As of 12:01 am tonight New Jersey will <a href= Link the third state to offer civil unions</a>. I applaud the state in which I currently reside on its commendable work on furthering progressive agendas, however clearly many in the gay community are not satisfied. I can understand their concerns and reasoning for seeking the right to be married. There’s a certain pride to the state of wedlock, a true connection. Yet is it practical to find a way to offer the right of wedding to the homosexual community. This is an idea that I’ve debated for a long time.             The best I’ve come to is a compromise that I think is the only way to appease the religious right. In reality I can’t picture them ever giving permission for homosexual couples to be married. My solution is in my mind relatively simple. Separate the idea of marriage to the religious organizations, and only allow the government to offer civil unions. Change the definition of civil union to have all the connotations rights and responsibilities of the current concept o                  marriage, and make being wed strictly a religious act. If one wants to get technical, marriage first and foremost is after all a religious institution which was incorporated in to the rights of governments since the beginning of modern politics; however the reality of our present situation and quest for equality makes this no longer viable. The state can not be expected to serve the institution as such and must be focused on the needs of the people. I know this is not ideal, I'd love to here thoughts on this.