The ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court “is deeply troubling,” Mr. Bush said.
“Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,” he said. “If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.”
Conservative activists who have been in touch with the White House on the issue said they now had no doubt that Mr. Bush had made up his mind to back their call for a constitutional amendment.
- from The New York Times
_____________________________________________
And not a moment too soon! As I told you last summer, this gay marriage thing is tearing my wife and me apart. And in the intervening months it’s only gotten worse. Now, because of activist judges in Massachusetts, our union is hanging on by the thinnest of threads.
Back in the simpler days of 2002, when we were planning our wedding, we used to coo fondly at each other about the joys that lay ahead. It wasn’t that we were unsupportive of our gay friends, no. We were just looking forward to the government’s validation of our relationship’s specialness - a license that affirmed that the two of us had made a unique and personal eternal vow to each other. Something uniquer and specialer than any of our homosexual acquaintances could ever even hope for. They have so much, we thought - keen style sense, the freedom to listen to soundtracks from old Broadway musicals without shame, the ability to share clothes (except in the case of Michael and little, tiny Matt) - at least we would have this.
And now that license is beginning to fade in our eyes. We’re all for the separation of church and state, naturally, but if the government doesn’t define marriage as the sacred union between a man and a woman, who will? Are Jeanne and I expected to treasure our union solely on the basis of our deep love, personal beliefs, public vows, and the government’s blessing? Sorry, Judge Pinkypants, but that’s just not good enough. Not for us. We need to know that we’ve got something that’s only available to 90% of the population, the select and upstanding few.
Sure, some of us are criminals. Murderers, even. Some of us have committed rape, beaten children, tattooed swastikas on our bodies, abused animals, broken into houses, bilked the government out of millions of tax dollars, lied under oath, cheated on previous spouses, dishonored our fathers and mothers, failed to keep the Sabbath holy, mowed down children in our SUV’s while intoxicated, coveted our neighbors’ stuff, gotten ourselves put on death row for serial killings, sold military secrets to the Chinese, urinated in public places, traded stocks based on insider information, beaten up people who looked or sounded different than us, beheaded runaway teens and consumed their flesh, failed to return library books, and sold drugs in schoolyards.
But we’re straight, and that means we can get married. And that’s special. Or, at least, it was.
Are some gay people serious about their commitment to each other? Sure, of course, that’s not the point. Let me give you an example. Jeanne and I know this couple, these two men. They’ve been together for years and years, longer than we have. They live on a farm in Pennsylvania, treasure their time together, are loved by their community, have saved lives as members of the local fire department, have opened their home to youth groups from the city, and have built a life together based on love and trust. BUT - and here’s my point - they’re gay. They’re both men. And if they’re allowed to marry at some point, where does that leave us, my wife and me? See what I’m saying? It’d cheapen everything we have.
It may be too late for Jeanne and me. As soon as the first gay couple in the U.S. gets legally hitched we might just decide to pack it in. What’s the point? But there’s hope for the future if you DO SOMETHING. Write your congressman. Tell him or her that you want a Constitutional amendment that will protect marriage for straight people. That unless you have the right to enter that sacred union, violate it, exit it, and enter it again with somebody else, again and again, regardless of what crimes you commit, until you’re too old and feeble to mouth the words, “I do,” - unless you have that right and gay people don’t, then there is truly nothing sacred in the United States of America.
And maybe, as you prepare to make that call, spare a thought to my wife and me - two starry-eyed youngsters whose sacred union was destroyed by the prospect of certain other people having something similar. And then for your children’s’ sake (if they’re not gay), make the call, raise your voice, and stand up for what’s right.





53 comments
tess
February 5, 2004 at 2:31 pm
1while we’re at it, let’s prevent menopausal women and infertile men from marrying! and let’s introduce an amendment that would prevent interracial marriage! let’s celebrate britney spear’s quickie, and encourage poor people to get married to share their love and misery in the legally binding sense so that if they could never seek a divorce because they won’t be able to afford one!
Phishtar
February 5, 2004 at 2:36 pm
2It’s a good thing that our country is in such wonderful financial and political shape that we can get up in arms about this stuff, isn’t it?
Oh, wait…
Thank heavens for your blog. I feel like I’m a little less alone in this world.
Anonymous
February 5, 2004 at 3:04 pm
3that’s an awesome post
Bob
February 5, 2004 at 3:23 pm
4Fifty years from now, Republican politicians will be making teary-eyed speeches on the birthdays of deceased gay rights leaders. Couldn’t we just skip the unpleasant intervening stuff, and cut to the chase?
Thay
February 5, 2004 at 3:33 pm
5I am sorry that your marriage is deteriorating because of all this. On the bright side, there are still things that you get exclusive rights to. Like sports. It doesn’t matter how good you are at your respective sport, you will never be taken seriously if you are gay. But that is probably because our uniforms are accessorized perfectly, and it distracts the other players…
Pat R.
February 5, 2004 at 4:11 pm
6Plus, in sports you get to smack other guys’ butts and hut a lot and huddle together whispering stuff and be tight ends and wide receivers.
Er, wait a minute….
Pat R.
February 5, 2004 at 4:12 pm
7Hug a lot. I meant hug a lot. (You always hut the one you love.)
fanatic
February 5, 2004 at 4:13 pm
8Excellent writing. I visited only because of the name of your blog, and to my amazement, I found I enjoyed the taste of your specially cooked sarcastic fantastic blog souffle.
Dugrless
February 5, 2004 at 4:20 pm
9“(except in the case of Michael and little, tiny Matt)”
Okay, first, before the rotten tomatoes come flying:
1) I love fanatical apathy.
2) I thought this was funny (although not as funny as the first time — which I also read & loved)
3) IMO, gay marriage is THE MOST IMPORTANT moral issue of our time and opposition is not only unjustified but simply stupid.
Still, and I can only say this with the same gentle tone of polite criticism that the Bush Administration uses for government contractors that overcharge the American public billions of dollars or staffers who leak top secret information to columnists, the quote above is a little much. If Michael is guilty of child-molestation, then A) that’s not all that funny and B) it has no relevancy in a piece (even a parody piece) about homosexuality.
Alright, I said it. Bring on the tomatoes.
Elliott
February 5, 2004 at 4:38 pm
10Durgrless,
Splat, splat, splat.. I think Adam meant that Matt was just a smaller man and could not share clothing with Micheal.
Sooo, funny once again Adam. I don’t think that I’ll propose to my girlfriend now, I’m just too frightened that it won’t matter anymore.
Keith Sader
February 5, 2004 at 5:19 pm
11I used to be opposed to gay marriage, then I got over it. I couldn’t find a really good legal reason why it should be prohibited.
Now I’ve come to the Henny Youngman comic-relief viewpoint of “If gays want to get married - let’em!”.
leslie
February 5, 2004 at 6:20 pm
12I have problems with marriage on several levels, regardless of sexual orientation. 1) I believe that if you get married in a church and your pastor/priest signs your marriage certificate, it’s blurring the line between church and state. 2) I believe that if marriage is going to be endorsed by the government, it should be open to everyone. Churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. have the right to decide whether they’re going to uphold gay marriage or not, but the government has to remain neutral. People on both sides of the aisle have to be able to say “it’s my government and it takes care of me, too.”
G-Man
February 5, 2004 at 8:05 pm
13Dubya’s threat of a constitutional amendment is like a spoiled kid playing kickball in PE class who spouts, “I’m gonna take my ball and go home!”
First of all, its not YOUR ball, its OUR ball! And besides, you’ve already proven you don’t give a damn about the ball anyway.
But, by all means, feel free to go home.
adam
February 5, 2004 at 8:29 pm
14Dugrless -
Your interpretation never even occurred to me. I was, in fact, referring to two actual friends of mine, and Matt is indeed shorter than Michael.
But fear not, the next time I see Matt, I’ll ask to see proper identification…
Jack
February 5, 2004 at 9:02 pm
15I think the FMA is an excellant idea. And I also think Neil Bush would make the perfect poster child for promoting the new FMA.
Dave Draeger
February 5, 2004 at 9:28 pm
16I would think the last guy in the world to be griping about activist judges would be someone who was handed the highest office in the land on the whim of a quintet of them.
Murray
February 5, 2004 at 9:48 pm
17Well Adam, this is one way to continue the 126 comments of the July 31 post that said the same thing. You really need an afternoon to go through the whole bunch, but an afternoon well spent.
A half year later the premise is still the same, how can letting gays get married affect any one else?
When the reasons given don’t make sense you can be sure that they are not the real reasons. If you are a homophobe, what is a better way to attack gays than try to ban their unions (marriages).
Charles Sommers
February 6, 2004 at 7:39 am
18To Leslie and all,
This was a great blog-but regarding leslie’s comment-an important, little understood point: you
should realize it isn’t a matter of government
(starting) “endorsing” marriage-marriage is, first and foremost, a civil, governmental institution. The states issue a license and designate who may act on their behalf in overseeing the marriage vows. This can be a judge or other civil official or a minister.Two witnesses sign the wedding certificate, which is kept by the state. It is the state which declares a couple married, not the minister, rabbi, judge, justice of the peace etc.
Marriage is a legal,civil contract, not a “sacred bond”-the latter is a co-option by the church.
Will
February 6, 2004 at 9:47 am
19It’s not so much that I oppose “gay marriage”, it’s that as a Catholic, “gay marriage” is not a thing which can exist. But, that’s a religious opinion. I haven’t worked out what legal reasons there might be for making “gay marriage” a legal non-option. I’ve got to do a little more reading and analyzing before I make up my mind on the legal question.
On the other hand, if the state of Massachusetts allows “gay marriages” and some of the people who are allowed to recognize marriages would not be able to provide that recognition to same sex couples on religious grouns, that’s going to make for an interesting problem.
Given the long tradition of marriage as a religious institution, I would suggest that calling a co-option by the church is a bit overblown and misleading. (I’m thinking of Hindu and pre-Jewish history here…)
I would certainly agree that most of the arguments put forth against “gay marriage” do not hold logical water. But that does not mean that there are no arguments that do.
Skerlnik
February 6, 2004 at 11:06 am
20I fail to see the reason why this is the government’s business at all, anyway. In terms of national priority, I put gay marriage amendments at about #6,271…
Why would I have a problem with gays? More dudes out of circulation, more babes for the rest of us!
Yeeeehaaawwwwwwww……….
Chris
February 6, 2004 at 11:19 am
21One of your best posts ever, Adam.
fanatic
February 6, 2004 at 11:21 am
22The legal ramifications of marriage are stupid. Marriage should be a private contract, if it needs to be a contract at all. The state has no good reason to be involved. In fact, the state being involved would actually discourage me from getting married, if I hadn’t already done so, not knowing what I know now.
abby
February 6, 2004 at 11:22 am
23“Why would I have a problem with gays? More dudes out of circulation, more babes for the rest of us!”
Yeah, especially those hott lesbians!
richard
February 6, 2004 at 12:54 pm
24The legal ramifications of marriage are stupid. Marriage should be a private contract, if it needs to be a contract at all.
I would agree that should be the case in an ideal world. Unfortunately in this one, everyone tends to get all grabby when money and property are even remotely involved, and it’s kind of scary to think what the case may be wothout any legal rules.
Dugrless
February 6, 2004 at 1:36 pm
25“Your interpretation never even occurred to me.”
Oops. My apologies then. Here I am annoyed at all the Michael Jackson news/jokes/commentary/etc, and what do I do but bring it up where it wasn’t intended.
tim
February 6, 2004 at 1:45 pm
26>>In terms of national priority, I put gay marriage amendments at about #6,271…
But you can bet Rover has it as Job #1. It’s the perfect wedge issue because it energizes the GOP base like nothing else can, and it diverts the press, as if they needed diverting, from the WMD intelligence failures, the absurdly cooked budget numbers, Halliburton, Bush going AWOL, etc.
Meanwhile, Michael Jackson, as you recall, was married for a time, which should be Exhibit #1 against any “defense of marriage” amendment right there.
Ras_Nesta
February 6, 2004 at 3:12 pm
27I’m convinced that the all-powerful fundie wing of the GOP wants to turn us into a Christian version of Iran.
A “Council of Moral Mullahs” made up of Falwell, Robertson, Gramm, and Pope Mel the 1st will vet all culture, laws, and political candidates.
Anonymous
February 6, 2004 at 4:18 pm
28“Given the long tradition of marriage as a religious institution, I would suggest that calling a co-option by the church is a bit overblown and misleading. (I’m thinking of Hindu and pre-Jewish history here…)”
Well, certainly in early history there was no difference between religion and government, but that’s not the case in the US, at least for now. Regardless of its origin, marriage is an important LEGAL (i.e., recognized by the state) institution because it determines property rights, among other rights. And the government, not the church, defines, protects, and enforces those rights.
“The legal ramifications of marriage are stupid” is a ridiculous statement, akin to “The physical ramifications of gravity are stupid.” Marriage is a legal concept. If you just want to live together, live together.
Rana
February 6, 2004 at 4:34 pm
29Ras_Nesta: Don’t _say_ that! *shiver*
Nobody
February 7, 2004 at 12:54 am
30I wonder if it’s really gay marriage most people oppose (among those who oppose it), or just gay weddings? Are they afraid “their” churches will be overrun with men in wedding gowns and drag queen flower “girls”? I’d actually like to see that happen, as a satire piece. Realistically, though, any church should have the right not to perform a wedding if doing so goes against its beliefs.
I have one word for people who want a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage: Prohibition. We’ve gone through this before, do we really have to do it again?
Chris
February 7, 2004 at 1:03 am
31“Realistically, though, any church should have the right not to perform a wedding if doing so goes against its beliefs.”
Just for the record, they already have that right.
adam
February 7, 2004 at 2:13 am
32a goodly discussion. In fact, a lot of this touches on the very stuff that led to the Massachusetts court decision, will lead to similar decisions, and will make Bush & friends decide that an amendment is the only remedy…
Marriage IS a legal entity, and as such a non-biased look at the law demonstrates that it’s illegal to deny that entity to gay couples, especially given the equal protection under the law that courts have given to gays on other issues. This, at least, was the decision in MA, and it’s not extremely easy to contradict in a legal sense. Constitutional amendments, at either the state or national level, are where the opponents of gay marriage are going to have to go, and that’s going to be a mighty big battle.
Just like sodomy laws, and other ‘consenting adult’ statutes that have been struck down all across the country in recent years, there’s little justification for preventing gay marriage except on religious grounds. Expect code-words like ‘traditional morality’ to enter the fray, and expect nobody to interfere with the right of convicted serial killer baby-eaters to get hitched from death row, so long as their Intendeds are of the opposite sex.
Ananna
February 7, 2004 at 2:21 pm
33“They already do have a right to get married, to someone of the opposite sex.”
(Said by no one here, thank goodness.)
Makes me want to dope-slap whoever says it.
(Car Talk comes on right before Wait Wait where I live, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.)
Adam, you are a national treasure. Come on up to Seattle any time.
Bill S
February 7, 2004 at 4:37 pm
34I’ve heard people say that before, Ananna, and it makes me wanna respond with:
“So I, a gay man, can marry a woman? Great! What should we wear for the ceremony-matching I’M WITH STUPID t-shirts?”
Linkmeister
February 8, 2004 at 12:54 am
35Ananna, are you out here in Hawai’i? It’s the same schedule here…Tom & Ray followed by WWDTM.
Murray
February 8, 2004 at 9:49 am
36When the reasons given don’t make sense, you can be pretty sure that they are not the real reasons.
So when something as foolish as “protecting marriage” is sited as the reason for preventing gays from getting married, you can be pretty sure it’s not the real reason.
Like homophobia.
“Protecting marriage” is just more code words. Like states rights for racism.
My experience is that those who are very sure of their orientation are not threatened by gays. They are not afraid of being seduced by gay culture. The most homophobic people that I know personally are the ones that on the outside have the greatest appearance of being gay.
meg
February 8, 2004 at 1:11 pm
37Name me one other “sacrament” that was practiced for thousands of years BC among many different cultures, in different regions, and continues to be practiced all over the world regardless of religious belief.
Co-opting marriage by citing the Bible is just plain wrong — and marrige in the bible is often polygynous no matter what American nutcases have to say about it.
The “one man and one woman” argument belongs specifically to religion, and this cannot be argued away.
littlebit
February 8, 2004 at 3:54 pm
38Same schedule here in Utah, Linkmeister, land of the alcohol-free grocery shelf and mandatory club membership to drink in public, the inability to shop for a new car on Sunday so a powerful dealer can go to church and not worry about competition, and the inability to pass a hate crimes bill.
Thank the gods for NPR.
Jerry
February 9, 2004 at 3:22 am
39My wife and I got a marriage license. In one of the oddest of contractural procedures, when the person that conducted our ceremony submitted the documents attesting to the fact she had ‘married’ us with the signatures of two witnesses, my wife and I had a legally binding contract, ‘legal marriage’. But we didn’t get Married when the contract was perfected…we got Married when we made our vows to each other in front of our friends and relatives.
Any two adults can enter into a contract to do anything lawful, like share assets, income, a dwelling and the state will enforce that contract. If the state creates a special form of contract, in this case a ‘legal marriage,’ it must be available to everyone.
It is pathetic that some people feel their Marriage is made less meaningful by the lifestyle of others who have also entered into a ‘legal marriage’ or wish to do so. It makes me wonder if they have a Marriage at all.
I think the real agenda is made clear by the fact that these folks (as others have noted above) fail to call for withholding ‘legal marriage’ from anyone else, no matter what evil or degenerate (murder, rape, assault, child abuse [!!!]) lifestyle they live.
Rilka
February 10, 2004 at 2:01 pm
40I can’t believe no one has mentioned penguins on this thread yet. Look! Gay Penguins: http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
Kerry
February 11, 2004 at 8:25 pm
41>>I wonder if it’s really gay marriage most people oppose (among those who oppose it), or just gay weddings? Are they afraid “their” churches will be overrun with men in wedding gowns and drag queen flower “girls”?
Bill S
February 12, 2004 at 6:57 pm
42Kerry, that confusion would be easy to clear up-just ask “Are you with John’s family or Michael’s?”
Or, if they’re both named John, use their family names.
Kerry
February 12, 2004 at 10:29 pm
43Golly Bill, why didn’t I think of that?
BettieWheelie
February 16, 2004 at 3:53 pm
44Ohmychrist this is hilarious! I especially like the mentions of gay penguins, grooms in wedding gowns, Utah’s alcohol-free grocery store shelves (I hear ya, sister, cuz I’m livin’ it up in Zion, too), and “just live together” which is not exactly legal in Utah, nor is sodomy, which is not exactly what you think butt…
Uh, better go now…
Dago
February 20, 2004 at 4:24 am
45There are four basic qualifications to marry:
1) age
2) blood relation
3) already married to another person
4) opposite sex
If we eliminate one qualification then why not the others?
“Gay Marriage” is a misnomer. Gays can not marry for the same reasons that I can not marry my mother, sister, daughter, my neighbor’s wife or the 14 year old girl down the street - they are simply not qualified.
daniel
February 25, 2004 at 4:32 pm
46i dont really care, except that Jews shouldnt have gay sex, because is against the Torah.
gitagirl
March 27, 2004 at 2:17 pm
47Just heard you for the 1st time on “This American Life” today & tracked down this copy for forwarding. Adam, you rock!
Joe
March 27, 2004 at 5:05 pm
48Adam, too bad you’re straight, cuz I love you. Just for the record, we here in Massachusetts hate activist judges too, especially the ones who put Bush in office.
mcaustin
March 27, 2004 at 8:09 pm
49Also tracked you down via TAL, though I had heard it somewhen before — also on NPR? I don’t know.
I’d like to respond to dago_dave’s question (and hope he comes back to read this). Quoth he:
“There are four basic qualifications to marry:
1) age
2) blood relation
3) already married to another person
4) opposite sex
If we eliminate one qualification then why not the others?”
Though I fear the question is asked tongue-in-cheek, and though the implied slippery-slope argument draws dangerously near to fallacy, I think the question both fair and apropos. So,
1) we do not eliminate the age qualification because of a legal principle regarding infomed consent: given the maturity of your typical pre-teen, it’s certainly reasonable to posit that there exists an age below which it is unlikely that the hopeful bride or groom can actually understand the contract into which they seek to join. Is 14 the corect age? Maybe not, but it’s a pretty good guess, and past that we leave it up to the judges* for a case-by-case analysis.
2) we do not eliminate the blood relation qualification because of the risk of harm to a potential child of the union. Even ignoring the modern divorce of marriage and procreation, jurisprudence tells us that laws should not be overly broad: we would do better to directly prohibit close blood relations from procreating than to prohibit them from marrying.
3) we do not eliminate the polygamy qualification, well, I’m not sure why. I suspect that it’s rooted in 19th C. anti-Mormon sentiment, but I’d not be surprised if there exist findings that children raised in monogamous households fare better than those raised in polygamous households. However, as I’ve noted, we may have overstretched our proper bounds in using marriage regulation to address a concern for the welfare of children.
4) we do not eliminate the different-gender qualification because …?
Keeping in mind that there’s a heavy burden to be met in any prima facie discrimination case, can anyone give a compelling state interest for this qualification? (And if you want to cite “defense of marraige,” you’d better be prepared to explain how a gay marriage harms a straight couple’s ability to raise healthy children, as that’s so far the government’s only express interest in regulating marriage)
*I wonder at the disdain that people have for “activist judges” — the reason that Article III exists is to recognize the truth that legislation (including the Constitution) may be inexplicit, and that the letter of the law may not accomplish the purpose of the law. By creating a judiciary we are prepared on a case-by-case and controversy-by-controversy basis to interpret and apply the law. When judges come to conclusions about what a law ‘means,’ they’re just doing the job we asked them to do.
Nikki
April 1, 2004 at 12:19 am
50There should be a tax or a payment made to the goverment for all divorces. If preserving the sanctity of marriage is what people are after then maybe people should stay in them. Don’t tax the married! Tax the DIVORCED! Let gays marry! Allowing gays to marry will raise the bar for the divorce rate.
JUST PUT A TAX ON DIVORCE
Anonymous
April 1, 2004 at 8:24 am
51you all seem like a bunch of uneducated hicks. haha, go rope a cow.
Melissa
April 2, 2004 at 12:23 pm
52If your marriage is so weak that you need to feel like you are “special” for being straight and married couple, then you shouldn’t have gotten married.
Exactly HOW does other people being given the same rights as you change YOUR life???
Samantha
August 9, 2005 at 1:05 am
53I didn’t realize that this was 1965. While we’re at it, let’s make gay people drink at separate water fountains than us. After all, we don’t want them to be able to have the same everyday rights as us. What if it makes our water taste bad?!