This WaPo article from last week on a recent WaPo/ABC News poll was interesting:

.  .  . opinions nationwide remain closely divided, but two-thirds of all Americans now say gay and lesbian couples should be able to have the same rights as heterosexual couples through civil unions.

In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 47 percent say gay marriages should be legal, with 31 percent saying they feel that way "strongly." Intensity is stronger among opponents, however: overall, half say such marriages should be illegal, including 42 percent who say so strongly.

Civil unions draw broader support. Two-thirds now say they favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to form civil unions that would give them many of the same legal rights as married couples.

Frankly, this is one of those contentious political issues for which there appears to be a simple solution. But implementing the solution will take some clear thinking, which is in short supply these days in our legislative circles.

The bottom line is that the state has no business being involved in the ìmarriage business.î That should be left to churches, some of which will approve gay marriages and some of which will not.

On the other hand, the state should provide for civil unions between same-sex and opposite-sex couples to promote societal stability through conferring the same rights relating to property, family, inheritance, etc. that are presently conferred through the institution of civil marriage.

For practical and legal purposes, such civil unions would be the same as civil marriages. And, as the poll numbers above reflect, most folks donít have a problem with providing the same contractual and legal rights to gay couples through civil unions as opposite-sex couples presently enjoy through civil marriage. However, because most states presently only provide for civil marriage, the use of the term ìmarriageî becomes a hot button issue that provokes needless opposition to the implementation of the civil union concept in regard to same-sex couples to promote legitimate societal interests.

Thus, the solution is to have the state get out of the marriage business entirely and provide civil unions to opposite-sex and and same-sex couples. Many couples would still choose to get married in religious ceremonies, which is fine. But a couple that does not have access to marriage in a church would no longer be deprived of the legal and contractual rights that most states presently confer upon only married couples.

It sure seems as if this solution would solve the primary legal issues relating to continued state bans on gay marriages. Moreover, it would relegate the debate on marriage between same-sex couples to the churches and extract it from the political arena.

Whatís not to like about that?