Polarization is a fact of life. On any subject you’ll find zealots on all sides. Some, such as the divisions over abortion and capital punishment, can’t really be avoided. You’re either allowed to kill people are you’re not. There’s not a lot of room for compromise.

But the polarization over the question of same-sex marriage can be easily avoided: the government should not recognize any marriages.

What is marriage, in the legal sense? It’s a standardized contract, recognized throughout the country, and in most of the world. For most contracts, the parties involved need only be of sound mind and body, not under duress, and of the age of consent. I can’t think of any other standardized contract that places restrictions on the physical characteristics of the parties involved.

But marriage is different right? Of course it is, in social and religious contexts. But to the government? You’re just two people who share stuff. There’s no legal reason that the government must only recognize heterosexual marriage. You may have social reasons, but in this country they run the gamut, and we can’t really codify them into law; and this way religious groups are free to do as they please.

The legal institution of marriage should be abolished, and replaced with another standardized contract – the civil union. Based on what’s gone on over the last few years, few people are opposed to homosexuals committing their lives to their partners and sharing their stuff and their rights, they just have a problem calling it “marriage.” Likewise, the advocates of same-sex marriage weren’t necessarily opposed to the concept of a civil union, just to the fact that it has a lower stature than “marriage.”

With a civil union, any two people can enter into a contractual agreement that’s recognized by the state. They can hold a ceremony wherever they please, officiated by whoever is available (no need to run around looking for a ship captain). They could also choose no ceremony. All of their vows could be made in legalese and initialed in triplicate. It’s up to them.

This leaves churches the freedom to support or oppose same-sex unions without having to resort to campaign sound-bites and picket signs. It frees people on both sides from the anger and zealotry that came out in the Prop 8 madness, while allowing them to be open and engaging. It would be a boon to all parties.

Civil unions just might save marriage from it’s strongest supporters. And it might save us from ourselves.