RALEIGH - When clergy talk about marriage as a religious matter, it's understandable; but when presidential candidates do, it's confusing and perpetuates the misunderstanding that marriage is solely a religious matter. Marriage has both religious and civil significance, but it's not exclusively one or the other. It's time the presidential candidates talk about marriage as a civil institution and leave the religion talk to the clergy. They are, after all, seeking the highest office of civil, not ecclesiastical, government.

During my 29 years as a United Methodist pastor, I conducted marriage rituals for couples within the context of the Christian tradition. In preparation for each, I counseled the couple about the spiritual aspect of their marriage and the experience of grace that would unite and sustain them. I also talked with them about the civil aspect of their marriage, the legal rights, protections and responsibilities that they would be assuming for one another.

Because of custom in this country, I acted on behalf of both the church and the state when I conducted the weddings. The holy union of the church and the legal union of the state were consummated simultaneously in each ceremony. (In most other countries, couples are required to be legally married by a civil authority before they are allowed to have a religious ceremony.)

When my wife, Chris, and I married, we chose to separate the two out of respect for the separation of church and state. On July 8, 1992, we went to the Wake County Courthouse to get our marriage license, and a judge witnessed our marriage contract. There were no religious requirements for the license and no religious ceremony was necessary. We were declared legally married and given a certificate to prove it. It didn't say "Civil Marriage Certificate" because we had no religious ritual; it said simply "Marriage Certificate."

Marriage is marriage, after all.

Those who argue that marriage is a religious institution forget that nonreligious people also marry. Even atheists marry. More than 40 percent of marriages in the United States each year happen without religious ritual or ceremony. And all of these are called marriages, not civil unions or civil marriages. To be legally married in the United States, civil action is required. Religious ritual is optional.

Four days after the judge signed our legal marriage contract, Chris and I had a religious ceremony with family and friends witnessing our vows of marriage. The minister who presided gave us a certificate also. And, like the one the judge gave us, it read "Marriage Certificate." It didn't say "Religious Marriage Certificate." Marriage is marriage, after all.

Marriage is a hot topic in presidential campaign politics because, of course, lesbian and gay couples want the more than 1,100 legal rights, responsibilities and protections it provides to nongay couples. They simply want to be treated equally, just like the Constitution promises all citizens.

Some people oppose allowing same-gender couples to marry, claiming that marriage is strictly a religious institution ordained by God for the union of one man and one woman. Unfortunately, nearly every presidential candidate of both parties has fallen for this exclusive religious claim and in one form or another embrace it as their public policy position.

When Republican candidates speak of marriage, they take the extreme theocratic view that marriage is purely a sacred religious institution. Civil government's sole role, they insinuate, is to give it legal protection.

The Democratic candidates don't go that far, but they are more confused. Uncomfortable appearing as though they oppose full and equal rights for all American citizens, and not knowing how to talk about marriage outside the religion context, they all but circumvent the issue by supporting a newly constructed legal arrangement called "civil unions," especially created for same-gender couples. Thus, they boast, lesbian and gay couples can have the civil rights of marriage without the name, marriage. But, marriage is marriage, after all. It's not civil marriage and it's not religious marriage. It's just plain marriage.

Among the Democratic candidates, only former Sen. Mike Gravel and Rep. Dennis Kucinich correctly acknowledge civil unions to be unequal and unfair, and support marriage for all couples, without regard to gender.

The freedom to marry and create a family with the person you love is a basic civil and human right, and in the context of civil law, gender shouldn't matter any more than the race, economic class or religion of the individuals involved. It's unconstitutional for religious teachings to have any role in creating civil law pertaining to marriage.

Semantic inventions like civil unions are escapes for politicians that create separate-but-equal second-class citizenship traps for same-gender couples.

If our candidates for president can't talk about the civil and religious aspects of marriage, distinguish one from the other and support full equality for all citizens, perhaps they are not qualified to serve in the highest office of civil government. Perhaps, they should just be altar boys and girl.

(Jimmy Creech is executive director of Faith In America Inc.)