I truly believe Tuesday marked the most important thing that's ever happened in my life thus far.

But at risk of dampening this resounding victory for our country, I have to point out that on the same day, three states outlawed gay marriage.  Before you stop reading, I assure you I'm not going to be weepy about the differences I have with my fellow Americans regarding gay rights.  How cliché.  Because I cannot stress enough that this is not a gay rights issue.  There, I said it.

Listen, I feel deeply for my fellow LGBT Americans.  I understand their arguments that any legislation cannot discriminate against people and that the majority cannot take rights away from minority groups.  I even agree with those notions.  And remember that I understand all this especially on an emotional level for reasons I don't really need to explain, for the sake of brevity.  But nearly every time I engage in this conversation, no matter whether I'm talking to a gay or straight person, I just feel stuck. 

Marriage is a religious institution.  Traditionally, most religions (yes, there are exceptions) recognize marriage as an eternal spiritual bond between one man and one woman.  Simple.  And in our country, citizens of any religious persuasion, traditional or otherwise, have the right to define marriage in any way they wish.  According to polls even in California, one the most liberal states in the Union, the majority of citizens believe that marriage is the aforementioned institution.  And, as Americans, this is their right and privilege.  I fully support their decisions to define words in those traditional and divisive ways.  I keep hearing proponents of the so-called defense of marriage saying things like, "I support gay rights, but I just think we should leave marriage alone."  I totally agree.  That's what makes it difficult for me to discuss these issues with many my fellow LGBT citizens.  And it also illustrates a much more difficult problem--yet one that is much more obvious, at least to me:

Why are we defining religious institutions through governmental means--at all--in the first place?  Our Constitution protects government from the grasp of religion, but also religion from the grasp of government.  To me, any governmental definition of marriage--a traditional one, a radical one, any--is a breach of both those provisions.  Thus, again, gay marriage is not a gay rights issue, because no marriage should be a civil or legal issue.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not some pretentious postmodern aesthete who wants to fuck the system ("Marriage is bullshit! Marriage is oppressive!").  Well, I am, but not necessarily when it comes to this issue.  As I get older, I have more and more close friends who are (and, I hope, will continue to be) happily married.  They were unified under God in holy matrimony.  Yes.  But from a legal and constitutional standpoint, it just doesn't make sense to me for any local, state or federal government to recognize such a union.  The fact that governments also recognize divorce as a legal proceeding within this institution illustrates why exactly it is problematic for law to be involved in this union--one that's supposed to be "eternal" as much as it's supposed to be "between one man and one woman" in the traditional religious sense.

The solution?  Civil unions for all.  This way, we're eradicating the discrimination of benefits and privileges that same-sex couples face as well as the hypocrisy the government exhibits in allowing some modifications from tradition (divorce) but not others (same-sex unions).  We're also eradicating a fundamentally unconstitutional equation between the religious and the legal.  And for straight people who don't want this distinction between their religious "marriage" and their legal "civil union"--you have to acquire both parts separately anyway.  Nothing would change for you except semantics.

Think I'm radical?  Other governments all over the world are beginning to try it out, with tremendous success so far.  New Zealand, some jurisdictions in Canada, some parts of Latin America.  Look it up.  I know that Americans won't latch onto this idea quickly.  But, as I seek inspiration at this great point in our history, I find that I have the audacity to hope that someday, they will.

-Q.