Much to the chagrin of Democrats, then and now, President George W. Bush was re-elected in… Much to the chagrin of Democrats, then and now, President George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004. Perhaps the most annoying factor in his victory to liberals was the influence of evangelical Christians. They came out to the polls in flocks to prevent what they perceived as an attack on the institution of marriage.

Among other issues, gay marriage was front and center on the political trail. As liberals would claim, the president baited evangelicals to the polls with the impression that if Sen. John F. Kerry were elected, homosexuals would be allowed to wed. The validity of such an impression is irrelevant. But the fact that gay marriage could galvanize an entire sector of the electorate so strongly (more so than the common abortion rhetoric aimed at Christians) plays directly into the hands of Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee touts his immediate passage of an Arkansas state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman after Massachusetts started allowing homosexuals to marry. He is a firm supporter of a federal constitutional amendment of the same language. He also happens to be an ordained pastor and the former president of the Arkansas State Baptist Convention. In other words, he is what liberals would label a “far-right Christian extremist.”

Democrats would have to be utterly naive to not expect gay marriage to become a battle cry for the Huckabee camp (or any other Republican candidate for that matter). We all know that no politician would care if homosexuals were allowed to marry if evangelicals weren’t outraged at every mere mention of it. The United States needs to deal with this issue immediately to prevent it from becoming a constant vote-baiting technique.

The notion of a federal amendment to define marriage seems unlike the typical conservative. The usurpation of power from the states doesn’t fit my definition of a “pro-states’ rights” Republican.

If Americans should understand anything, they should know that federal experiments have far greater effects on the country than singular state trials. The 18th amendment and the soon-to-follow “Sorry guys, we messed up big time” 21st amendment prove my point precisely. If Republicans plan on maintaining any claim to a states’ rights stance, they must allow willing states to experiment with gay marriage or civil unions. This way, any possible negative impact of such laws will be localized to only those states and not the entire Union.

Such a plan, unfortunately, doesn’t quell the debate. Thus the simplest solution – and perhaps the least discussed – would be to remove government from marriage completely. Marriage originally was a religious union, therefore it makes a great deal of sense to return the power of marriage solely to the church and other spiritual institutions. The “sacred institution” of matrimony is sacred only to those who view it piously.

Before the takeover by government, marriage was a union between a man, a woman and God. No more. No less. Now it is a union between a man, a woman and the State – with a definition open to alterations.

The government gives tax breaks, rights and other benefits to married couples it won’t give to individuals or unwed couples. It is essentially the position of government (at both state and federal levels) to give incentives for marriage. To believe marriages will crumble without these government gifts is equivalent to believing the family is merely a financial package. We can test the true fidelity of Americans by removing these government-sponsored benefits and by releasing marriage from the government’s death grip.

In the proposed environment, couples seeking to marry will have to approach a church, temple, mosque or any other place of worship. No longer shall partners meet in front of Justices of the Peace. Religious institutions will have strict control over who can and cannot marry, just as they did before government intervention. Traditionalists will no longer need to worry about liberal judges and politicians altering their sacred institution. But with this freedom comes the elimination of government-sponsored marriage benefits. Hospitals and other organizations that rely on marriage certificates and other legal documents for certain procedures will have to change their rules to accommodate marriage’s new-found liberty.

The problem never truly was that judges and elected officials were trying to change the definition of matrimony. The source of the angst lies solely in the fact that government wields power over a traditional role of religion: marriage.

While such a solution will certainly remove an arrow from the Republican quiver, the resolution of this issue is more important than political maneuvers. They’ll always have abortion.

The cause needs more followers! E-mail Gregg at [email protected].