To understand the history of marriage is to understand that not until very recently have societies deemed separation of church and state a worthwhile situation. For thousands of years, the state and the church were inextricably connected, and most people liked it that way. In fact much of the weight or authority that laws carried originated in religious teaching. For example, killing is illegal because God thinks it’s bad. Marriage arose out of this arrangement between the state and the church. It was at once civil and religious at the same time. The church ordained it while the state sanctioned it, so to speak.

Over the course of thousands of years, through the Enlightenment and into the modern age, people have become uncomfortable with the relationship between church and state. Consequently, we’ve arrived where we are in America today. The two institutions are now often pitted against each other, with the interests of one in opposition to the interests of the other. When it comes to the question of marriage, and specifically gay marriage, Americans have an uneasy feeling about what bestowing the title of marriage on a same-sex couple. Most people don’t seem to mind giving these couples the same rights as married couples, but calling it marriage seems to strike people in an uncomfortable way. The reason, I think, is because Americans haven’t totally separated church and state in the neat, clean way on this matter that they have in so many other matters.

The solution requires a little accommodation on both sides. First, both sides need to acknowledge that society benefits from two people living in long-term, committed relationships with one another. Whether this means a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple, the benefits of stable relationships seem pretty evident. Everything from child rearing to emotional well-being to physical well-being have been attributed to long-term partnerships. Society functions better when people commit to each other rather than jumping from partner to partner. Therefore, the government has an interest in promoting these types of relationships with whatever legal means it can devise.

At the same time, religions of all types — Christian, Jewish, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. — have long esteemed marriage as an important and sacred relationship, often viewed favorably in the eyes of God. For Catholics marriage is a sacrament. While Protestants may not use that same word, they certainly ascribe high importance to marriage. The same could be said of Jews and Muslims. It’s only been recently that some religious groups have accommodated same-sex couples, and in doing so, have been forced to re-interpret long-held theological positions. That’s their prerogative. In America, you have the right to believe whatever you want and practice your religion as you see fit. But the point is that the church also has interest in promoting marriage, if for no other reason than to encourage pro-creation of more little Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

The problem that exists in America today is that because marriage has long functioned in a dual role as both a religious and civil institution, when one side or the other — or both — wants to change the rules of the game, people get uncomfortable. In places like Massachusetts and San Francisco, same-sex couples have altogether bypassed the religious aspect of marriage and are simply seeking legal recognition of their relationships. Many conservatives are crying foul because traditionally, the religious component of marriage has held that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The civil component of marriage has taken its cue in such matters from the religious component. The problem now is that the religious component seems conflicted at best and ambivalent at worst when it comes to informing the civil component about what marriage should look like. More importantly, courts and legislatures are beginning to ask what does it matter who enters into these relationships, as long as the legal rights are administered properly, they could care less.

This brings me to my proposition. The states need to begin a full-hearted effort to de-regulate marriage. Because we’ve striven to separate church and state so completely, then let’s get the state out of the business of regulating what is largely a religious institution. The church could really care less what legal rights are attributed to marriage. To them, its a spiritual institution. So the state should cede marriage as such a spiritual institution to the church. The church should be to place couples go to be married. Each faith will require different obligations from a couple seeking to be married, and some may even prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. That’s fine because you are entitled to walk out the front door of your church and find another one that suits you better. But let’s give marriage back to the church. If you want a marriage license or certificate or ceremony, then go to church.

However, if what you really want isn’t for God to ordain your relationship, because you either don’t believe in Him or you don’t really care what He thinks anyway, then you’re likely more interested in what the state can do for you in the way of legal rights. If this is the case, then states ought to be able to authorize civil unions or civil partnerships between any two people. This way couples who have partnered in this way can enjoy all the benefits currently withheld for only married couples — property rights, tax benefits, inheritance, etc. This would allow anyone seeking the legal blessing, so to speak, of marriage to get it without compromising the spiritual role of the relationship. The state would simply no longer recognize “marriage” as a legal term. You’re either in a civil partnership or not. Whether or not you might additionally be married is a matter of religious import rather than legal. The state does not license baptisms, confirmations, or the celebration of communion. Why should it continue to regulate marriage?

The consequence of this would be immediate. All currently married couples would obviously continue to enjoy the current legal benefits that they have since they went down to the courthouse or the county clerk’s office and signed that marriage license. It would allow same-sex couples or ANY couple that has made a commitment to one another to enjoy legal protections not otherwise afforded to them. Couples could then distinguish between their marriage and their civil partnership. For some, it will be the same thing. They will seek recognition of their relationship by both the church and the state. For others, all they really have ever wanted has been recognition by the state.

With this arrangement, the church gets to keep marriage and impose all the restrictions and requirements it wants. The state can continue to promote and foster civil partnerships, bestowing legal rights as it sees fit. Both institutions can so what they do best, and no one is forced to compromise for the sake of making anyone else happy.