The problem with trying to find common sense with any argument concerning ‘Gay marriage’ is that the issue has been horribly politicized; there is literally nothing from either side of the issue that can be argued to be common sense.  

Most people in America, to include Christians, are far more accepting of the idea that Gay people are a part of our society and should be seen as valuable citizens as long as they are following the law and respecting the Constitution. Most reasonable people do not want to see Gay and Lesbian couples suffer, nor do they want to deny them their inalienable rights; however, the Gay and Lesbian population, as well as their supporters, are just as intolerant as their detractors.

Both sides of the Gay Marriage issue are shouting at one another and cannot hear one another over their shouts.  So what is a possible common sense solution in this matter? It`s called compromise! Good old fashion compromise—a meeting in the middle if you will.

First off, Gay and Lesbian couples—as adults—have a right to behave sexually in any manner they wish as long as is does not violate the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of another American. It would be especially nice if they could learn to keep their sexual beliefs and behaviors in the privacy of their bedroom—Instead of making their sexual behavior their identity.  Most heterosexuals do not make some fetish of theirs a moral or political issue—they simply enjoy the fetish in the privacy of their bedrooms. In contrast, The Christians should not concern themselves with the morality of another American as long as it is lawful under the constitution.  A good example of this is the fact that ‘sodomy’ laws still exist in our nation. This is absolutely tied to Christian morality.

Bringing some common sense back to this issue it is a fact that Gay and Lesbian couples are in dire need of laws that protect their assets and liabilities just as any married couple needs. Gay and Lesbian couples should be afforded a legal alternative to marriage to give them the same rights as a married couple; the answer—‘civil unions.’

Having said that, Gay and Lesbian couples should understand the deep importance of the reverence of marriage to the Christian Right; the Christians want to keep the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. If the real concern of Gay and Lesbian couples is that they have ‘rights’ concerning marriage then they should have no concern about definitions.  If they would meet in the middle and allow Christians to keep a legal definition of marriage as that of a union between a man and a woman, and, if the Christians would see the sound reasoning of a civil union as a right for Gay and Lesbian couples, this issue would no longer be a political nightmare.

Gay and Lesbian couples have been in existence for as long as men and women have walked the Earth. They will continue to be in existence until the end of time. If Gay and Lesbian couples want to have the same protections under the law as a married couple, especially in regard to health care and assets—who could blame them? Moreover, who could deny them that right under the Constitution? Why then do the activists who support this issue demand that it be called ‘marriage’? The definition should be a non-issue in terms of the legalities and of rights. It is a political issue—it is an attempt to force people to agree with and legitimize the Gay lifestyle.

Conclusion: Give the Gay and Lesbian couples the rights they deserve under the constitution to get married and call it a ‘civil union.’  Let the Christian Right keep their definition of marriage as that of a man and a woman—problem solved.