The topic of gay marriage seems to get emotions flying faster than any other with the possible exception of abortion. Problem is, once we start yelling, we don't stop to make sure we're all having the same conversation. In a debate, all sides have to agree on the definition of things or we're all just wasting breath. Ok, so now you think I'm nuts. We all know what it is to be gay, and we all know what marriage is, so what crazy point is she trying to make? Well, I'm not sure sure we all know what it means to be gay, but the note for today is even more of a shocker. I don't think most of us realize what it means to be married. Got your attention yet?

For the past 200 years in this country we have used the word marriage to describe two different things, but have have interchanged the terms so much that most people don't seem to realize there are two definitions of marriage. The reason is very simple - separation of Church and State. If we had a state run religion, then the state would simply document the official church's definition of marriage. But thankfully that's not how it works here.

When I was married, two sets of things happened. We talked to a priest and asked him to marry us in a particular church, and after a couple interviews to make sure he believed we were somewhat compatable, he agreed to do so. We also went downtown and got a license, swore we weren't related, married to anyone else, or carrying any dread diseases our future spouse didn't know about. In a lovely church ceremony the marriage sacrament was performed and we swore before God and family to be committed to one another forever. Afterwards two witnesses (the priest and the best maid) signed the license to be filed downtown. That civil marriage document declares the property rights agreement we made to each other in the state of North Carolina, including joint rights to any children born of the marriage. The marriage ceremony declared us to be one before God.

So why do I think the civil marriage and the marriage sacrament are two separate things? Well, think about it.
- No church/priest/pastor in this country has the right to control property rights for the couples it marries. If there is is property rights dispute or a disolution of the marriage contract, it goes before a civil judge.
- Some churches don't believe in divorce. Members of these churches can dissolve their civil marriage, but they cannot remarry in the eyes of their church unless the first marriage is declared void. Some in this situation will move to a church which chooses to recognise the civil divorce, but that just supports my premise that each church has the right to interpret the marriage before God in the way that they believe is right.
- Heck, some religions endorse polygamy. Under the law in this country a person can grant marital rights to only one person at a time, but their religious community may have elaborate rules to recognise multiple relationships even though only one is documented under the law.

So... two definitions.

Civil Marriage is the granting of property and personal rights to another individual under state law. This includes the right to joint custody of children born of the union. It defines certain benefits the goverment grants to such bonded individuals. It is recognised by many employers for the granting of benefits and other agencies for the granting of special family rights. Essentially, it is a contract, and one which can be revoked, though usually with certain long-lasting rights remaining in effect as determined by the civil court which disolves the contract.

The Sacrament of Marriage is an oath before God and family. For those of us who believe in such things it is a powerful thing that superceeds earthly contracts. For others it is a shadow of what it might be. Perhaps a big party or a thing to make ones family happy. For these people, the civil contract is what matters most in the long run.

Now finally, what about gay marriage? Well, with this set of defiitions in place, I believe that most people will find that they are actually more in agreement than they thought.

With respect to a civil property rights contract, is there really any reason to not extent this to any two consenting adults sharing a domestic arrangement? Whether they be married in a church, same sex partners, or a single adult child living with a surviving parent, the right to grant the other personal and property rights for the sake of benefits, inheritance, and tax law just makes sense. I don't care what we call it. If it makes people happier to call it a civil union or something else entirely, fine.

So what about the marriage sacrament? Well, that's none of the goverment's business. Each church and religious organization has the right to determine their own requirements to perform the sacrament. A member can accept the rules, work to change the rules within their affiliated group, or move on to another group. Some churches already perform non-legally binding marriages for gay couples. If they believe that is what God is directing them to do, then so be it. Some churches will never believe that God ever intended the marriage sacrament for a same sex union. So be it. That is their right also. If churches want to throw names and insults at each other, it simply makes all Christians look weak and foolish. If churches choose to support each other while respectully discussing and even respectfully disagreeing, but each in their own way doing their best to interpret God's will in the modern world, then we are at our strongest and most Godly.

I'm not even going to tell you whether I or my church supports gay unions within the church. This is where the legitimate debate lies, and honestly I see both sides. But when the matter of gay unions comes up in the context of goverment and policians, we aren't talking sacraments, we're talking civil contracts and property rights - or at least we should be.

This is the wonderful beauty and the strength of diversity that we gain through this radical division of chuch and state. I wouldn't have it any other way. If we ever decree that one religious interpretation is the only way, and the goverment gets to choose whose religion is best, how do I know that my marriage won't someday be the one not recognized?