It is time for a change in the definition of marriage. With the country facing a slew of Democratic candidates, almost all of whom support partner benefits for gay couples, and the recent ruling of the Massachusetts court, America is at a crossroads. Do we redefine traditional marriage, do we grant the same rights with a different name or do we refuse to acknowledge gay relationships with legal status? George W. Bush seems to opt for the last of these scenarios, although he won't formally state his position, and claims to be a "compassionate" conservative. The Religious Right fears for what they call the "sanctity of marriage," while the Social Left supports partner benefits. What does the Constitution say? It certainly doesn't oppose gay marriage; if it did, the Right would not be fighting for an amendment banning it. But it doesn't actively support it either; such marriages weren't common when the Bill of Rights was written. For the Social Left to overcome the Religious Right, marriage needs to be redefined. For that to happen, we need to figure out why it is defined that way in the first place.

Many argue marriage is a hallmark of religion. As a religious institution, granting it legal status solely based on its religious definitions would violate the separation of Church and State. However, both the Right and the Left should take the definition of marriage out of its religious cradle. Civil marriage has always existed in this country, and in the confusion of religious and social morality, people have grouped it with its religious counterpart. This fusion hurts both the Left and the Right. It hurts the Right because it undermines its secular argument that marriage is between a man and a woman, but the Left forgets that society can and may have defined marriage on its own. Most people, regardless of their religious affiliation, disagree with polygamy. Yet the definition of marriage as between two (and only two) people is not religious. It is very secular. For the Left to overcome the stigma of gay marriage, it must overcome the societal definition of marriage with pragmatic, societal arguments, and leave religion to where it belongs: in the churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and private lives of the American people.

So what are the social arguments in favor of gay marriage? The Massachusetts court cited several of them. Gay partners are adopting children, and marriage benefits those children. It aids in custody disputes. It makes it economically easier for a gay couple to function as a couple. It also takes several steps towards reducing the stigma that children of gay partners are often forced to endure. Arguably, anything that helps children function in society is good and pragmatic. And gay marriage has the potential to help the gay community embrace monogamous, safe relationships and escape the transient image with which the Right portrays it. As Bush is trying to spend billions of dollars in support of the institution of marriage, it is hypocritical for him to encourage monogamy and then discourage gay marriage. Does he support marriage because it is heterosexual or because he feels it builds families? He had better decide, because a lot of heterosexual relationships injure children, as do a lot of homosexual ones, and their sexuality alone doesn't seem to be something Bush should be spending so much money supporting.

What are the arguments in opposition to gay marriage? To be honest, I haven't heard many that don't center on religious justification or societal empiricism. Yes, heterosexual marriage is the norm, as mono-racial marriage was fifty years ago (and arguably still is). Yet, many maintain marriage itself is a crumbling institution-rising divorce rates can be interpreted as evidence of that. I, however, don't think this symbolizes the decay of marriage. I think it is merely a redefinition, with marriage no longer a necessary lifetime commitment. Marriage brings certain legal obligations and rights, and when two people want those obligations and rights they usually get them, even if eventually they don't want them anymore. Divorce is the admittance that some relationships don't work forever. Higher divorce rates can be seen as a good thing. Some people can have a long, wonderful companionship, but when it isn't working, are often happier with someone else. Another argument against gay marriage is that it is "harder to be gay" and the government shouldn't encourage young people and children to enter into such relationships. This argument is ridiculous. Of course it's harder to be gay. It would be harder to be African American if laws existed discriminating against black people. If I recall correctly, they used to, and in some places unwritten laws still do.

So if there isn't a good argument in opposition to gay marriage that centers on secular, not religious law, then why are civil unions more popular? I've heard that society isn't ready for gay marriage, but I wonder if people say that in order to justify their own homophobia. If you can't embrace gay civil marriage, then why can you embrace civil unions? Is it straight people clinging to a mantra similar to that of the southern confederate at the turn of the century? I refer to the man who would sit on his porch saying "at least I'm not black." Do straight people fear that gay marriage would destroy their ability to say "at least I'm not gay?" I'd like to think not, and if so, it only strengthens the argument for marriage, with the same name under civilian (not religious) law. Civil unions are a way for politicians to sidestep the issue of American homophobia. They are better than the status quo, but not a perfect solution.

Ultimately, then, it is time for America to change the definition of marriage again. Laws are supposed to change; we can't cling to the past and expect a return to the glorious repression of the fifties and the false contentment that they afforded. It will be hard at first; it always is. To say that marriage shouldn't change because such a change is difficult is archaic. And to say that gay marriage hurts straight marriage is nonsensical: a marriage based on its superiority to other relationships is a sorry marriage indeed. For the sake of all the gay teenagers, the children of gay parents and the gay adults discovering themselves, it's time for marriage to encompass a society that has changed since the 1950s. Take one look at a happy gay couple or a loving interracial couple. I guarantee the issue will seem much clearer then.