Charlie Summers, a lawyer and the Maine Secretary of State, should know recusing himself from an issue when a conflict of interest exists is the ethical thing for him to do.

Summers is running for the U.S. Senate on a platform that includes opposition to same-sex marriage. His involvement in how the marriage ballot question in Maine will be worded constitutes a conflict of interest.

The complete wording for the question the secretary of state’s office approved is: “An Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom.” Summers’ proposed wording is “Do you want to allow same-sex couples to marry?”

It seems to me that Summers’ proposed ballot question addresses only half of the question. A more appropriate and complete ballot question would be:

“Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?”

Summers’ reason for excluding the religious protection wording is it would be redundant, religious freedom being guaranteed to all through the U.S. Constitution.

This is true, but it did not stop the opposition in 2009 from falsely claiming and convincing tens of thousands of people to vote against the bill because they thought their clergy would be forced to perform same-sex marriage.

If the ballot question is not changed to reflect what voters are voting on, the opposition will be free once again to confuse voters by claiming their religious freedoms will be violated.

Summers made his ballot question proposal public on June 16. The public has until July 16 to let the secretary of state know if they object to the way the question is worded. Make your feelings know.

Tom Waddell

Litchfield