Civil unions for everyone

In one of my favorite "Saturday Night Live" sketches, a couple is arguing about a particular product. They both love it, but can't agree about what it actually is. One insists it's a dessert topping. "It's a floor wax," says the other. \n"Dessert topping!" \n"Floor wax!" \nThis continues until an enthusiastic narrator informs them -- "It's a dessert topping… and a floor wax!"\nEverybody is happy. \nFor some reason, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh a few days ago, when he and a caller began to argue about gay marriage. "It's a legal right," said the caller. "It's a religious institution," said Rush. "Legal Right!" \n"Religious Institution!"\nIt reminded me of the SNL sketch. I shouted over the argument on my car radio. "It's a legal right… and a religious institution!" They didn't hear me. \nSo here is the problem. We've gone and blurred the lines between a religious institution and a legal one. Thomas Jefferson wrote about the importance of separating these but we ignored him and now we're in a mess. \nIn many other countries, the civil and religious marriages are literally two different institutions. There is a religious ceremony with a priest who gives God's blessings, and then a separate meeting of sorts, where the state gives its seal of approval and recognizes the new legal commitment for the benefit of the bureaucracy. \nIn this country, we believe in one-stop shopping. A priest or member of the clergy can give us blessings from both the Lord Almighty and the government at the very same time. When the happy couple recites its sacred vows, it's also making a not-so-sacred agreement to accept a range of legal rights and responsibilities associated with this union -- things like the right to transfer property between them without getting taxed. \nIn recent years, the courts have made it clear the legal rights associated with marriage cannot be denied to people because of their sexual orientation. So, the solution to many seemed to be civil unions -- which would offer the legal rights, but not access to the word "marriage." In response to the activities in San Francisco, many politicians are stepping up in favor of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would permanently reserve marriage as the domain of opposite sex couples -- ostensibly to protect the sanctity of marriage. \nHere is the irony ... through civil unions, the government can offer legal rights, which is the responsibility of the government to give. But sanctity has never been the government's to give in the first place. The sanctity, holiness or whatever else you want to call it, comes from the church or the individuals themselves. Once it has done its job, and dealt with the legal issues surrounding marriage, it is not the role of the government to measure the relative amounts of holiness in a relationship by giving or withholding the term "marriage." \n I know it is probably not the case, but I would think those who say they want to protect marriage would be happy maintaining a clear distinction between the religious and legal definition of marriage. If all unions -- gay or straight -- were equal as far as the government is concerned, the church would cast the deciding vote -- it could choose whether or not to bless any particular union, and whether or not to bestow "marriage." \nWhen the question of marriage has been taken out of the political realm, the questions of constitutional amendments and laws become irrelevant. As far as the government is concerned, all unions between two consenting adults should be considered equal, straight or gay. \nWe can leave the question of the sanctification to the sanctified.