Those who advocate for gay marriage – and this includes many straight people – simply want same-sex couples to have the same social and economic benefits afforded opposite-sex couples. To name a few things, they want gay couples to be able to share benefits, and to be able to adopt children. The adoption right seems to me to be even more important to gay couples than to straight couples, given that gay couples cannot conceive children on their own. So there is little wonder that they would argue passionately for that right.

On the other hand, those who are against gay marriage have nothing to gain where gay marriage is prohibited. They might argue that they have something to lose – citing perhaps some deterioration of family values – but this view is contingent on prejudice and a sheer misunderstanding of the family dynamic in gay relationships. That is to say, they wrongfully assume that being gay is some immoral choice, rather than merely one very natural possibility for human relationships. For them, marriage represents something more ideological than practical; they speak of the “sanctity” of marriage – its purported “meaning” – rather than the practically of marriage, as in all of its legal implications.

So going back to judging an agenda by the motivations behind it, we have one agenda that wishes to allow people freedoms that only affect the people themselves, making their lives easier and/or richer. The opposing agenda aims to cause actual harm to the same group of people for no conceivable benefit. To any justice-minded person, there can be no question of which side they must take. And no, I am not just saying that to infer that only those who support gay marriage are justice-minded, but for those who don’t and are, there must be some crisis of consciousness.

Anyway, with all that said, and my position on the matter clearly established, I would like to contribute a new thought to the debate. Perhaps the struggle for gay rights is misdirected in fighting for marriage. So-called “civil unions” may actually be a better alternative, if only the rights granted under such unions were equal to those granted by marriage. Since gay couples are fighting for more practical gains, perhaps they should concede to the zealots and the bigots their ideologically “sacred” institution.

That is not my new thought, however. I recognize that even were civil unions and marriages to be the same in practical terms, the ideological separation would still strongly represent the “us versus them” mentality at the center of the debate which must be eliminated. So my new thought is that civil unions should be an alternative to marriage for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. Because marriage is one of those weird gray areas where the separation of church and state is not so clear, for those of us who are avowedly non-religious, a civil union may be a more desirable representation of our bond with a significant other.

One idea would be to expand the definition of civil unions to subsume all marriages. In this way, the so-called “sanctity” of marriage could be “preserved” and at the same time remove “sanctity” as cause for the denial of the rights of same-sex couples.

It is mostly a given that anti-gay marriage ideologues act out of some desire to punish same-sex couples for what is perceived to be an immoral choice, in spite of their framing it within the idea of protecting marriage as an institution. Were they to fight against this new definition of civil unions, they would expose their motivation as being one of blatant prejudice and antagonism. Such overt discrimination is not only intolerable but also prohibited by law, not to mention that it undermines the “good will” clauses written into every major religion.

Granting civil unions to everyone would restore the Constitutional mandate of church and state separation. It would also give opposite-sex couples a personal stake in the rights bestowed through those unions and allow people of every stripe to act with solidarity for the cause of justice.

As for those who want to maintain marriage as only between a man and a woman – they could keep it, along with what it says about their character. Meanwhile, those of us who care about human rights, justice, and forming strong relationships – more than preserving the stagnancy of some ancient institution – we would be able to choose something better.