These local religious leaders were serious Thursday for most of their news conference on marriage equality, but I happened to catch this candid moment afterward as they gathered together for a portrait. I couldn’t resist using it. It was a lighter moment during what’s been a hotly contested and often bitter debate over marriage since Proposition 8 was first proposed and finally upheld by the state’s Supreme Court this week.

They said what you might expect them to say: That homosexuals will eventually win the right to get married and that the battle will continue on. But that got me to thinking about more immediate solutions.

What if religious leaders no longer had the authority to sanction a marriage in the eyes of the state?

Wouldn’t that make the fierce debate over Proposition 8 go away? Think about it. Everyone would have to go down to City Hall to get a “civil union” instead of a marriage. You want a marriage? Fine, go down to your local church and get one. Knock yourself out. It won’t be valid in the eyes of the state, but you’re welcome to go through the ceremony after the state officially approves your “union.”

When I posed that question to several religious leaders at the news conference at Fairview Community Church in Costa Mesa today — all of whom support gay marriage — they agreed it would solve the problem. In other words, they want the state to take away their authority to officially marry people.

“I think that’s an excellent solution,” said Rayna Hamre, a member of the Orange Coast Unitarian Universality Church in Costa Mesa and also chairwoman of the OCUUC chapter of the Covenant of UU Pagans. “We should separate the civil act from the religious rite.”

Rev. Sarah Halverson agreed, calling it a church-state issue.

“We don’t have real separate of church and state” when a religious leader is allowed to sanction a marriage, Halverson said. “I don’t work for the state so why am I authorized by the state to marry people. Either we call everything civil unions or everyone gets married.”

Furthermore, the state high court’s upholding of Proposition 8 this week “is an infringement on my religious beliefs.”

Speaking of religious beliefs, this discussion brought me around to my thoughts on the subject of gay marriage as a Roman Catholic. My church prohibits gay marriage, but the teaching on it is considered “doctrine,” not “dogma.” What’s the difference? Well, dogma is the ultimate church law. You cannot disagree with it and remain in the church. For instance, if you don’t buy the virgin birth of Jesus Christ then you’re out. Period. End of argument. But doctrine allows you — well, sort of — the luxury of disagreeing. One of the best examples is the church teaching on contraceptives. The church prohibits the use of contraceptives, but Pope Paul VI stopped just short of “invoking infallibility” and declaring it dogma. The process of invoking infallibility is a long one that involves a lot of praying and meditating to channel the actual will of God. Disagreeing with church doctrine for your average parishioner similarly requires a lot of meditation and prayer. If you’ve prayed on it and really considered the issue and you still disagree with the church then that is your right. Your conscience is clear. Sort of. As a theology professor of mine once said, the church always has a loophole: If you disagree with church doctrine then there’s something flawed about your logic — try again.

So I must confess I’ve struggled with church teaching on gay marriage. I have relatives who are gay and I must tell you they did not “choose” that “lifestyle.” No one “chooses” to be ostracized and discriminated against in the myriad ways they are subjected to. And I can’t tell you how heart- and soul-wrenching it is to hear them tell me how painful it is to hear society tell them they aren’t equal. In short, this is a very emotional issue with me, making it difficult to view in strictly logical terms.

Still, I wonder, what if science proves undeniably that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition? Would that make Proposition 8 the equivalent of a Jim Crow law? You bet it would.

I called Father Stephen Doktorczyk from St. Joachim’s in Costa Mesa for his advice. He supported Proposition 8, but when I suggested my solution to the issue he said it made good sense at first blush. I was a bit surprised, thinking how important marriage is in the Catholic Church because it’s considered one of the sacraments, like the Eucharist. Wouldn’t he be offended by having his authority to sanction marriages for the state removed? Then it occurred to me that it wouldn’t matter. It’s a sacrament and if you’re Catholic it’s not a bonus or optional. You can get a civil union from the state, but you’re not really married until a priest does the honors.

We had a long conversation about gay marriage and why he opposes it. He cited tradition, Biblical teaching, and the inability of homosexuals to procreate with each other, but I felt unconvinced. I suppose I’ll keep reflecting on it. But I have a nagging feeling science will show this is a genetic inheritance. And if it is then how can it be immoral? Why should they then have less rights?

Bookmark to: