It's time to take the "gay" issue out of it. It's time to remove marriage and gay rights from the political table. It's time to stop wasting time on political jousting over an issue that has little or no political bearing.

There's no longer right and wrong. Only right and those who don't agree. Everything is right. How can you have a contrary opinion?

There was a time when parents raised their children to know - and society generally endorsed - the differences between right and wrong. Whether those fundamentals originated in their church or home, by the time you reached adulthood, you simply knew - without a doubt. This is right, that is wrong.

Manners, good. Killing, wrong. Respect, right. Adultery, wrong. Courtesy, right, Law-breaking, wrong. Truth, right. Deception, wrong. You just knew, because you were raised well by good people in a good country with good standards.

Now, good is replaced with "acceptable." Right is replaced with "whatever." And, wrong is replaced with "says who?" Disputes go unresolved because the common point of reference for determining black from white - night from day - right from wrong - has been smeared and smudged into a muddy haze of "don't offend anyone" semantics.

Because of this fuzzying of the lines, we continue to debate that gay marriage is wrong. For many people, there's something about "marriage" that inherently defines the lifetime union of a male and a female. There are supporters of full same-sex relationships, and there are straight people who can be supportive - up to a point - but can't make the leap to same-sex marriage. To most, gay marriage is wrong because it contradicts their moral code, which stems from ingrained religious belief.

SOUP OF THE DAY

Legitimizing "gay marriage" is an issue that can be easily resolved. And, by doing so, we can eliminate gay marriage as an issue altogether.

Too many on both sides of the issue think with their society-swayed hearts instead of their heads. Others simply don't think. Go with the flow. It's not cool to be against something. Everything is okay. Accept everyone and all they do - regardless of the obvious flaws in such an approach to life.

With regard to civil unions, there is argument that no inherent constitutional rights exist to marry, because it's not a constitutional issue. Marriage, as defined, is in itself unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment mandate. There are two conflicting concepts.

One is the granting of specific legal rights and responsibilities to two individuals. All of these rights are defined and equally applicable to everyone of legal age within that jurisdiction.

Second is the religious rite, practiced within the differing traditions of each religion, and is not commonly applied to all people.

Marriage itself expresses a spiritual and emotional commitment between two individuals that is beyond contractual rights, witnessed by family, friends and the individual's religious community. Key spiritual requirements are love, commitment and fulfillment. Some religious groups may position marriage theologically as additionally requiring a male-female relationship. But if any church has the right to define marriage in a particular way, then other religious factions are just as entitled to stake their positions - such as a man and many wives; or inter-racial marriage; or inter-faith marriages; or, yes, even same-sex unions.

The issue branches off into many unclear tributaries of theological doctrine, ethnic paradigms and social acceptances.

Here in the U.S., states endow religious practitioners the inherent power to certify a legal marriage. That alone puts the religious practitioner in the position of acting on behalf of the state - which obviously crosses the age-old church/state boundaries. This contradicts the very core principles outlined by our Founding Fathers. You simply can't mix state law with individual beliefs and expect acceptable universal enforcement of both.

Therefore, the issues must remain separate. States should be limited to granting civil unions only - to any 2 people. This preset bill of legal rights would enjoy unilateral recognition without debate.

However, it would not be confused with or recognized as a "marriage." For that, the "couple" would need to petition their religious body of choice. Such an institution should have no government oversight. The designation of "marriage" would be defined and recognized by the doctrines of that sect.

Various religious affiliations already disagree over marital guidelines and it's bound to continue. So what? Whether you claimed be a Baptist Husband or Catholic Wife, it would remain a personal choice of lifestyle and religious discipline without political interference.

Of course, these religious couples would also want to secure a "civil union" license from their state in order to acquire and maintain certain benefits for taxes, insurance, inheritances, etc.

It's time to take the "gay" issue out of it. It's time to remove marriage and gay rights from the political table. It's time to stop wasting time on political jousting over an issue that has little or no political bearing.

Define the issues, separate them, draft the legal paperwork needed for legal "unions" and let the religious elders draft whatever guidelines they deem necessary for an acceptable "marriage."

How we as individuals choose to recognize or accept "gay marriages" will not be resolved anytime soon. The term is contradictory to most religious mindsets, so it remains unacceptable to most people. Except, of course, to the gays. But, why do they want to be recognized as "married" anyhow? It's primarily a religious ritual - unless you visit the Justice of the Peace. Isn't it true that most of them simply want the benefits of a "legal" marriage?

Which takes us back to the need for preset legislation available to any and all unions.

If they want to be married simply for the social recognition - doubtful - then they should find a religious body willing to endorse their lifestyle and grant the "marriage" - or start their own religion. This endeavor would, of course, give them no "legal" rights or benefits.