Americans of faith and virtue should reject the effort to normalize same-sex marriage with traditional marriage. Same-sex marriage can never be equal to traditional marriage. Same-sex marriage cannot produce life and cannot be a model for the propagation of society. Same-sex marriage cannot give children the father and the mother that they deserve.

Given these facts, it may seem odd that a supporter of traditional marriage would call for getting government out of marriage and would support contractual domestic partnerships. Yet, we should do this. For this is a matter of giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and giving to God what belongs to God. Domestic partnership, as a contract between two consenting adults, is a creation of government; it belongs to Caesar. Marriage, as an institution established by God or at least by biology and physiology, does not belong to Caesar. Thus marriage is in essence a religious liberty. And by giving domestic partnership to Caesar, we can reserve the right to define marriage according to our ethics and doctrines. It's another form of the so-called separation of church and state: Domestic partnership is for the state; marriage is for the church.

The practical effect of this stance is to take our enemies' arguments out of the equation. The sexual activists get what they define as "marriage equality" and have nothing else to complain about. They will always attack us for our belief, but they will no longer have grounds for imposing their will on us. This stance also gives us an opportunity to score political points with libertarians. Libertarians are going to fight traditionalists on the matter of same-sex marriage. However, if we give them domestic contracts, and agree with them that government should not be involved in the affairs of consenting adults, then we can get them to support us on letting marriage be a matter of religious freedom.

This also gives us the means to take back the high ground regarding the definition of marriage. We should be doing this anyway. The government has no inalienable right to define marriage for us or to force any individual or any church to respect a definition of marriage. Meanwhile, if two individuals seek to be domestic partners, and do not involve anybody in their partnership besides themselves, why should we be concerned about it? Let them keep it between themselves. If we offer to stay out of their affairs, then we have the grounds to insist they stay out of ours.

I realize that this will be a hard sell for many traditionalists. By no means am I tolerating same-sex marriage. Rather, this is a means by which we can protect our religious right to preserve the traditional definition of marriage while disarming our enemies. Also, this proposal is not license for bringing children into same-sex households. We must fight for laws that limit the opportunities for single-parent and same-sex households to adopt and guard children.

The sexual activists will always attack us for limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But by making marriage a religious liberty, completely separated from and beyond the purview of government, we can elevate the debate above our opponents. We can shut down the dishonest call for "marriage equality," and we can refocus the debate towards the primacy of the union of one man and one woman.