The other day, I was having a conversation with a fellow soldier of mine on the topic of marriage. He happens to have voted “Yes” on Proposition 8, stating that though he did not have any bad feelings towards the GLBTQ community, he voted on it because of his religious principles, he honestly believed that marriage has been an institution for thousands of years between a man and a woman. Now, finding myself in a somewhat precarious position, I said my main reason for voting “No’ was because that to prohibit the status quo on marriage from two consenting adults of the same-sex was the government telling them how to conduct a business transaction (sounds like “socialism/communism” to me). He actually sat and thought about it, and suddenly realized that maybe he had been wrong, though not admitting it.

People, let’s be honest, marriage is a term, plain and simple, and a preferential religious one at that. In fact, on Dictionary.com, there are 10 definitions of marriage, including one for same-sex couples (No. 4). What is the first one you ask? A reference to it being an act in regards to a religious ceremony, and between two people of the opposite sex. Now, building off that first definition of marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) it can be argued violates Article 1 of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion”. Now, I am not a Constitutional scholar, and it could be a stretch here, but, DOMA is a clear violation of that Article especially when looking the law’s purpose. Most States in this Union have similar laws, and established them on the principles of religious pretext, as Congress did with DOMA. It is a clear violation of the Constitution to establish a law on religious principles.

Then what are we who oppose such foolishness to do? Well, as I stated to my colleague in uniform when it came up for a solution: Remove the term “marriage” from all civil code at all levels. Let’s treat marriage from a civic level what it really is: a binding contract between two consenting adults who want to “merge” their assets and build on an emotional connection that is more than just a business transaction (similar to No. 6). Let no one be married, but rather establish the term “domestic union” (combining domestic partnership and civil union) in the eyes of the numerous local, state, and federal laws regarding marriage. Let the term “marriage” be applied to religious institutions only, that way the individual religious groups can keep their precious word protected from the level of their respective religious organizations. If an organized faith wants to marry only opposite sex couples, let them and the same with same-sex, but let it be up to the individual faith based communities.

The time for change has come, but let the GLBTQ community fight it from a different angle: Just say you want the right to be involved in a contract from an emotional level that give you the same rights and privileges as anyone else who enters into the same contract regardless of their sexual orientation. That a government cannot tell you with whom you may do business with, that it is “un-American.”

If you want to be “married” well, I am sure there will be plenty of good, wholesome faith based communities who would be more than happy to grant you that title. But for now, the fight should be for equal, and civil rights, not for a simple word that causes so much aggravation.

Oh, and for the record, personally, I happen to like definition No. 5: “Any close or intimate association or union.” It makes life a little more simple, defined, and happy.