Although he has never met me, President Bush is deeply concerned about my marriage.
He is particularly concerned about the threat posed to it by one Julie Goodridge, who manages a $50 million socially responsible investment fund. Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed Ms. Goodridge’s right to marry her partner of nearly a decade, Hillary, who is a program director of a charity that gives away nearly $1 million every year.

Now, we married Americans are a tolerant lot, and when somebody wants to join our club, we’re usually happy to overlook any little peccadilloes that might tarnish their otherwise sterling records. In 1996, for example, when serial killer Richard Ramirez had a death row wedding to a woman he had met by mail, no state legislature endured anguished overnight sessions to craft a law that would declare his marriage void. In 1998, when serial killer Henry Louis Wallace had a death row wedding to a prison nurse, nobody thought it necessary to amend the Constitution to prevent it from happening again.
But we have our limits, and when two women who have had the gall to divert millions of dollars to worthy causes want to unite in holy matrimony, well, we can’t be expected to stand idly by. That’s why I’m delighted that my President has vowed to “do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage,” even if it might involve amending the Constitution.
Thank you, President Bush. Thank you for recognizing that all married Americans–whether serial killers, death row inmates, or just plain folks–have the right not to be tarred by affiliation with investment fund managers, charity directors, and other unsavory elements. Thank you for fighting to ensure that, when a pop star marries and then divorces several hours later, she won’t have to spend a single one of those 180 minutes of wedded bliss sharing the institution with somebody who might lower its serious moral tone. And above all, thank you for wanting to amend the supreme law of the land to safeguard the dignity of all future Fox marriage-related reality TV programs.
From the above, you might get the impression that I don’t take marriage seriously, but nothing could be farther from the truth. My marriage is the single greatest source of happiness in my life, and I genuinely consider it sacred. But its sanctity is rooted in the love, respect, and friendship that my wife and I feel for each other, and in the joy we take in sharing our lives with each other. Legally recognizing the fact that gay people want the same joy doesn’t diminish the sanctity of my own.
In fact, short of writing secret love notes to my wife in a clandestine effort to woo her away from me, there is absolutely nothing President Bush can do to affect the sanctity of my marriage one way or the other. When we got married, we didn’t ask the federal government for help in making our union holy; we had a rabbi for that. All we wanted from Uncle Sam were certain legal conveniences–the right to file joint tax returns, for example, or the right to make emergency medical decisions about each other should the need arise. And if my beloved ever made a hundred million dollars as a rock star and then dumped me for a better-looking younger man, I wanted the right to half her dough.
The government granted us these rights not because it had any particular opinion about the holiness of our relationship, but simply because there is a net societal benefit to marriage. As conservative pro-marriage groups are fond of reminding us, married people commit fewer crimes, live longer lives, and earn more money than their single counterparts. Like tax breaks for homeowners, the legal conveniences associated with marriage are simply inducements to societally beneficial behavior. Unless the legal and fiscal benefits of marriage suddenly vanish when your spouse has the same reproductive plumbing as you, gay marriage is a net plus to society, and it ought to be legally encouraged.
There are, in essence, two questions being lumped together in this controversy. The first is, “Should gay couples be be allowed to file joint tax returns and make medical decisions about each other?” The second is, “Can a homosexual relationship be just as sacred as a heterosexual one?” My answer to the second question happens to be “yes”–but my answer to the second question also happens to be irrelevant to the present debate. If you have an opinion about joint tax returns and medical decision rights, you should talk to your congressman. If you have an opinion about sanctity, you should talk to your clergy. Mixing up the two questions ends up muddying the issue.
What’s interesting to me is how much of this debate comes down to semantics. I’ve met a number of people who say they have no objection to giving official recognition to gay unions, with all the same legal rights and responsibilities of marriage–they just don’t support government recognition of “gay marriage.” If I understand correctly, this means that they have no problem with gay marriage as long as it is called something else. Trust me, though; I have taken the Channel Tunnel to France, and the sudden transformation of my marriage into mon mariage had no effect on the sanctity thereof, leading me to conclude that it really doesn’t matter what you call your long-term legally recognized union with the object of your romantic affections.
Still, there’s no denying that words have power; in this case, they have the power to confuse the issue. ” A relationship that has been made sacred” is a different concept than “a relationship that has been granted certain legal conveniences by the government,” but we currently use the word “marriage” to describe both concepts. My wife, therefore, has come up with an ingenious solution. She suggests we use different words for each concept. The result of a religious ceremony would be called a “marriage,” and the set of legal conveniences would be called a “civil union.” As with voter registration, drivers’ licenses, and other legal conveniences, civil unions would be equally available to gays and straights. And as with communion, bar mitzvahs, Red Sox games, and other religious events, marriage would be entirely in the hands of private enterprise. I don’t know about you–but my marriage doesn’t need welfare.