ON NOV. 4, California saw the passage of Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, by a narrow margin. This event has incited major protests throughout the state as well as a legal challenge to the referendum. While the passage of this referendum is further proof of the dangers and sometimes idiocy of direct democracy, the larger meaning of the amendment has to do with the always combative issue of gay marriage. No one has yet found an an acceptable solution to this debate for all Americans. I think one lies in the application of a well-known American premise, the separation of church and state: if marriage becomes wholly religious and civil unions completely civil, everyone should be satisfied. By firmly defining each term, our society can move beyond fighting over gay marriage and have more pressing debates over topics like the economy, healthcare and national security, much like in the most recent election.
Marriage as it stands can be defined as a legal or religious union that establishes a partnership in both the eyes of the church and the state. Because the ceremony as it has existed in Judeo-Christian society for millennia is typically a religious exercise, where a priest, pastor or rabbi blesses the couple before God, the most accurate definition in my mind is one of religious wedlock. If so defined, it requires a religious foundation. This is so why many Americans oppose gay marriage as they see it as a violation of traditional Judeo-Christian values.
A common American theme, espoused first by Thomas Jefferson in his Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, is the idea of separating the actions of the church from those of the state. The First Amendment gives citizens the freedom to follow whatever religious persuasion they choose so that there is no state religion, like the Anglican Church in England (the initial example for the young nation). Marriage creates a unique problem within this ideal because while in many states one needs marriage to be considered a legal couple, that usually involves the religious ceremony. Sure, a marriage is not legal without the license from the state (which is why people can be partnered in front of a judge) but if the term “marriage” is redefined to cover only the religious coupling of two individuals, the state should be completely detached from the process.
Therefore, the simple solution to all of this is to take two separate but similar ideas, marriage and the civil union, and fully qualify them as religious and civil acts, respectively. In other words, set in stone the definitions of the two terms, remove the term marriage from the legal codes, and make every single couple, hetero- or homosexual, get a civil union to be considered lawful in terms of housing, taxes, insurance, visiting rights in hospitals, etc. This keeps the government out of religion by simply defining a “civil union” for the governmental actions that take place when two people are legally paired.
Meanwhile, marriage would become a wholly religious institution that does not require a license from the state and allows religious sects to determine whether or not they are willing to marry same-sex couples. Therefore, the fairly liberal Episcopal Church can marry homosexuals while the conservative Southern Baptists can refuse to do so because they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This compromise allows the state to do what it should be doing which is determining the legal status of a couple, not whether a couple’s marriage is considered moral by a belief system, while religious entities can act on their different beliefs.
As one might expect there are people who would reject this solution. They claim that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and should be enforcing a particular set of morals. However, this viewpoint loses track of the government’s job, which is to govern, not set moral absolutes. The government fails to be a just administrator when it prevents individuals from legally partnering because the state cannot discriminate against any group of citizens in its policies and practices, in this case because of who they love. This solution is perfect for a nation like the United States that has a large religious base but also a fundamental belief in separating those beliefs from the actions of the government. A redefining of the terms “marriage” and “civil union” would clearly separate the two words from one another, placing one wholly under the auspices of religion and the other as a governmental term for a legal partnership. Imagine going one election season without ever hearing about this issue — that is what would happen if this intelligent compromise were pursued.
Geoff Skelley’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at g.skelley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
COHEN: Charlottesville must embrace a comprehensive solution to homelessness
By Ryan Cohen | 23 hours agoThe city has made several past efforts to reduce homelessness, but the growing number of unhoused people suggests that these temporary solutions are simply not enough.
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 4 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | May 17, 2025Student journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
