USA Today, Civil Unions, Marraige, and Homosexuality

USA Today ran an interesting opinion piece today from Oliver Thomas entitled "Gay marraige: A way out." Thomas suggests something that I have long thought would be a good idea -- separating the civil and religious components of two people getting hitched.

Citing the religious history of marriage, the societal benefits of two people being legally attached, and the fact that our constitution separates church from state, Thomas advocates that every couple who ask the state for a joining be granted a civil union. Same sex or not. Those couples would then have the option to continue on to a religious ceremony (a wedding or marriage, if you will) depending on their beliefs and that of their church.

It seems to make such perfect sense to me, but judging from the comments on the piece as well as some hubbub around the web, it seems that it's meeting pretty strong opposition from both sides of the debate.

For the most part, it looks like the anti-gay-marriage camp is responding with a fairly predictable message: Thomas "doesn't get it" -- (our) god said same-sex marriage is wrong, so it must be illegal because the separation of church and state either (a) doesn't really exist or (b) doesn't apply to this.

Members of the pro-gay-marriage camp have also weighed in that "Thomas doesn't get it." Their argument, however, is that they don't want civil union. They want to get "married," without catches or limitations -- "equality," they cry. For some, equality is only achieved when churches to no longer disallow same sex marriage.

I don't think anyone making either of those arguments "gets it." We live in a society that permits religion, but must not legislate it. The legality of joining two people should only consider civil concerns, not theological ones. "Marriage" is a somewhat subjective (even arbitrary) term, invented by religion, the meaning of which varies from one faith to another. Legislating the definition of it may feel like equality, but it's actually limiting freedom of religion.

EDIT: This reminded me of a conversation I had a while back with someone who opposed same sex marriage (and civil unions) on religious grounds. She told me that in her mind, marriage was a contract with "God," and that was that. I asked her how she felt about heterosexual couples in the US getting married who weren't of a Judeo-Christian or Muslim faith, whether they be wiccan, hindu, atheist, or whatever. I also asked her how she felt about my grandparents, who were of two different faiths, and married years after each widowing their first spouse, by a judge, in a catering hall. Her response was that in all of these cases, since the couples weren't same sex, it wasn't really an abomination, but also contended that none of them were really married.