Gay Marriage? It seems as though everything I could say about it - other than to remonstrate at the piss-poor timing of the latest moves in that direction - has already been said before. And it's been said either better than I could say it, or else been said too many times already, and I really don't feel like writing an "Oh - me too!" column.

That and, in the end, the only thing I can really say is this: "Against Gay Marriage? Don't have one." (Can it really get any more simple than that?)

But in the midst of trying to puzzle out how to articulate my feelings on the matter, I kept coming back to the central question: what does it really mean to be married?

For example: my wife and I are Pagan. We had a ceremony of our own devising, our friends and family were invited, and we held it in a Unitarian church rented for the occasion. And it was done under the officiation of a good friend - the guy who set us up, in fact - who was not legally licensed to perform a wedding.

So how is it that we're married? Because, prior to that actual ceremony, - which was for friends and family - we had the legal marriage performed at the Athens County Courthouse, with one good friend as a witness. And from that day forward, as far as the State was concerned, CJ and I were a lawfully married couple.

We didn't need to have a big wedding with all our friends there, much less a ceremony of any kind. We need never have told any people outside the Courthouse that we were married, for that matter. As far as the people who collect our taxes, decide our inheritance issues and might get involved in hospital visits, custody battles or the like are concerned, we two are now one.

"Well, okay, that's nice," says the peanut gallery: "But that's a 'weird' wedding, like what the atheists get. What about the religious ones done properly in a Church?"

And I'd respond, that, yes, those "proper" Church marriages are considered valid, too. But they are considered valid because the State has allowed them to be. I can build a Church out of bricks, wood and marshmallows and call myself a preacher man, but unless the State recognizes (read "Sanctions") me and my Church, any marriages I might perform in the First Church of Bill the Cat are null and void.

See what I mean? It keeps coming back to the State, doesn't it? The State recognizes that a marriage is, or is not, and applies the rules, responsibilities and benefits to you and your spouse accordingly.

And if it's the State that decides the laws, then the argument surrounding the legality of Gay Marriage, like any other form of marriage, comes down to the State's relation to it. That's why we're paying more attention to how the politicians are arguing about it, rather than the preachers, pastors and TV evangelists. (Or why we should be paying more attention, at any rate.)

Now, laws should be made from a moral and ethical base - otherwise they're arbitrary and meaningless, if not cruel and unjust. But when you're dealing with a State like America, where the government borrows key concepts from the Judeo-Christian tradition but is, itself, beholden to no religion, then you have to ask "whose morals?" and "what system of ethics?"

And this is where the "traditional" argument to restrict Gay Marriage on the part of the State ultimately fails. The people who are against it for reasons other than pure homophobia - and I think it is possible, however rare - are arguing purely from the standpoint of the Judeo-Christian tradition regarding marriage. To them, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman, and, as homosexuality is proscribed as sinful, to allow homosexuals to marry is a total perversion of the idea.

But these are notions based on old, antiquated codes of behavior that have no real and tangible value in and of themselves. There are no compelling reasons of public health and safety, the rule of law, national security or civil order at stake by allowing Gay people to marry. There are some fiscal and legal issues, of course, and these are the matters that advocates of Gay Marriage wish to be fairly applied to homosexual couples. But I don't believe there's a net negative in their full and equal application.

So for the State to hold that marriage can only be for a man and a woman, rather than allowing it for Gay couples as well, is for the State to be taking a page right out of religious tradition, and as good as admitting that marriage is first and foremost a religious institution.

(Peanut Gallery would like to point out it's an institution of civilization as well. J. would remind Peanut Gallery that so were slavery, feudalism, and strictures against women doing anything but cooking, cleaning and raising the kids. As times change, so do civilizations. And thank Goddess for that.)

Which leads us back to the real question in this issue: If there is indeed a barrier between the State and any form of religion, to the point where the State cannot impose itself onto a religious institution, then what business does the State have in getting itself mixed up in a religious institution in the first place?

I've got two answers for you, and those answers are "money" and "power."

A good deal of the benefits and responsibilities that revolve around a marriage are matters that the State can - and will - poke its nose into at some point, even if it doesn't stand to make a buck out of it. Whether it's taxes, matters of inheritance, custody rights or what have you, the State either takes its due or regulates the matter in a "fair and equitable" manner. In this way, public order is maintained, and public coffers are filled whenever possible.

Now, far be it from me to turn this into a screed against the notion of taxation or regulation; I have no problem with the concepts, it's the execution thereof that causes most of our domestic problems. But one thing I will say is that this regulation and taxation should be made according to purely secular criteria, in order to be in line with the First Amendment, not to mention equal to all citizens.

And if we're going to say that, no, Gay people can't get married to one another because of Leviticus whatever-whatever, then we are not being at all secular, are we? No, we're not.

So instead of asking whether the State should allow Gay Marriages, or to what lengths the Federal Government should go in accepting or denying it, why don't we turn this situation on its ear by asking - and answering - the real question?

Instead of asking what one God has to say about the matter, why don't we say that marriage is between people and their Gods (or lack thereof), and get the State entirely out of the business of defining and regulating it? You go to the religious body of your choice and get married in the sight of your God(s), or else just live together and call it a household. Any rights and responsibilities that the state would handle differently for married folks will instead be handled by legal means that don't take "marriage" into account, and that's the end of it.

It'll mean the rewriting of a lot of rules and laws as they stand, but if you don't feel like a massive redoing of our legal codes, then we could take the other tack. We could recognize the folly of the State's adopting a religious definition for what should be a secular recognition, and say that the State will accept all legally-performed marriages as binding, regardless as to whether or not the church down the street performs, or agrees with, the marriages in question.

At that point, it becomes a question of what definition the States will individually adopt, and that's going to cause some hoo-haws in some areas. But in this - as in many things - the Federal Government should accept the decision of the State, and act accordingly without trying to overpower them from Washington. That might be a hard pill for the Feds to swallow, but there's always the bully pulpit for either side of the issue.

So that's my suggestions on the matter. In retrospect, maybe it would have made more sense to just ask the Mayor of San Francisco what else he'll do for votes, given how no one's probably going to get on a stump and ask this one.

But that's me and my fat mouth - at work for you.