I should preface this by saying that this is my second post to this space that was also submitted to the Daily Cardinal, a University of Wisconsin student newspaper (since 1892). The first one was printed and can be seen below under the title "Harsh". I expect this one to run Friday. Here 'tis:

According to Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution all people are to be treated as equals by the State. This is something that most of us take for granted. Yet it isn’t always the case. Consider the situation faced by same-sex couples. Currently they cannot be married by the State, nor can they receive any of the benefits that are granted to married couples. These benefits include some very basic rights, such as hospital visitation and survivor’s benefits, or to be included in a health insurance policy. Still, progress has been made over the years. Some churches are now willing to recognize same-sex couples, even “marrying” them. I must use quotes around “marrying”, however, because there is a kicker: the state won’t recognize these marriages. Which begs the question, who is it that decides which couples can be married and which can’t? And by what criteria?

The answer, of course, is that every church decides based on its own criteria and the State does too. Shouldn’t it be one or the other? We purport, in this country and in Wisconsin, to have separation of Church and State. Other than on the issue of marriage it can be argued that we have it. But regarding marriage the two are completely intertwined. Or rather, almost completely, as it is possible to get married without any church involvement. A couple can have a “civil ceremony” even though they are not being married by any church. So the idea of separation is not only possible, it already exists. It’s just convoluted. The state will recognize one couples’ union without any sanction from a church; it will also refuse to recognize another couples’ union, even if that couple has the blessing of their church.

The larger issue here would be that there is a very good reason for Church/State separation, that reason being that the two institutions have different aims. The smaller issue is that there is disagreement as to what constitutes “marriage”. This issue can be easily resolved by having the State remove itself from the marriage business. Churches can go on marrying their members, or not, based upon their own criteria, just as they have for thousands of years. The State can recognize couples based on its own criteria, criteria that should not include sexual orientation anymore that it should include ethnicity or religious affiliation. The State confers legal rights, churches do not. If a couple wants to officially become united and receive the benefits which currently accrue to married couples they would apply for a certificate of civil union and, assuming they meet certain criteria, such as both being adult citizens, they would receive it. They would then be free to have whatever ceremony they saw fit to have, including a good-old-fashioned church wedding.

The State would then be treating its citizens equally, as prescribed by its Constitution. Couples that are currently being denied basic rights would no longer be denied these rights. Churches would continue to marry their members that wish to marry, as always. Even people who insist that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry could be satisfied, as, in their eyes anyway, these people would not be married. Agreed?