On Wednesday, September 14th the Massachusetts’ state legislature, in a joint session of both houses, voted against a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriage, essentially assuring same-sex couples the same legal rights as other married couples. This vote postponed until at least 2008, the earliest that opponents could enact another amendment, further legal challenge to the same-sex marriages that were legalized in Massachusetts last year. While the religious right rended their garments and gnashed their teeth, thoughtful and insightful people pondered the situation on a more national scale.

The desire to limit the rights of gay and lesbian citizens is no different than last century’s attempt to limit the legal rights of minority citizens. It is based on fear or the unknown, rather than established fact. While for decades some of our leading “scientists” (for example, Harvard’s Louis Agassiz) promoted as scientific fact that African-Americans were genetically inferior to the white citizenry, many of today’s religious leaders say that a same-sex marriage is “wrong” and “against nature.” As genetic science advances in the coming years, we will prove that gay and lesbian people are no different than the larger population: they were born as they are and no choice can alter their fundamental being.

Taking this into account, one must ask, what is a marriage? When pressed for an answer, most citizens will give a religion-based answer, something sanctioned by their church, through the millennia in canon law, uniting a man and a woman. Most “marriages” are steeped in long religious tradition, dowries, rings, candles, and church-approved ceremonies. Yet, with all the cultural baggage, the only document required by various American governments is a simple license, a contract, something that is often signed without ceremony in front of any city clerk. The religious right will have you believe that a marriage is a very sacred union between a man and a woman. I agree 100%, that is what a marriage is.

A “marriage” is a religious institution, one that our Constitution doesn’t allow. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….” To call the union between a man and a woman a marriage and make that a public record, establishes marriage, a very religious ceremony, as a governmental practice. Marriage, as a name only, belongs to private religious institutions and not the government.

So what name should a society give to what is now referred to as marriage? The answer is quite clear, as well as racially and gender blind. ANY governmentally recognized bond between two people should be considered a “civil union.” The two parties that wish to enter into the legally binding contract would do so before their respective state governments. They would then be afforded any legal rights (such as health care, death benefits, etc.) that are currently given to “married” citizens. As with any legal contract, parties wishing to dissolve the contract would be obliged to follow the legal precedent. Gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples could all receive their legal benefits in the eyes of the government. For those wishing to marry, that is, to take part in a religious ceremony presided over by their personal church; they would be free to do so in addition to their civil union. For example, John and Joe may get a publicly recognized civil union, but John and Jane would get a civil union as well as their religious, church-sanctioned “marriage.”

In the grand scheme of things, same-sex couples are fighting for the same legal rights that have been given to heterosexual couples for generations. An enlightened society would recognize their existence and take the appropriate steps. Creating a gender-blind civil union would afford same-sex couples their desired legal rights, while still leaving room for religious citizens to indulge in a “marriage” in addition to their legal contract. This is a solution that gives legal equality to all citizens, while protecting the “marriage” label for those who fear to include different people they do not understand.

David Hyde Senior, Economics and Political Science double major