With debate in this country raging over the issue of gay marriage, particularly focused on decisions being made in our own state of Massachusetts, I saw felt it fitting to analyze what this debate is really centered on. Those against gay marriage often cite religious reasons to explain why they think a marriage must be between a man and a woman. Many of these same people would be willing to accept a legal provision for gay civil unions. A civil union could grant homosexual couples the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples, without actually calling it marriage. However, for many in the gay community, nothing short of full marriage rights is satisfactory. One has to ask, then, why has the distinction between two ostensibly similar things become such a point of contention.The answer is that "marriage" itself is a loaded term, charged with a very emotional character. Marriage, historically, has been within the jurisdiction of religious institutions. When people wanted to get to marry, they went to their priest, rabbi or spiritual leader. The notion of getting married before only a justice of the peace, is a fairly recent phenomenon. This is why, in our collective subconscious as a nation, we still view marriage as a relationship sanctioned by God. In fact, in some older dictionaries, you will even find marriage defined to be a union between a man and a woman sanctioned by God. It is no wonder, then, that the religious right views permitting gay marriage as defaming a sacred institution. They have strong convictions that homosexual activity is immoral, and in a free country like America, any religion has the right to define for itself which behaviors are moral and which are not. Of course, no law could ever tell the Baptist church that they have to start marrying same-sex couples. The separation of church and state, just as it does not allow one religion to set the governmental policy, does not allow the government to tell any the people of any religion how to properly worship God. Subconsciously, however, these opponents of gay marriage are unable to distinguish between the religious and civil definitions of marriage.This inability is not limited to the religious right. When those on the left are ardent in their demand for the government to recognize marriage, and not civil unions, they are, in essence, if not consciously, saying that they want the government to tell them that their relationship has the blessing of God-that it is moral. This, I'm afraid, is not something the government has the power to do. If a gay couple can find a church, or wants to create a church that will marry them with the blessing of God, there is nothing the government could do to stop it. But that is very different from the government itself giving such a blessing.What, then, can the government do with regard to marriage? When the government grants a civil marriage license, all they are doing is granting some rights, such as insurance sharing, hospital visitation, joint tax filing, etc., on a purely legal basis. However, it is not the government's place to legislate personal morality. No two religions can agree on the same set of ethics, so thus the government making what is essentially a moral decision would necessarily equate to choosing one religion over another. Therefore, while the Supreme Court correctly ruled this past summer that the government cannot stop two people from having sex, even with a marriage license granted, it cannot tell anyone that they have to recognize your relationship as either moral or immoral.However, there is still a problem with having a civil marriage system for heterosexual couples, and civil union system for homosexual couples. While the law ought not discriminate against any one group of people, it ought not to single them out in any way (such as granting them civil unions, rather than civil marriages) either, even for their benefit. There is, in my opinion, only one solution to this problem. If civil marriage is essentially just a legal contract, and marriage is a term so charged with religious connotations, why call civil marriage "marriage" at all? Let marriage be a religious institution, and each church, synagogue or mosque can define for itself what they want it to mean. With regard to the legal provisions, let us have the same civil union system for everyone. Surely everyone would agree that once the religion issue is separated from is taken away, any two adults have a right to sign a contract with each other. That said, why should this contractual relationship necessarily be connected with the religious institution of marriage, or even the concept of a sexual relationship? People should have the right to do one, have a relationship recognized by the law, without the other, having a relationship recognized by God. Perhaps two people want to get married without granting any legal rights to their partner. That should be fine. Or perhaps two siblings, roommates or friends, who happen to be sharing an apartment, but are in no way involved with each other romantically, want to grant these legal rights to each other, or want to grant some of the rights and not others. That too should be allowed. After all, it's just a contract.A system as I have proposed would allow for people on all sides to claim victory. The religious right will have protected the sanctity of marriage. The homosexual community will have the same legal rights has all other Americans. And most importantly, both sides will recognize how needless conflicts can be avoided by affirming the American value of the separation of church and state.