Beverly thinks that the idea she proposes better abides by the doctrine of Separation of Church and State.

As of now, the following states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine,
New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, and Oregon (effective January 1, 2008). However, Massachusetts is the only state to have legalized same-sex marriage.

So what is the difference between a civil union or domestic partnership and marriage? A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage. A domestic partnership is a legal relationship of two individuals who live together but are not joined officially, like that of traditional marriage or a civil union. In some states, such as California, a domestic partnership is nearly equivalent to a marriage or civil union. Civil unions and domestic partnerships were formed in order to provide same-sex couples with legal protection, rights and benefits, as well as responsibilities that are recognized by the government. Many criticize that the terms “civil union” and “domestic partnership” represent a social status unequal to that of the word “marriage.” Some even go on to call it discrimination and “marriage apartheid,” (comparing this division to that of a system of radical segregation used in South Africa from 1948 to about 1990). On the opposing political field, critics claim that civil unions allow same-sex marriage by using a different name.

Such marriage benefits include those regarding to taxes, estate planning, employees, death, family, housing. These benefits allow married couples to file joint income tax returns, receive Social Security and Medicare for spouses, and more. There is a loud voice in this country demanding these benefits that we cannot completely ignore by outlawing same-sex civil unions. Same-sex civil unions have been legalized in many states regardless of strong opposition from some.

The truth of the matter is that the institution of marriage originated from religion—as a holy ceremony between a man and a woman. So when same-sex marriage advocates argue that the government needs to maintain the separation of church and state, they are posing a contradictory argument. This is why I believe that state governments should ONLY allow civil unions to all couples—gay or straight. (That is if same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships are legally passed in that particular state.) Official religions should reserve the right to bless a marriage, thus maintaining separation of church and state. A gay couple could perform the religious ceremony of “marriage” in a church or temple that accepts gay marriage. There will be some who will try to circumvent the religious process and only use that religion to satisfy their wish to marry. In order to avoid this, I believe at least one person in the couple must be a member of that particular church, synagogue, mosque, etc., and receive permission from the proper religions authorities.

While some can criticize me for in a way promoting gay marriage, others can criticize me for discouraging it. Realistically, this is a issue the United States can neither completely solve nor avoid. Civil unions and domestic partnerships will never be completely abolished, nor will they ever be completely supported by the public. I believe this proposition will be the next best thing in calming the tensions created by this issue, while abiding by the separation of church and state. Let religions bless the holy ceremony of marriage while the government does their job in guaranteeing everyone legal rights.