I also hold a profound belief in religious freedom and a law degree from Emory University, so here's my perspective on marriages versus civil unions: the state doesn't have the right to withhold marriage from anyone, but then again, it doesn't really have the right to offer marriage to anyone either.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The separation of Church and State is one of the most important ideological foundations of this country. So what are we doing "marrying" people in city hall?

"Marriage" consists of two different aspects that we have failed to separate in our legal system (mostly because we have failed to separate them in our own minds). On the one hand, there is the legal aspect that grants "married" couples a certain legal status according to the state - including provisions for inheritance, joint tax returns, joint holding of real property, rights and responsibilities regarding children, etc.

On the other hand, there is the religious aspect of people united by God, devoted to common religious beliefs and practices in their relationship with each other and in the raising of children. Of course there is a romantic aspect as well, but a lifelong romantic commitment is entirely possible without ever entering into a legal or religious contract, so "marriage" is not necessary to either physical or emotional affection. "Marriage" happens when a couple wants either the State or the Church to get involved. But shouldn't this be two different choices?

Constitutionally speaking, the government ought to be able to grant a "civil union" to any couple that wishes to enter into this legal contract. But the government doesn't have the right to decide whether or not any church (there is more than one religion in the world, you know) should grant a "marriage." And no church can decide whether or not a couple has the right to be granted this legal status by the state. So why the heck do we treat these two issues as though they're the same thing?

[Photo: Sunsout Spring Wedding 1000 Piece Jigsaw Puzzle by Sunsout]

Let marriage be a religious decision. Let union be a legal decision. And as the Founding Fathers saw fit, let neither interfere with the other. If a man and a woman want to enter into a civil union in city hall, why should that have religious overtones? If a man and a woman want to declare their religious union before God, why should that have legal ramifications? If they choose to do both, so be it. But the one need not have anything to do with the other.

Let the state grant each couple certain rights under the state. Let each church decide which unions it will condone. Then the founding principles of the nation will finally be upheld, and we can get on with the whole "homosexual union" conversation in each of these separate contexts.

Should the state grant legal rights to homosexual couples who are willing to enter into the same contract of rights and obligations as heterosexual couples? I say yes. In fact, I say the state has an obligation to grant those rights. What right does the government have to say that one loving (law-abiding, tax-paying) couple has the right to make life-and-death decisions for each other in times of incapacity, but another loving (law-abiding, tax-paying) couple does not? Or that one bereaved spouse has the right to remain in the family home, but another one does not? If law-abiding, tax-paying citizens apply for the protection of the state, they should get it. Period.

BUT should a church grant the religious sanction of marriage to homosexual couples? Well, it seems to me that under the Constitution of the United States each church should have the right to decide that issue for itself. Some will and some won't. And that's just fine because people have the right in this country to belong to any church they feel called to join. That's another beautiful aspect of our country's great tradition of religious freedom.

In case you haven't been keeping up with the numbers, seventy-seven U.S soldiers died in Iraq last month alone defending religious freedoms along with all the other rights we might wish for the Iraqi people. But what right do we have to ask such sacrifice of anyone if we refuse to abide by our own ideals at home? Let religions preside over marriages, and let the state preside over civil unions. Then whatever we decide about each one, at least the debate will be constitutional.