Well, Proposition 8 finally brought the circus to town. The religious right treated their victory, which banned the previously legal marriage of same-sex couples, like a World Series walk-off home run while the LGBT community has now branded themselves with oppression, declaring this their relegation to second-class status.

And now it’s a full-fledged culture war. If the 40 states that have now banned same-sex marriage seemed like an unanswered siege of gay rights, the protests and threats lobbed by those in the LGBT community seem primed to be a retaliatory strike.

And I understand where they’re coming from. When you’ve had what was a previously guaranteed right stripped from you by your neighbors and friends, history and common sense seem to dictate immediate action.

But I implore you: be pragmatic. Symbolism isn’t what we need right now; legislation for civil unions is. Everything else has the potential to escalate this conflict far beyond the strife we’ve seen as a result of Proposition 8.

First, take the stance by some in the LGBT community refusing to pay taxes. In the eyes of many, Proposition 8 made them second-class citizens and, as such, they should not pay for services they don’t receive. It’s not protest; it’s just morally justified.

Unfortunately, if there is one body of government to which symbolism means nothing, it’s the IRS. LGBT individuals would band together in a symbolic show of resistance. Then the months would turn, more pressing national controversy would occur, and most would just bite the bullet and pay taxes. When April passes and a slim minority still have their W2s sealed, they’re arrested for tax evasion and end up either as a caricature in Bill O’Reilly’s talking points memo or as a footnote in the gay rights movement, which goes marching along without them.

But while those who protest by burning 1040 forms are always a bit short-sighted, those who want to radicalize the protest and take the issue directly to the religious right could do far more damage to their own concerns.

If the gay rights movement were to escalate to the level of intense antagonism that the civil rights movement witnessed, it would likely become a far more organized movement — a civil rights union, if you will. And when it does, LGBT couples and their allies will likely demand recognition of gay marriage, reject civil unions as separate but equal and point at those trying to set marriage in heterosexual terms as bigoted fools. As a time of “change,” it’s now or never, right?

The problem with Proposition 8 and other state bans, however, is that it’s not the state telling them they cannot do this: It’s the people. These are still the people they have to convince at the end of the day. And when that confrontation between opposing camps happens, it’ll be one person’s faith in their God against another person’s faith in their love. And that is an irresolvable conflict.

Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard — or rather, one of his pseudonyms — once posited the only thing that can be said about faith is that nothing can be said of faith. It cannot be explained from one person to another, because it is of a plane beyond the ethical realm.

This could also be said of love. After all, true love is a type of faith, that occasionally painful, but altogether human dismissal of what we would label rationality. Just as no one can truly understand one Christian, Jew or Muslim’s relationship with his creator, no one can truly understand one individual’s love for another individual.

So it’s no surprise that when those adhering to religious and romantic faith are forced to justify their beliefs, no one will accept the other’s lament because it cannot be translated into words.

But civil rights are understood by all. If we focus on pushing for civil union legislation for same-sex couples, we can start to guarantee rights and benefits — if not all of them, at least some — while still pushing for further acceptance on a cultural level.

But we have to stop trying to make our individual faiths fit together. The religious right cannot force their version of God’s will onto the public any more than homosexuals can demand the populace recognize or understand their love. Especially when public policy — which both camps are appealing to — doesn’t understand love. And it doesn’t understand faith. It only — and rather occasionally — understands justice. And right now, we should be focusing on that definition first. Civil unions are just for all. Leaving private institutions to define marriage is just for all. Once we separate the ethical from the emotional and spiritual, people may redefine their own faith.

But that change will only come when our reality changes. And gradual change eventually does make an impact.

Jason Smathers ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and journalism.