A View of Gay Unions I Can Live With

In this week's Village Voice, Alisa Solomon spells out an eminently sensible position. She says the state should simply get a divorce from the churches. That way, all state-sanctioned unions would be civil unions. Further, civil unions would not need to be "sexual" unions, per se, but could be available to any two people who want to share a domestic arrangement. Then, if people want sacred ceremonies or need a blessing, it is up to the churches to decide who gets the grace. Now isn't that a concept? The state would divest ministers of the power to confer legal status. Yes, this would mean that if you get married by a minister, you would then have to speak the legal words again in front of the state official. (By the way, this does happen already in some countries, like Germany.) Though some people might find this inconvenient, wouldn't this be the truest test of secularism? That the state is not basing policy on, say, the faith of its politicians?

To be sure, I'm not a fan of marriage--never have been and never wanted to get married. But under these terms, that's a union I could live with.

For Solomon's article, go here.