I received a few detailed responses in opposition to my recent post on gay marriage. The main thrust of this opposition lies in an attempt to argue against gay marriage by ignoring the constitutional issues and shifting the conversation into the realm of theology. They fixate on what the bible says about homosexuality. The bible also says things about adultery, drinking, and particular dietary rules, but arguing that point is off topic. Those arguing the "anti-marriage" position against gay marriage have shifted us away from a conversation about our constitutional responsibility to provide equality for all citizens. In a last gasp of hope, my responders have evoked a plea for civil unions.

I agree that civil unions would be a step in the right direction, but so was "separate but equal" treatment of African Americans. In the end, "separate but equal" didn't work because it didn't address the underlying stigma and associated discrimination that comes from being declared different, separate, or less valuable by the law of the land. History has shown that separate treatment can't actually result in equal treatment and that type of "separate" status shouldn't be perpetuated by state laws (like those governing marriage). It seems to me that the motive behind this argument is that they feel allowing homosexuals to marry would somehow taint their own marriages in the same way bigots suggested that their lives were tainted by close contact with African Americans.

This is where the civil union argument has completely fallen flat on its face. By recognizing the need to provide equal access, they've acknowledged that their intention has nothing to do with the legality of marriage and EVERYTHING to do with their particular bigoted religious views. They've continued to do their best to move the conversation into a religious emotional frame to avoid the constitutional implications, but individual religious views should not be legislated by our government. Marriages may (or may not) involve religious ceremonies, but we are not talking about those here. We are talking about the legal implications of those state sponsored legal arrangements called "marriages". Marriage is already a civil union no matter if it has a religious ceremony that goes along side it. The religious ceremony is not even a requirement. Simply signing the forms is enough to make a marriage. Therefore, whatever you think marriage is, we should agree it is not religious. The state does not (or should not) care. It is a matter of legal paperwork. It is hard to find a resolution to a debate when the two sides are really talking about different topics.

Here are my questions to those who support civil unions as a "compromise"...

1) By suggesting civil unions are you really meaning to argue for separate but equal treatment?

2) If we follow your logic to completion, should we invent a term that could describe gay American citizens without using the word "citizen"? Should we call them "civil participants" and grant them all the same legal rights and privileges but deny them the use of the actual institution of citizenship? Would declaring homosexuals full use of the word "citizen" taint the meaning of "citizen" when you use it for yourself?

3) If civil union is essentially the same in your eyes as marriage, then why not strike down ALL state sponsored heterosexual marriages and replace them all with the term civil unions. If you are willing to make that compromise, I think I'd agree that it is fair and equal under the constitution. However, at that point, we would have done nothing but waste time and money changing the terminology on millions of forms. It would seem pretty silly.

4) Do we really need to take this baby step by allowing temporary separate but equal laws like we did with the civil rights movements?