Having been in a traditional marriage for more than thirty years, I’m less sanguine about repeating the process.

I think his interest in marriage, at least in part, is fueled by watching the wedding show on LOGO, the gay TV channel. They show splashy lesbian and gay nuptials, replete with lavish parties and receptions in a luxury Toronto hotel, or aboard the Pink Princess touring Vancouver harbor. Champagne flows, caviar and canapés are served by tuxedoed waiters and who wouldn’t want to be a part of such festivity? Some shows contain clips of weeping parents and estranged siblings all reunited for this festive occasion. Fathers, with a grimace or a smile, embrace their sons, and nieces and nephews toss rose petals all over the place. "A good time was had by all," at least until the bills arrive.

My objection isn’t the cost of the affair; it’s the simple fact that Stateside, a Canadian marriage has no legal validity. The single U.S. venture into legalizing same sex marriage is in Massachusetts, but Massachusetts marriages for same sex couples are valid only in that state. Outside of Massachusetts the marital union isn’t recognized.

Furthermore, in my judgment, Howard and I don’t need the seal of the court or the blessing of a religious body to validate our union. We’ve been together for sixteen years and, corny as it sounds, are more committed to each other now than when our union started.

We met at the old Friends on P Street in Washington, DC, and it was supposed to be a one night stand, but now, sixteen years later, we’re still standing, so I don’t see a government or church Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval as essential to the continuation of our union. I will admit, however, that declaring our commitment before family and friends would be an added plus and registering as a couple for wedding gifts at Tiffany’s and Home Depot would be a hoot. I’ve always wanted a pair of crystal salt and pepper shakers with a matching chain saw—or, perhaps a his and his mixer or blender.

According to a June 1, 2006 article in The New York Times, the New York State Supreme Court is now struggling with the issue of same sex marriage, as the Massachusetts’ court did several years ago. What they are trying to determine is, "Has marriage been defined by history, culture and tradition since the dawn of Western civilization, or is it an evolving social institution that should change with the times?" Is marriage, as proponents assert, a divinely proclaimed union between a man and a woman, or is it a product of cultural evolution—in which case it would be logical to include same sex unions as a part of that evolution?

In his State of the Union speech, George W. voiced his support for a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. More recently Mr. Bush has reaffirmed that position and has, in fact, urged Congress to pass legislation for a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman only. While this is an obvious political ploy designed to please disaffected conservatives and to distract the public from the horrors of Iraq, it is also a threat to all gays and lesbians because it denies us equal rights and enshrines discriminatory treatment of gays and lesbians in the Constitution.

I suggest that Mr. Bush, and those who support such an amendment, begin reading the Bible again to get a grasp of the ancient custom they now want to elevate to Constitutional status.

It’s been a long time since I’ve diligently pursued a Bible reading avocation, but in my younger, more overtly religious days, it was a part of my daily regimen. I made it through the Holy Book, cover to cover, at least a half dozen times, partly on the assumption that such diligence might gain me some brownie points in the hereafter and partly because I was rewarded by my Sunday School teacher with a package of Mary Janes. I still love Mary Janes and I’m sure it’s entirely the Sunday school teacher’s fault.

With the intensity of youth, I read the Good Book with a vengeance and I don’t regret that religious literary exercise. But one thing became patently clear in my zealous search for truth—there is no "Word of the Lord."

There are only human interpretations and guesses as to what the "Word of the Lord" might be. Many of the interpreters over the ages have seen themselves as divinely inspired and I suppose George W. sees himself that way too, for in supporting a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a man and a woman, he’s going where our written Judeo-Christian records don’t go.

There’s no divine order, or rule, or commandment in the Bible that says marriage must be between a man and a woman. There’s custom. There’s tradition. And in W’s case, there’s his belief—but the Bible doesn’t define marriage in terms of gender composition. In fact, if you read what the Bible says about sex and marriage, it sounds like reruns of episodes from Sex and the City.

In Ben Akerlry’s The X-Rated Bible, a book which examines the sexually charged affairs detailed in the Holy Scriptures, the Table of Contents sounds like a porno shop short story collection. His chapters include such gems as: In the Beginning was Incest; King David Commits both Adultery and Murder; Jehovah Commands Hosea to Marry a Whore; Lot Knocks up Both His Daughters. And the list goes on. The X book comments on sixty explicitly sexual Biblical stories that make me wonder why the Bible is still on library shelves, while Gone with the Wind and Catcher in the Rye struggle for survival.

Additionally, it’s ironic that the most quoted scriptural passage supposedly relating to marriage, one that is read at all traditional marriage ceremonies isn’t about man/woman marriage at all. It comes from the Book of Ruth where Ruth tells her mother-in-law Naomi, "…Entreat me not to leave thee, or return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people and thy God my God …" (The Book of Ruth, Chapter 1:15-17).

This brings tears to many an eye as a statement of the symbolic devotion and commitment a couple pledge to each other in marriage. But, duh!! This is the stated commitment of a daughter-in-law to her mother–in-law, the commitment of one woman to another. It could form the plot for a future episode of The L Word. Guaranteed, if new brides were forced to make a commitment of that intensity to their mother-in-law today, marriage license applications would slow to a trickle and millions of women would be catapulted into long term psychotherapy.

Equally ironic is the context from which this desperate declaration of devotion devolves. The story, as told in the Book or Ruth, is this. Ruth was the widowed daughter-in-law of Naomi, who decided to play matchmaker and get Ruth hitched to a relative named Bozo. Well, his name really was Boaz, but I like Bozo better. It seems to fit the situation better. The way Naomi engineered this affair was that after Bozo, who was quite wealthy—which always helps—had finished supervising his farm operations for the day and had had a good meal and plenty of wine, he predictably fell asleep on the barn floor. At Naomi’s urging, Ruth, virtuous little widow that she was, got herself all powdered, primped and prettied and hid in the barn. After Bozo was asleep Ruth lay down at his feet. When, during the night his prostate problems woke him up and he went to take a leak in the corner of the barn—surprise, there was this sweet young thing beside him. He was so pleased that Ruth wanted to marry him instead of a younger man, that he promised to take care of all the details for the wedding.

There was only one problem confronting them. Naomi had a closer living relative than Bozo and in keeping with Hebrew custom the closer relative had first dibs to claim widow Ruth. But with a bit of careful scheming, it all worked out fine. Bozo got his bride and Ruth and Naomi lived happily ever after. Forget the part where Ruth spent the night in the barn with Bozo and left before dawn so that the neighbors wouldn’t talk. They were just curry-combing the horses and playing jacks.

But if as a nation we’re going to codify ancient customs with Constitutional amendments, I think we should codify Ruth. There ought to be a Constitutional amendment that if you’re a widow, the option for marrying you must be picked up by the closest living male relative. That would be a powerful blow in defense of marriage and might ease the housing shortage in Century Village.

Furthermore we ought to codify circumcision. That’s another ancient custom that, unlike exclusively male/female marriage, is totally Biblical. All American males should be circumcised—by Constitutional amendment. Maybe there could be an amnesty for men over seventy. I sure as hell don’t want to go under the knife at this stage of the game. And, in order to avoid a Supreme Court challenge that an amendment for males violates the equality provisions of the Constitution, there would have to be a companion amendment mandating female circumcision. I’m sure that will improve our international relations with African states where female genital mutilation is de rigueur and it will help accomplish the administration’s goal of deflecting attention from Iraq.

If we’re going to trivialize the Constitution by codifying cultural customs, or enshrining the President’s belief system, let’s do it up right.