As Hollywood celebrates the court-ordered death of California’s Proposition 8 (in which voters rejected a previous court ruling legalizing gay marriage), it’s worth noting that Prop 8 (dubbed “Prop Hate” by comedian Margaret Cho) isn’t actually dead.

It will be appealed and, ultimately (no matter which side wins the appeal), appealed again to the Supreme Court. In other words, the finger pointing and name calling on both sides will continue. And even a Supreme Court ruling won’t really be the end of the arguing as other legal questions and battles will inevitably stem from it.

I think I’m like a good many Americans (perhaps most) in being fed up with our country being so divided on a matter like this at a time when we need to unite more more than ever — on issues like solving the debt crisis, putting people back to work and winning the war against radical Islamic terrorism.

I actually think there’s a logical resolution to the issue (if either side is actually interested in resolution).

First, my thoughts on gay marriage. 

I think the Catholic Church (my Church) is wrong to spend donated funds to lobby on the issue at a time when its closing Catholic schools and hospitals and, of course, shelling out millions to settle sex abuse cases.  I think Christian churches in general are too focused on the gay marriage and would win over more followers for Christ if they focused more attention on inspiring us all to apply His Beatitudes in our personal lives and less on political issues like this.

That said, I think the practice of labeling everyone who has concerns about the impact of gay marriage on society a “bigot” or a “hater” is at least as judgmental as its proponents regularly accuse fundamentalist Christians of being. 

I also think that comparisons with the fight for racial equality (including interracial marriage) don’t hold up since those prejudices were literally only skin deep and did not pertain at all to a person’s behavior. Rightor wrong, opposition to gay marriage (and homosexuality) involves behavior that opponents find sinful and/or unhealthy. You can find the same level of opposition to cigarette smoking but you wouldn’t label all anti-smoking advocates as “haters.”  I believe dialing back such judgmental rhetoric would actually go a long way in nurturing more tolerance from Christians (who, overwhelmingly, are not haters). Hurling epithets at people generally leads to hardening of positions not increased understanding.

I also think that the “Who’s business is it?” logic for legalizing can also logically be applied to polygamy which would almost inevitably be the next legal fight once gay marriage is accepted. 

So, here’s my solution. I think it’s reasonable.

Much of the opposition to gay marriage, I believe, stems from resentment over what many people consider to be a religious word involving the sacramental union of a man and a woman being usurped for political ends. In other words, take the word “marriage” out of the equation and many Christians (while still personally disapproving) would have no major problem with legal gay unions. To them “marriage” has a very specific religious meaning that they don’t want to see diluted or changed. They also remember when “gay” used to mean “happy.”

Of course, supporters of gay marriage argue that gay people have as much right to the word marriage as heterosexuals do and that religious concerns should have no standing when it comes to their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

So, maybe its time for the state to get out of the sacrament business. Laws regarding secular marriage licenses were written when issues like gay marriage were far off the radar screen. Times have changed.

Maybe the federal government could issue civil unions (not marriage licenses) that states that would be legally binding on states and that would guaranty all the legal rights of marriage. States could still issue marriage licenses if they chose (with the attendant costly legal battles to follow) but they would be encouraged to follow the federal model.

In any event, the federal law would not involve sexuality (a private matter) at all and would extend legal, financial and insurance rights to partnerships involving both gay and straight couples, as well adult unmarried siblings, relatives or friends who could benefit from such legal arrangements. 

It could also include civil unions of up to three people. That would satisfy those who believe in polygamy while preventing the number of people involved in a single civil union from becoming legally unwieldy. Once four people are involved you would need two separate civil unions.

As for marriage, people would still find that in churches. If you believe in gay marriage, go to a church that believes in gay marriages. If you don’t, go to one that doesn’t. 

Next, we all get out of each other’s faces, stop fighting, stop calling each other names and get back to the business of the country.