Ten minutes to write. Less time to read.

I recently read an article by Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, which makes complete sense to me. It offers a logical solution for ending the same-sex marriage debate between conservatives and liberals. At the same time, Turley suggests the two sides might not really want a solution, because both are using the issue to recruit advocates and money for each position. Their rhetoric serves this purpose, rather than seeking a reasonable solution.

I choose to set aside the politics and consider Turley’s proposal in its logical context. I believe he is on to something. Although the words are mine, his argument goes something like this:

1. The word ‘marriage’ has an historical context that doesn’t serve our government well today. Instead, the government might consider using the phrase ‘civil union’ when it administers marital matters. This phrase could convey that consenting adults are entering into a legal contract with obligations that the government must make sure are met.

2. This also means that, once married in the eyes of the government, the couple has legal rights and obligations in such areas as taxes, inheritance, and personal injury. This is the government’s domain.

3. At the same time, many couples belong to various religious faiths whose tenets are narrower. Once the couple is wed in the eyes of the government, he and she can choose to follow the tenets of their religion, creating a contract based on morals and faith.

4. This enables the religious right couple to follow the more stringent rules of their faiths. But it also offers alternatives to those who believe otherwise.

5. The primary benefit of this approach is that it removes government from the moral decisions that religion demands. It doesn’t make government amoral; rather it puts legal tenets where they belong and religious tenets where they should be.

While Turley’s essay applies this solution to the current marriage debate, why couldn’t it apply to other areas of life where religion butts heads with law? Areas like abortion, war, stem cell research, divorce, even the pledge of allegiance. The rationale would be that, when government holds a broad view on these issues and one’s religion holds a narrower view, the fervent faithful can follow their religious beliefs without impinging on the rights of others. But then we’d have to tone down the rhetoric.