed to make decisions for themselves as long as they do not harm others. Otherwise it is not a free market.

It may seem unusual to link issues relating to gay marriage and the free market, but consider the Soviet Union . In that country, one of the major means by which the government kept its economic constraints in place was through its social restrictions.

Simply, to enjoy the free and prosperous lives we know, both economic and social freedoms are necessary.

Christine Todd Whitman shows an understanding of this in her book, “It’s My Party Too.” Although the following quote, found on page 73 of the book, is about and directed toward conservative individuals, it contains an underlying meaning that has an important message for us all (If it isn’t working for you, try replacing the word “conservative” with “American.”): “The defining feature of the conservative viewpoint is a faith in the ability, and a respect for the right, of individuals to make their own decisions — economic, social, and spiritual — about their lives. The true conservative understands that government’s track record in respecting individual rights is poor when it dictates individual choices.”

This encompasses all discussed above — the state has not done well in ensuring the rights of its citizens when it has dictated the “economic, social, and spiritual” aspects of those citizens’ lives.

The state will certainly fail to vouchsafe the rights of citizens if it affects these three aspects of one’s life by controlling who can marry whom.