Okay, Here's What We Do...

There's a challenge to California's Prop 8 in the courts right now. Prop 8 is the one passed in 2008 specifically banning gay marriage. There's been a lot of ink spilled over this, a lot of acrimony, and a lot of heartache. I'm not going to come down on the issue one way or the other, but I've been thinking about it and I believe I understand the root of the problem.
   The whole issue, for and against, boils down to the word 'marriage.' If we take that word out of the debate, then I think the issue resolves itself. Eventually.
   Let me 'splain. For thousands of years organized religion and government have been intertwined. In ancient Rome, for example, sacrificing to the gods was a civic duty, and emperors were deified. There have been varying forms of this same thing across countries and across cultures. But when the United States was created, there was a specific ban on a relationship between church and state. It's the First Amendment to the Constitution, as a matter of fact.
   However, we have one word - marriage - that means two different things in two different contexts.
   1. For the state, marriage is a legally binding union which establishes a familial relationship under the law. It mixes assets, provides for rights of survivorship, and establishes various legal obligations for both parties.
   2. In a religious context, marriage is a binding union in the presence of God - or gods, if that's your bag - with spiritual, emotional, and theological connotations.
   You can't legally get married in a church, any church, without a marriage license from the state. So, essentially, you get married twice. Once when the state says it's okay from a legal standpoint, and then again when your church says it's okay from their point of view.
   Seems to me the best solution would be to remove the option to 'marry' people from the state.
   If states only gave licenses for civil union (not romantic, I know, there's probably a better term), then that would satisfy the state's legal requirements. People could mix their assets and be legally related to one another with all that implies from a civic view. Because, really, all the state should care about is the legal relationship between two people, not their genders.
   Then the two people wanting to be married in the eyes of their religion could go find a church that would perform the ceremony for them. If there was a church especially opposed to marrying people of the same sex to one another they wouldn't be obligated to, and, conversely, if there was church with no particular objections to marrying two people of the same sex they wouldn't be prohibited from it.
   Bada-bing, bada-boom. Problem solved.
   The state gets what it wants without meddling in religion, and churches get what they want without the state telling them what they must or must not do.
   For my next trick, I'm going to resolve the current economic catastrophe, improve US relations abroad, and pick the next MegaMillions numbers. Just give me a moment to roll up my sleeves...