The incandescent heat generated by the debate over same-sex marriage has begun to produce a little light here and there.

The best idea I’ve heard so far is for everyone to take a deep breath. Then we’d all do well to take some time to understand the historical development of marriage as well as the difference between civil and sacred, or sacramental, marriage. Although both types of marriage usually get conflated in one ceremony witnessed and approved by a religious community, they really are different.

Civil marriage is what happens when the government grants a couple a license to be joined legally, thereby obtaining the rights, benefits, privileges and responsibilities of matrimony. Sacred marriage is what happens when a religious community blesses a couple’s union.

So the question is whether government should – for reasons of equal protection of the law – grant civil marriage licenses to same-sex as well as heterosexual couples. Even if the state were to do that, it would not obligate religious communities to bless gay unions. It simply would extend the law’s benefits to all couples, much as laws outlawing discrimination extend protection to all races – at least officially.

I’m increasingly persuaded that civil marriage for all couples who want it is not only a good idea but perhaps even legally inevitable. Justice Antonin Scalia, widely acknowledged as one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court, seems to agree with me about inevitability, though he doesn’t like it much.

Last year, the Supreme Court, in a Texas case, struck down the sodomy laws still in effect in 13 states. When those laws were on the books, opponents of same-sex marriage could logically argue that it made no sense to give legal approval to a marriage if the partners then could be arrested for sexual acts they might be expected to commit within that relationship.

Scalia dissented from the Texas decision, but as he did so, he acknowledged that no obvious legal barrier now remains to same-sex unions: “If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is no legitimate state interest’ … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?”

I had a chance to think anew about all this recently when Otis Charles, former Episcopal bishop of Utah and, until recently, assistant bishop of California, spoke at a forum at an Episcopal church in Kansas City. Charles and his domestic partner, Felipe Paris, participated in a public commitment ceremony in April at an Episcopal church in San Francisco, after which the bishop fired Charles. The ceremony was meant to be private, but the San Francisco Chronicle learned and wrote about it afterward – with the eventual cooperation of Charles and Paris.

“Marriage itself,” Charles said, “is a civil institution. Marriage in the church is a religious act, but they’ve been joined together. Marriage is a civil right, and what the church does is another matter.”

Although Charles has been reluctant to use the term marriage to describe the ceremony that joined him and Paris, “Felipe and I know we’re married.”

Charles says he’s aware of at least one Episcopal church in California in which the priest refuses to perform wedding ceremonies until couples have been married by a civil magistrate. But for many reasons, Charles and others aren’t yet pushing the public to think of civil and religious marriage as separate. One is fear that it might create a second-class matrimony for gay and lesbian couples.

“If it were possible to say that we will have only civil unions (for all couples),” Charles says, “then that would be fine.” But, of course, many couples – for excellent reasons – also will want sacred marriage.

Some opponents of same-sex marriage say it would undermine the institution, as if marriage always and everywhere has been just one thing. But, in fact, in different cultures and times, marriage has taken many forms. (The May 31 issue of The New Yorker contains a good summary of this fascinating history.) Even appeal to a “biblical” idea about marriage finds itself on shaky ground, too, because of the several versions of marriage sanctioned at various times in biblical history.

It simply will not be possible to arrive at a quick solution that will satisfy everyone. But perhaps it will help to talk about the difference between civil and sacred marriage and to wonder aloud whether we want elected officials making laws that affect the latter, which should be the responsibility only of faith communities.

Bill Tammeus is a columnist for The Kansas City Star.