Quite simply, there is no way Democrats in the state Legislature can win in the ongoing debate over civil unions, or gay marriage.

Pass a strong bill and take heat from a majority of voters who remain uncomfortable with the idea. Let the issue die and take heat from Democratic activists who represent a strong presence within the party, where primary elections are resolved.

Thus the latest proposal from gay rights activists is an intriguing idea, a way to slide past the political forces that will not allow this matter to be resolved. Ultimately, tide of history moves toward gay marriage (Vermont's Legislature approved it yesterday). But there are many ways to get from here to there.

Thus, in plain terms, what the latest proposal does is to effectively take the state out of the marriage business altogether. Well, marriage would still be recognized by the state for those who choose to enter into it, so long as it is between one man and one woman.

Otherwise, couples would be offered the choice of a civil union, whether they are heterosexual or of same sex. The state would recognize the union, and it would carry with it the same rights, privileges and obligations as those applied to married couples.

This, arguably, would get around moral objections from people who wish to see marriage reserved for heterosexual couples. It might also dance around the edge of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which also declares marriage to be between one man and one woman.

As a sidelight, the latest proposal might be attractive to elderly couples who do not marry today because they might lose Social Security or other benefits.

Ultimately, it might make sense for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether. That is, leave marriage — the idea of a lasting covenant between a man and a woman — to the churches. The state's interest in marriage, after all, is not to enforce a religious view of monogamy.

Rather, it is built on the idea that a stable household where the couple has mutual obligations and responsibilities is good for society. They take care of each other and — importantly — they have legal responsibilities for their children.

This social goal is clearly achievable through the idea of civil unions. Indeed, a civil unions bill would enhance social stability because a greater circle of couples would now face the same package of responsibilities and obligations as married couples.

And then, if folks want to get married, there is no end to the number of religious institutions that would be pleased to help them do so.

Jerry Burris' column appears Wednesdays in this space. See his blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/akamaipolitics. Reach him at jrryburris@yahoo.com.