Monopolies reduce individual choice, and this is especially true when it's the government that has the monopoly.

A wise government does set up rules when it's important to have a single standard for behavior. A wise government does not make rules where it's OK for individuals to make their own choices.

How does this link up with same-sex marriage? Some parts of marriage need to be standardized. For instance, one needs to be able to visit a sick partner in the hospital; that's really part of what it means to be a committed partner.

Other elements, choosing a blessing to say at the wedding as an example, ought to be matters of individual choice.

All this got me thinking about "civil unions" versus "marriage." We have set up a system where the civil and religious aspects of permanent pair-bonding are tangled together.

If two consenting adults want to live together, enjoy the benefits of being legally hitched, and accept the accompanying responsibilities, then most people don't care about their gender, their race, or for that matter their favorite Chinese restaurant. But when it comes to religious marriage lots of folks do care. So how about we separate out the civil and the religious parts?

Let's have the state issue "civil union licenses." Stop calling them "marriages."

If two consenting adults want to get "civilly unionized" all they should need is a license. That license should get them all the legal rights and all the responsibilities that go with being a couple.

Same sex/different sex, same race/different race -- shouldn't matter; what the state should provide is a civil union.

Now if two people want to be "married," they should go to their church. It's up to each religion to decide for itself if same sex marriages are OK.

And the state should keep its nose out of religious decisions. If a church wants to discriminate against gay marriage, it's the business of that church -- not the business of the state legislature or Congress.

Part of freedom of religion is accepting that churches get to set their own moral guidelines without needing approval from outsiders, certainly without needing approval from the government.

Separating civil union and marriage gets the state out of the religion business and churches out of the legal business.

My guess is that the majority could be persuaded to go for this civil union/marriage split, although polls show something like 54 percent against even civil unions.

I'm less sure of how gay marriage activists will react to the idea. Would activists want to hold out for "marriage," or is this an acceptable compromise?

The civil union/marriage idea could be a very direct route to equal legal treatment. The legal deal is the same, civil union, for everyone. But the idea does punt on the broader issue of public acceptance of gay couples. Is this a surrender or an acceptable tradeoff?

Let's call separating civil union and marriage the "Washington Compromise." Washington is a pretty gay-friendly place, especially west of the mountains. Washington is also home to many strong churches, many of them conservative, and many of which, being conservative, would like the government to stay out of the church's business. Such a compromise gets both sides most of what they want.

In coming to an understanding on civil union/marriage there's sound policy advice in Luke 20 to "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Let's compromise, and let's do it now.

###

Dick Startz is Castor Professor of Economics and Davis Distinguished Scholar at the University of Washington. He can be reached at econcol@u.washington.edu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This column appeared in the following publication:

Everett Herald -- April 4, 2004