In the UK, we have civil partnership, which gives gay couples the same rights as a civilly married couple- inheritance, insurance etc etc, as well as acting as next of kin- but has no implications for what many in many religious organizations see as the 'sacred' state of marriage. It has worked very satisfactorily thus far. The further benefit is that religious organizations can, of course, add a service of blessing to what is a civil ceremony, if they wish to do so and the couple concerned desire it, although the registrar cannot be present for any such religious blessing.

That has meant that my particular section of the Jewish community in the UK, Liberal Judaism, took the lead in this-- it was the first mainstream religious organization to produce a service of blessing for couples after a civil partnership ceremony, a service which has been well used and very well received.

As someone who is a legislator as well as a rabbi -- and we have Church of England bishops in our second chamber representing our Established Church -- I think the UK has come to rather a satisfactory conclusion on all this. There is no disadvantage legally to gay couples, they get equal rights with heterosexual couples in law, but it is not a marriage, so that religious organizations cannot complain that marriage is being in some way compromised.

The situation in the U.S. is more complicated, and often much more unkind. I wonder if principles of tolerance have been a part of the assessment of state bans on gay marriage, but also whether those campaigning for gay marriage have looked to see if a compromise position is possible? Since the state must have a role in the legal rights acquired by marriage, or civil partnership, it is unreasonable to keep the state out of this. But there are ways in which religious organizations can show their acceptance of gay couples, even without a civil marriage ceremony. And they can do a great deal to try to influence state legislatures as well.