Most people would agree with the first point, so it requires no additional explanation. The second, however, is a source of more controversy. The religious or “moral” conservatives argue that marriage has a special place in society. While homosexuals may retain the right to equal treatment, they should not be allowed to marry, or so the argument goes. Conversely, the egalitarians argue that the word represents the rights attributed to the social and legal recognition of these relationships and should not be limited in its application to heterosexual couples only. The New Jersey decision splits the difference and deepens the chasm between these two perspectives.

What, then, is the good of using a religious term to represent the benefits of civil law? The semantic conflict arises because the words used to represent the different relationships indicate that coequal treatment has not yet been attained. Consider it a new form of the “separate but equal” concept. One solution is to dissolve all legal “marriages” and replacing them with civil unions that would carry with them the same rights. This removes the argument over semantics. Let heterosexuals get married in a church, but let a judge perform a civil union on any couple who seeks legal recognition for their relationship. This basically changes the lexicon, under the law couples are civilly joined and they can only get married through the church. This simultaneously fosters equal treatment under the law, and preserves the religious context of the word marriage.