Gay marriage is a tricky issue with strong partisans on both sides. Now my allegiances lie with those who want gays to have equal rights as those of heterosexuals. This seems to be eminently reasonable. The problem seems to be that those on the religious right will have none of that. So maybe it is time for the third way, some triangulation.
The fundamental problem in this situation is that a religious institution has become a social institution. Both sides of the debate have it wrong.
The religious right have no right to decide who should take part in a social institution. They also have no right to say that marriage is sacred when 20 percent of marriages end before five years have passed.
But those on the left have no right to tell religions what they can do. Marriage is at its core a religious institution. So religions do have the right to discriminate how they see fit.
On this basis, marriage needs to be sent back to the churches, synagogues, the mosques and wherever else it is celebrated. In place of it, there needs to be a completely secular institution that discriminates against no one.
What should take marriage's place is something like the parental guardian system. You do not have to be a biological parent of someone to have custody of a child. So it should be with marriage. People (any sex) should be able to sign a legal document that in essence says two become one in the eyes of the law. It would not be called a marriage, but it would allow all of those rights.
How can those on the right be angry with this? Gays are not being allowed to \marry."" Rights are just being extended to those who have not had them before. Heterosexual couples could still get ""married"" in their own tradition, but their ""marriage"" would not be any more special than another legal marriage.
Furthermore, there is no reason why more people could not take part in some kind of ""marriage"" agreement. The more the merrier.
Some might question how this system could be implemented. This kind of information could easily be put on a driver's license. There would simply be a list of people who shared these privileges with each other.
In our pluralistic society, there is no reason to have religious institutions in our political institutions. Moving marriage back to the church preserves the ""sanctity"" of the institution while extending civil rights. A proposal that fulfills two such worthy goals deserves consideration.
