Divorce Rates Slide, but Marriage Has a New Message

Dr. Judith Wallerstein

While reading the obituary for Judith S. Wallerstein, a psychologist who rankled feminists 20 years ago with her findings that divorce is permanently traumatic for children, I recalled her influence on my own work as a psychologist. I'd cited her longitudinal study that followed children of divorce for 25 years in my own book, The Case Against Divorce, as part of my argument that the consequences of a split are so dire that in most cases, it's far better to work to heal rifts and stay together. I called divorce "a cure far worse than the disease."

Since my book came out many years ago (and it's still selling in paperback), divorce rates have dropped considerably.  While it's been a pernicious myth that the divorce rate was ever 50% (even at its peak in 1981, the rate was about 25% for first marriages), Census Bureau statistics show that divorce per 1,000 population has steadily declined--plunging from a high of 5.3 in 1981, to 4.7 in 1990, 4.1 in 2000--and in the latest figures (2009), down to 3.1. That's a considerable drop, though the marriage rate has also declined, from 9.8 per 1,000 population in 1990 to 6.9 per 1,000 in 2009.  (Part of that is because older cohorts were larger and married younger.)

As divorce popularity declined, Judith Wallerstein shifted her stance, from warning about divorce impact to structuring the process to minimize damage to children.  I was a bit surprised at this, since I'd considered her an ally in a broader effort to strengthen marriage, imbuing it with a gravitas beyond its function as a love conduit for a couple. But she told the New York Times that when women credited her for their decisions to stay married, "I don't feel, 'Oh, my God, that's wonderul, one more marriage saved.' Maybe it was the wrong marriage."

In her 1989 book Second Chances, the 10-year follow-up of 60 divorced families (with 131 children) in her California Children of Divorce research project, Dr. Wallerstein wrote, "When people ask if they should stay married for the sake of the children, I have to say, 'Of course not.'"

That was a bit different from my response, which would be "Don't stay in your bad marriage for the sake of the children, but they're a great reason to work to make it good." My book talked about all the awful consequences of divorce--to the individuals, their families and friends, as well as the children--and also the flip side, the benefits and joys of restoring and improving a relationship that already has a foundation in time and experience.

Unfortunately, I fear that the institution of marriage has deteriorated, and now expresses the value "follow your heart"--as opposed to its traditional, more honorable but less feel-good counterpart, "do your duty," a dichotomy often noted by my husband.

Part of the gay-marriage mantra is that marriage is a declaration of love, a commitment of the heart. Those who are concerned about the future, however, also see it in a broader context, as the best place for two biological parents to offer their children models of marriage, for problem-solving and relating as a husband or a wife, in a secure, stable context.

Feelings constantly change; the message to children should be that behaving kindly, fairly and respectfully are paramount, no matter the situation or one's emotions. Ideals for behavior, unlike feelings, remain constant. (Remember the olden days, when baby girls were named "Constance" in hopes they'd emulate that virtue?) The importance of providing children with security that transcends fluctuating emotions is why marriage matters to society, and why government gets involved at all.  The fact two people fall in love is irrelevant to the unfeeling government.

Divorce (except in untenable situations like abuse and addiction), is a failure of one or both people to overcome division. Aside from all the emotional pain it causes everyone, it sends the message to children that conflicts may be resolved by running away. Or, that stubbornness, selfishness or rudeness prevail, and retaining one's position is of higher importance than harmony. Judith Wallerstein's findings confirm this.

I know from my experience as a psychologist that people escalate their arguments. That rehashing disputes only makes them grow. That partners can have overwhelming needs to be right. Or to control. Or to withdraw, and these cause anger, distance and disgust.

There's also always the option to accommodate, change and forgive.  People can avoid divorce if they internalize that their spouse is their soulmate, team-mate, source of support and best friend, and keep that as the underlying theme of every interaction, and ideally, every thought.

The other divorce-preventative is to understand that as much as your spouse is your alter-ego, the operative word is alter. Men and women are supposed to be opposites, innately different, and to expect the other to be your clone is not only wrong, but forfeits access to a second perspective--that can enhance and expand yours. A man and woman, hard-wired differently, combine in marriage for the same goals, forming a completed unit. Makes me wonder: How can two men, or two women together replicate those irreplaceable gender differences?

Answer: Marriage has been re-defined. It's now a declaration of love, a promise to care for the other. Companionate, not completionate.

So why has the divorce rate dropped since the early 80s? Is it because Judith Wallerstein taught us that children suffer permanently from divorce? Is it because fewer people marry? Probably both, but I would also speculate that divorce has become widely available and un-stigmatized, while at the same time the strident feminism and self-absorbtion of the past has relaxed, causing many to prefer the less-stressful path, which is to get along.

Don't misunderstand: Divorce remains a serious problem, and the work of Judith Wallerstein still holds. Some marriages are too punishing to continue, and children whose parents split will always agree with Dr. Wallerstein's finding that "for all [the children she followed], a significant part of their childhood or their adolescence had been a sad and frightening time" (Surviving the Breakup, p. 306).

And that might be the most significant deterrent to divorce of all--the memories held by so many now-grown children of their "sad and frightening time" as the collateral damage of divorce.

A Love-Disgust with Starbucks

As a Seattleite, I proudly show my tourist friends the first Starbucks coffee store, located in Pike Place Market. Usually there's a fabulous a Capella quartet in front, swinging with their excellently-blended harmonies.



My photo of singers outside the first Starbucks, Pike Place Mkt.

Purchasing my favorite excellently-blended grande Americano inside, however, isn't such an easy question anymore.  Oh yeah, I've got my special registered Hawaii-design Starbucks card, loaded so I earn their rewards.  But I'm getting word from the right and the left that perhaps using it at the coffee stand ubiquitous on nearly every corner might carry some not-so-approved connotations.

Cochineal beetle pieces. MMMM-mmmm!

I wasn't one to order the Strawberries-and-Creme Frappuccinos anyway, knowing they didn't have kosher approval.  But now I know why: It's revealed that the red coloring Starbucks adopted a couple years ago to align with their "natural ingredients" push is actually crushed up bugs. The Cochineal Extract from ground South American beetles is definitely not kosher. It's not vegetarian, either, and aside from an occasional kosher meat digression (Passover's coming!), our family refrains from eating slaughtered flesh. But crushed insects, added for their crimson color, doesn't comport with the system. Perhaps using strawberries to shade the Strawberries-and-Creme could have been even more natural.

Then I got an email saying Starbucks is pouring millions of dollars into the initiative to redefine marriage, on the ballot here in Washington State this November.  I happen to hold with the traditional Torah view that the entire purpose of marriage is to synchronize the complementary differences between male and female, and to best encourage that each child can be raised by his biological mother and father together.  Love's a crazy-wonderful thing, and if two men or women want to affirm their commitment and spend their lives together, great; I just don't think government should shift the focus of the institution from children-with-parents societal stability to elevating individuals' feelings.  If men and women are truly interchangeable, as re-defining marriage suggests, then family law can no longer privilege biological connection over emotional claims on a child.  The overwhelming data showing children do best when raised by their two biological parents won't mean much in practice after that.

I'm not into boycotts, but it seems that vegans, vegetarians, foes of advertising deception and traditional marriage boosters are coming together in a moment of joint Starbucks wrath.  Perhaps to counter this, I just got an email from the company inviting me to a local benefit concert featuring two indie bands. Sounds like fun. Too bad it's on Shabbat.

 Strawberries-&-Creme ingredients: not kosher

We happen to be fans of Starbucks. Not only is it a local company, but we like their coffee. My husband even drinks their Via instant when he wakes up pre-dawn some mornings. I choose their specially-roasted-for-Costco espresso-blend beans. I trust there are no ground bugs in either. I also like their coffee-houses, and our neighborhood outpost is even decorated with original artwork by a friend of mine. It's cozy to sit near their fireplace, using their free internet service, sipping their java.

So I'm hoping that once again, Starbucks will choose to placate all and regain its position as favored caffeine station. To paraphrase Kermit, it's not easy vending bean, and it's reassuring that the marketplace is a reliable source of feedback for businesses.  I like to see retailers do well, and I'm eager to once again proudly take my politically correct friends to that first Pike Place landmark.

NY Gays Tie the Knot: What's Lost by Re-defining Marriage

When 84-year-old Connie Kopelov was wheel-chaired up to the Manhattan City Clerk Sunday for the first legal gay marriage in the state of New York (to Phyllis Siegel, 76), it was a touching scene of two elderly women publicly cementing their 23-year-long love.  Who could deny these ladies a recognized connection?

Why shouldn't Alvin Woods, 27, and Antonio Lopez, 25, enjoy the public revelation of their tattooed wedding rings at their legal linkage?  For these and the other happy couples newly wed in New York, to headlines celebrating the ability of same-sex partners to become "like everyone else," it's a day to proclaim love.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

It's true that people who believe that God gave us His commandments in the Bible--and that God is not to be dissed--won't accept two of the same gender as married.  History, too, would contra-indicate that two of the same sex qualify as spouses.  Dictionaries, at least until very recently, defined "marry" like mine does: "1. to join as husband and wife; unite in wedlock, 2. to join a man to a woman as her husband, or a a woman to a man as his wife... (Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language)"

But why not just change things?  History is no argument to continue an archaic institution; civilization is the story of improvement--for example, women now fulfll their potentials in far more than motherhood or as support for their men (or librarians, teachers, nurses and secretaries, the only four professions expected for women as recently as the mid-1960s).  Those who want to hold by the Bible's dictates don't have to participate in gay marriages, and dictionaries are easily re-written.

Certainly that's what's coming.

But in declaring the union of two men or women as exactly the same as the marriage of opposite genders, we lose an important distinction that in other areas we wish to preserve: male and female.  With gay marriage legally sanctioned, we are to believe that sex between two lesbians has the same consequence for society as sex between a man and woman. Male plus male? Male plus female? Female plus female?  It's all the same in marriage, under New York law.

Here's the hitch: In elevating gay relationships to be equivalent to straight marriages, we proclaim that it is no longer worth society's endorsement for a child to be raised by his or her biological parents. We no longer assert that our nation is best served when children live with their natural mothers and fathers, together.

Research on outcomes for children without that benefit suggest otherwise. Children raised by single parents, or in combined families, or by gay couples can certainly emerge healthy. However, in no gay family could a child be raised by both biological parents.  Kids learn different things from a mother and a father.  And have least complications when that mother and father are their own.

For that reason, the nation has a stake in promoting married biological families.  "Every major social pathology that can trouble an American child happens more often when his or her parents are not joined by marriage," writes Maggie Gallagher in The Meaning of Marriage (2006), "more poverty, dependency, child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse, suicide, depression, mental illness, infant mortality, physical illness, education failure, high school dropouts, sexually transmitted diseases, and early unwed childbearing, and later on, divorce."

When we re-define marriage as the union of any two people who love each other, we change the focus from our nation's future to warm touchy-feelies of love, in the present.  We lose a long-term perspective, substituting a carpe diem, emotional priority.

As a nation, we need children to grow up with optimized chances to succeed, earn money, and create further happy families.  We like it when gay citizens can live with those they love, and feel respected.  But that's not the government's business or job--let religious officials, friends and family declare these unions permanent and appreciated.  Don't make these people go through expensive public courts to dissolve them when they fail, since their existence, while adding to personal satisfaction, contributes little to national goals that governments control.

Sari Kessler and Erika Karp were married 12 years ago in their synagogue by their rabbi. But that wasn't enough for them, despite having three daughters, ages 9, 6 and 3.  "People need to know we're just like everyone else," Sari Kessler said in explanation for why she is "absolutely elated" to gain legal married status. "Our families are just as valued and important and special as any other family in the world,'' affirmed her bride.

But actually, with all due respect, gay families may be important and special and valued--but not as much by a society with a need to encourage an ideal.  Yet officially, in the six states where gay marriage is legal, they are now just as ideal as marriages with the potential to provide children both a biological mother and father.

And that's what we've lost. We've lost the ability to say, "we have evidence that this is the preferred way to do it; this way, with both a mother and father raising their biological children, provides something our society values more because it offers the best chance to produce children that will turn out whole, well-adjusted and ready to emulate mothers and fathers they've had loving them and each other."

Men and women are not interchangeable.  All the brain research confirms that the genders have fundamental, irreducibile differences that complement each other.  The 1.4% of people who are homosexual deserve to spend their lives with whomever they please.  But we do ourselves and our children a disservice to suggest that the unions they form are the same as heterosexual marriages.

Distinctions serve a purpose, especially when based on replicated research--men and women are different, and the bond they form is different from the bond formed by two of the same gender.  But we're coming to a time when legally, we can know it and even demonstrate it but can't live it.  Now that gay marriages are becoming numerous enough to warrant widespread research and analysis, we'll soon have data, and from what studies I've seen so far, I suspect academics will confirm that yes, marriages of, say, lesbians are dfferent from, say, marriages of gay men. When we must deny reality, that will surely be a big loss.

Propostion 8 Trial: Loving the Sparkliest Person Vs. The Needs of Society

The US District Court trial in San Francisco on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 is rife with emotion. Coverage in the New York Times Tuesday described Kristin Perry, co-plaintiff, answering her lawyer's query about how she fell in love with her partner, Sandra Steir: "I remember thinking that she was the sparkliest person I'd ever met."

While I hope Ms. Perry and Ms. Steir have a happy life together, I do not believe that those who find another to be the sparkliest--or the most wonderful, or the most attractive, or the most brilliant person ever--should necessarily qualify for state sanction in marriage.

Theodore B. Olson, attorney for the plaintiffs, said he will show that gays and lesbians suffer "grievous harm" because they lack state recognition as "married." It appears that a goal will be to show that for those deeply committed and in love, having all the legal rights of marriage (which same-sex couples are guaranteed by law in California) but not its moniker, is "grievously harmful."

I know teenagers smitten by admiration for rock stars who crave them so much they faint.  Though I was a mere child at the time, I vividly remember seeing video of Beatles audiences where women regularly swooned, screamed, cried hysterically, and fell unconscious with adoration.  One might assume these young women felt John, Paul, George and Ringo were far more than "sparkly."  Depth of feeling for another person may create a relationship, but it does not constitute or necessitate marriage.

In fact, last June, Gov. Mark Sanford, who waxed poetic in a raft of emails to his "soul mate" Maria Belen Chapur that spelled the end of his presidential hopes and probably his political career, was also deeply in love.  Given his wife Jenny's patient response, he should have been able to marry Maria as well. After all, he didn't want to end his 20-year marriage, as he announced when Jenny finally filed for divorce--instead he called the outcome "tragic" and "not the course [I] would choose."  With a deep desire to be with the women he loved, forbidden by law to be married to both simultaneously, Gov. Sanford--and his children--must've suffered "grievous harm."

I do think it's true that California marriage law discriminates against same-sex couples.  Couples where both partners are the same gender are treated differently from couples where the partners are of opposite sexes.  That's called "discrimination based on sex."  Which for many purposes is perfectly legal, and which advocates of gay marriage do not seek to change.  For example, women are not required to register for the draft, and if there were one, women would not be required to serve.  Public restrooms may be segregated by sex.  Male and female convicts go to facilities separated by gender.  And California marriage laws always assumed--and now specify--a bride and a groom.

Though zealous gay-marriage advocates outside the District Court trial brandish signs insisting on "the freedom to marry," at this point, none of them are willing to insist on complete freedom, though they may seek it later on.  They don't plead for polygamy or polyandry; they don't march for incest; they don't claim that children, or any collection of in-love, committed people should gain state-approval as a "marriage."  In other words, they seem to want all of the traditional restrictions on marriage to stand--except the most basic one, the combination of male and female.

And as for "the freedom to marry," well, anyone is free to perform a non-state-recognized wedding.  Pardon my ignorance, but isn't it said that Catholic nuns are "married to the Church"?  What about the hippie communes, some of which continue today, where all participants share everything, including their bodies, in a love-infused commitment?  Circuit court plaintiff Perry proposed marriage to her partner in 1993, with the result that "She looked really happy" before she "looked really confused." They got married unofficially. Are happiness and confusion the makings of "grievously harmed"?

Actually, though marriage laws may assume or specify the genders of participants, neither gender is treated differently, or suffers any discrimination.  Any individual is able to legally marry one of the opposite sex.  That includes everyone, and excludes or discriminates against no one.

The issue here is that some people want legal recognition for marriage to someone from a legally prohibited group. Prohibited groups include children, those already married, people who are mentally incompetent, men and women who are close relatives, and those of one's same gender. As I mentioned before, gay marriage advocates want to remove one of the restrictions yet leave all the rest--does that make sense?

I do think that for many on the left, the underlying aim is to dissolve the institution of marriage altogether. A great 2006 article by Stanley Kurtz in National Review Online describes an underlying agenda, published in a document called "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage" and supported by respected people like Gloria Steinem and Rabbi Michael Lerner, to be approached one step at a time.  Gay marriage is the first step.  Insisting on equal honor and government support for any and all chosen relationships is the ultimate goal.  Kurtz doesn't say this, but if you reduce the argument further, the desired outcome is for honor and government support not for permanent commitments, but for any and all types of sexuality.

Which is what it comes down to.  Marriage has been the societally-preferred setting for the type of sexuality that produces those societies.  It is not about commitment to "the one you love," but to stable families.  The guys carrying the signs in front of the District Court who want "the freedom to marry" have it.  But society's future depends on raising a healthy generation of children in the environment most conducive to their flourishing. That's where the state has a stake in traditional marriage.

The people of California understood this, adding to their constitution in Proposition 8 just one sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."  I hope the US District Court gets it, too.

New Words Needed for Gay Spouses

I'm a stickler about words, being of the "Eats Shoots and Leaves" perspective. Punctuation, too. (Not sentence structure, obviously.) So when today's NYTimes featured a story about married lesbians calling each other "wife," I noticed.

The writer, Sarah Sarasohn, married her spouse 13 years ago. (See, they didn't need any kind of legal re-definition to do it!) But the thing that got me was that she and her mate, the other mother of the children Sarasohn bore, decided that their commitment should be a political statement rather than a personal life situation: "Using the term was about irony and politics." When first married, Sarasohn used the term to be "very in-your-face. It derailed whatever other conversation I was having because I had to explain what I meant by 'my wife.'"

Her concern at the time was that "wife" implied "servant," and that was not her intent.

Let me underscore that I am not objecting to Sarasohn's choosing a life commitment with another woman.  I have views about deeming this "marriage," though, and it's related: blurring the distinction between male and female diminishes the specificity of our language; renders the words ("wife," husband," "marriage") an amoebic goo that makes analysis of our world more difficult.  And analyzing, synthesizing, dissecting the world--ie making judgments--is the essence of intellectual pursuit.

We've already got a gender-neutral word for married partners: spouse. We've also got "partner," not as specific and not necessarily marital. But this is about preserving a descriptor for the unique combination of opposites, male and female.

Why should we preserve these distinctions?  We're just smearing into an amalgm of people anyway, flowing in and out of relationships, some of which happen to have the governmental benefits of marriage, others of which are easier from which to extricate.  Evolution and enlightenment. Broadening definitions so they're not so sex specific, or status-specific is more descriptive of the real world.  But on the other hand--why not expand the vocabulary, rather than contract it?

Perhaps there should be two new words for gay "husbands" and "wives" that more accurately reflect their own unique types of combining.  Their two-of-a-kind of uniting certainly deserves its own special language. Instead of glomming onto the old-fashioned words, the ones that since the start of the English language have meant male and female's joining, with the usual outcome of creating a new generation, gays should be creative enough to find words that reflect their own special sensitivities.  Let "marriage" remain. Then Ms. Sarasohn and other lesbians won't have to worry about the servant-like connotations that "wife" carried, or the bread-winner history that "husband" used to imply.

She and her "wouse" (woman spouse) could be just as "in-your-face" with their own word. Gay men can make a statement referring to their...well, "mouse" is taken.  We've got "domestic partners," but devise a new term for commited gay couples that isn't the gender-linked term "marriage." Leave "wife" and "husband" so we can at least have more choice in language, rather than less.

Living in a Gender-Neutral World

On July 25, supporters of Washington State Referendum 71 turned in 138,500 signatures in the hope that citizens of my state will be able to vote for or against fundamental changes in the English language.

Signers of petitions resented that legislators had approved on May 4 Senate Bill 5688, which some called the "everything but marriage" bill, allowing registered domestic partners all the privileges, rights and responsibilities of married couples (similar to the situation in California).

As I've said before, I don't mind if gay couples make lifetime commitments and even receive the benefits of law afforded straight people who are married. But SB 5688 doesn't just extend specific privileges by inserting "...and domestic partners" in the list of who's covered. Instead, it actually changes the meaning of English in dozens of chapters and titles in the "Revised Code of Washington," the list of functioning laws in the state: "...gender specific terms such as 'husband' and 'wife' used in any statue, rule, or other law shall be construed to be gender neutral and applicable to individuals in state registered domestic partnerships."

Voila! A wife is the same as a husband! A son the same as a daughter! A widow the same as a widower! Finally, there's no such thing as gender in the English language in the state of Washington!

And that is the agenda of gay marriage advocates: to blur the most fundamental distinction that exists between human beings, male and female. They seek to downplay the importance to society of procreative sex, gaining government's endorsement for their type of sexuality. They want to remove society's encouragement of two biological parents raising their children, and elevate the status of two guys (or women) who by definition can never raise their biological children, as equally essential to the future of our state.

And once Washington State officially designates everybody as gender-neutral, it follows logically that the accepted language should apply to marriage laws as well as everything else. Why should marriage be the only exception to gender-neutrality, after all?

"We have the right to marry the person we love!" insist gay marriage advocates, who conveniently don't push for polygamy, under-age unions or incest, all of which are less of a change in marriage (still involving man-woman combining) than gay marriage brings.

Marriage has at times been deemed a fundamental right--but only as traditionally defined, a man and a woman. It's not a civil right if you're already married to someone else. And it's only been a "right" in the US between a man and woman who meet qualifications set by law. The electorate, sometimes directly and sometimes through their representatives, gets to decide what those qualifications are (some states set minimum marriage age at 16 or 17, for example). But nowhere, ever, has marriage been a "right" between two men or two women, until recent gay marriage advocates and "progressive" (rather than objective) journalists have decided to label it so.

I don't know if Referendum 71 will qualify for the ballot (it needs 120,577 validated signatures), or, if it does, if it will gain enough support to repeal Senate Bill 5688. Today its supporters fended off the threat of the pro-gay marriage group "Who Signed" to publish the names and addresses of petitioners; the Tacoma judge agreed that publishing them was solely for the purpose of harassment.

I kind of doubt that enough people care to read the 110 pages of SB 5688 (as I did), and as long as gays don't gain the "right to marry," I don't know that enough Washingtonians will care if they get "everything but." Still, somebody ought to point out that SB 5688 isn't just talking about being nice or fair to gay people, but rather inserting in our laws that men and women are interchangeable; that a husband is a wife is a sister is a brother. If the bill stands, then despite the DNA marking every cell in our bodies, here in The Evergreen State, we'll be living in a gender-neutral world.

Gay Marriage Activists Won't Give Up, Insist Men and Women are the Same

I've been working on my project about marriage as the combining of male and female, and so, while enjoying some of the most perfect weather we've ever had here in Seattle, lying on a chaise my balcony and catching up on the paper, my attention went to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal of Monday, July 20: "Gay Marriage and the Constitution" by David Boies.

Boies explained why he and Ted Olson are suing the state of California to overturn Proposition 8, already confirmed by the state Supreme Court, that defines marriage in that state's constitution as one man and one woman.

Of course he takes the tack most gay marriage advocates do, trying to equate race and gender, saying it's just as wrong to deny two men marriage as it was to deny a white and a black; i.e. if people and courts now agree that all races should be interchangeable when it comes to marriage, so the two sexes should be, too.

And he pulls out that false but ubiquitous meme that it's just about freedom to marry the one you love: "The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it." He supports this by citing rulings that allow "child-support scofflaws" and imprisoned felons to marry.

...But only marry one of the opposite sex. Not to marry one of the same sex. In these cases, the Supreme Court didn't re-define marriage; it just said that breaking the law isn't in itself reason to stop a conventional marriage. The punishments for the offender's crimes are unaffected; the institution of marriage remains unchanged.

Nowhere is there a "right to marry the person you love." What if you want to marry your sibling? Your parent? What if you want to marry somebody who's already legally wed to someone else? What if the person you love happens to be six years old? Or has advanced Alzheimer's and can't consent? Or wants to join you and your present spouses in polygamy? Would the court uphold your right to marry one of these people, even if you swear your love is undying and pure?

Boies dismisses so called reasons to deny gay marriage. Heteros feeling threatened by gays is unable to "withstand discussion." He thinks it's "hard to envision" straights avoiding marrying or divorcing just because gays can. He rejects that forcing gays into straight marriages would help societal stability. Or that keeping gays from marrying each other will steer them straight. Who ever argued any of this?? Only Boies, so he can shoot down these dumb straw men.

Boies then says Californians' votes should be nullified because of that tired question, "how does it hurt YOUR marriage if two gays get married?"

Aside from legally widening the marital sexual "norm" from coitus to include homosexual sodomy (with big ramifications in terms of public school education), suddenly our language and understanding get stripped of any means to describe the unique combining of male and female. And that's dandy, because gay advocates' agenda is to insist that a man and woman--or biological mother and father--together form exactly the same "marriage" as two men or two women together do. Denying biology. Denying reams of scientific literature demonstrating the superiority of married natural parents raising their children over all other permutations of parenthood.

Boies doesn't address the fact that men and women are not interchangeable--and in fact are opposites--and that marriage exists to reconcile and mesh them. There's no way to deny fundamental gender differences; the difference is--unlike race--identifiable in every cell of the body.

Instead, he insists that "sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters." There's no biological evidence of that. There are, however, many people who say they have chosen one orientation and then later, chosen another. Perhaps they are bisexual--I envision sexual proclivity as a long continuum. And while I do think there are gays who are as repulsed by the opposite sex as most straights are unattracted to their own, these people can freely live according to their orientation, and, in California, form civil unions that by law (California Family Code, Section 297-297.5) receive exactly the same rights, privileges and obligations as heterosexual marriages do.

Boies notes that California law gives domestic partners all the rights of marriage. But instead of concluding that the purpose of the two categories is to elevate and encourage California's biological families, he insists it's "to stigmatize a segment of its population that commits no offense, other than falling in love with a disapproved partner, and asks no more of the state than to be treated equally with all other citizens."

Excuse me...gays are treated exactly the same: they too can marry one of the opposite sex. Or civilly join with one of the same sex. The only difference is...maintaining distinctions. Men and men together are different from men and women together, not only in the capability to procreate, but in their "God-given characteristics" as detailed in innumerable physiological, psychological, brain and hormonal studies. Men and women marry. Men and men, or women and women may domestically partner. It's not "separate but equal;" it's separate because the two are not equal.

Boies concludes that "Gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, our teachers and doctors..." who are due "the basic human right to marry the person they love" (as long as that person is an adult, not a close relative, not already married, not seeking to be a second or third spouse, mentally competent and willing...). He says it is overdue that "the Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens by now eliminating the last remnant of centuries [no, millenniums!] of misguided state discrimination against gays and lesbians."

He is not willing to argue about discrimination against polygamists or incest-philes. But he's right about one thing--this issue is about discrimination, in the positive sense--the notion of being discriminating, cognizant of distinctions. If scientifically advanced people cannot even admit obvious differences between males and females, and instead deem them interchangeable in marriage, then our society is in a sorry state, indeed.

(OK, I know I've written about this before, and I, too, am becoming weary of being forced to repeat the same arguments. But then another of these articles gets huge coverage and I just have to answer...again.)

Same-Sex Marriage "Rights"

While casually flipping through today's New York Times, I came upon an article about New York governor Paterson's decision not to force a vote on same-sex marriage, because the state senate is "unsettled" in aligning its Democratic caucus, and also because Bronx Democratic senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., a Pentecostal minister, is stridently opposed.

Blah, blah blah, until we get this "background:" "Last month, the governor, a champion of same-sex marriage rights, vowed to make sure the Senate voted on the issue before breaking for the summer."

What's wrong with this sentence?

Since when is same-sex marriage a "right"? Why couldn't Danny Hakim, the reporter, have simply said, "...a champion of same-sex marriage, vowed to make sure..."???

I showed the piece to my husband who answered, "Of course. They're so biased. It's just like abortion--pro-life people are 'against abortion rights.'"

And so they are, in the politically correct world of the New York Times. Subtle mental manipulation, so easy to gloss over as it penetrates the brain.

Pride Parades, Mark Sanford and the "Fear and Ignorance" that Spurs Support for Traditional Marriage

I'm listening to an outrageous caller to my fave radio talk show who says the people who resist redefining marriage are the same as the mullahs and Taliban, because both hold perspectives resulting from their "fear and ignorance," and are attempts to hold back progressive change.

This suggests that those who would stone a woman to death for infidelity are equivalent to those of us who want to recognize there's something fundamentally different between male and female.

Funny, because I'd bet this caller would agree that men and women are not the same or interchangeable, because if they were, then any man could just as easily marry a woman; there'd be no need to insist on marrying one of the same gender. Yet his argument in favor of same-sex marriage is that male and female should be interchangeable--isn't that a huge conflict?

The whole point of marriage is to combine opposites, for the socially important reason of promoting stable, two-biological-parent homes for children. The fact that some couples marry old or can't have children is irrelevant; they're the exceptions, and you don't discard the underlying mechanism and purpose because exceptions exist.

Yesterday, I happened to be in downtown Seattle with my husband, son and a friend, and though the "Pride" parades and displays had concluded earlier, an enormous rainbow flag was still flying, suspended from an apartment balcony across from the Space Needle. This doesn't bother me, though having such a demonstration to flaunt and glorify a certain type of sexuality strikes me as symbolic of a drop in society's general dignity. After all, the only thing that makes gays different from other people, "gaydar" and affectations aside, is what they do sexually. (And what they can't do, which is to have natural children.)

I liked it a lot better (and yes, I know that the toothpaste isn't going back in the tube), when sexuality was a personal thing, not so obvious that it has to be an ingredient in the way individuals are viewed. When I was a kid, it never occurred to me that any particular person was gay or not; you might retort it's because gays were so repressed then that they dared not let on about their preferences, but unlike one's skin color or gender, gayness is a characteristic that can be revealed or not, according to choice. And when it's revealed--"I'm out and proud"--the only thing I learn about a gay person is that he limits his sexuality to those of the same gender. I'd rather not think about his sexuality, one way or the other.

I do resent the talk-show caller asserting my "fear and ignorance" because--yes it's true--I do not want the definition of marriage to change. I resist change in this word because it's not merely change but loss. The language loses its term for the lifetime combining of male and female, with no word to replace it. Under the proposed definition, marriage can be any two people, regardless of gender--with a host of other limits I doubt the caller would say represent "fear and ignorance" --limits on number of spouses together, or incestuous relationships, or supplementary marriages.

Would the caller say it's "fear and ignorance" not to accommodate poor Gov. Mark Sanford, who wants to keep both his wife and present family, and his passionate love for Maria Belen Chapur, who wrote to him last July 4: "You made me realized (sic) how you feel when you realy (sic) love somebody and how much you want to be beside the beloved. Last Friday I would had stayed embrassing (sic) and kissing you forever." It must be "fear and ignorance" that makes the law forbid the permanent expression of such enduring love.

I know gays consider marriage to be their civil right, comparing man-woman marriage limits with previous bans on inter-racial marriage. Their argument is that like skin color, sexual preference is biological and immutable. That argument might work well for siblings who want to marry--it's not their fault they were born with the same parents. But not so much for gay sexual preference, which Jeffrey Satinover, MD, Ph.D. has found often moves to heterosexual: "The desire to shift to a biologic basis for explaining homosexuality appeals to those who seek to undercut the vast amount of clinical experience confirming that homosexuality is significantly changeable.." (p. 114, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth) Anne Heche is quoted in Wikipedia as saying, "Just because I'm married doesn't mean I call myself a straight," despite the fact that she boasts a series of public straight relationships, and only one famed foray into gayness with Ellen de Generes, at which time she vowed she was lesbian "from here on out!"

The caller to the radio show didn't drop the H-bomb--and I don't mean hydrogen--but might as well have. The means used to discredit anyone who wants to defend man-woman marriage is homophobe. I can insist on my love and friendship with gays till I'm blue, and even my support for their forming lifetime commitments with the benefits of marriage, but under a different term that recognizes the union of a man and woman as unique. Doesn't matter: if I don't support gay marriage, I'm a homophobe. That's the re-definition of that word.

Last year, we did happen to catch the Pride parade downtown. Quite a colorful crowd, many wrapped in rainbow flags, with rainbow tie-dye everywhere. Flamboyant costumes and flamboyant people all made the event festive. I love festivities, bright colors, people enjoying themselves. It's just odd to put on such a lavish event not to celebrate history (eg Independence Day) or achievements (Ethnic parades, or for returning soldiers) or a holiday (Thanksgiving or New Years), but sexuality.

I'm far from "afraid" of gays, including those who want to say they're married to each other. And I don't know what the caller would say is my ignorance, either; I've read dozens of books and hundreds of articles on the topic of gay marriage. I'd like each person to feel self-esteem, even pride, if it's for accomplishments or positive attributes, but I think all these rainbow parades aren't as benign as they seem--they're to push a minority's political agenda and non-life-affirming sexuality on the rest of us, and that doesn't seem any more festive or friendly than the accusations and comparisons with the Taliban I heard on the radio today.

Marriage as Man & Woman: Beauty Queen Reveals it's a Lost Cause

In the midst of a glorious springtime, as I get ready to fly across the country to celebrate the college graduation of my daughter, I was was listening to my fave talk radio host...spend an hour on the pathetic topic of Miss California.

Yes, I'd read that Carrie Prejean had gotten in trouble answering Perez Hilton's question about whether every state should follow Vermont's legalization of gay marriage. I was irked that her insipid answer that "...in my family, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there, but that's the way I was raised" should get a blink, much less the pained smirk Perez Hilton gave her and the ridiculous verbiage explosion by commentators of every stripe. Hers was hardly an iconoclastic, gasp-worthy notion that required fortitude to express, especially given it's the majority view of her fellow Californians, affirmed in Proposition 8.

In fact, the little hamsters in Carrie Prejean's lovely head were sprinting on their exercise wheel as she first fumbled to answer the question: "I think it's great that Americans can choose one or the other; Americans can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage." She thinks it's great that gays can get married! Perez should have been nodding like a bobble head at that point. But the hamsters stumbled, and she backtracked, "But you know what? In my country, in my family, I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman..." Not the most articulate reversal.

Under usual circumstances, the whole confusing answer might have gone the way of Miss South Carolina's in the 2007 Miss Teen America contest, when she responded hilariously to a question about students' geographic stupidity by suggesting some people, especially in underprivileged nations such as South Africa and "the Iraq" don't have maps. This entire flap is in our faces only because 21-year-old Miss Prejean is gorgeous, and because everyone's on the lookout for amusing muddles from beauty queens.

But I find this disturbing. The fact that those on both sides are so passionately defending or deriding Carrie Prejean suggests to me that the effort to keep marriage the way it's always been assumed is lost. Never again will man-woman marriage be the taken-for-granted norm, and anyone who supports it will be chastised and and assailed. Even the innocuous Carrie Prejean thought to post-script her "courageous" expression of opinion with "no offense to anybody out there."

How depressing. Marriage has already been re-defined, even though since 2004, 26 states passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as only a man and woman. Even though Barack Obama and Joe Biden repeated during their campaigns that they believe marriage should only be male-female. Even though the California court is likely to uphold the will of its constituents in Proposition 8.

Majorities of Americans can battle and argue, but even if you're a sparkly-lipped beauty queen in a rhinestone tiara, you've got to apologize if your bible, your tradition and your eyes all tell you that "marriage" combines opposite sexes. I'm so glad that after her gaffe and some glitzy photos, Donald Trump will let Miss California keep her crown. But it's not enough to offset the disheartening reality that proponents of traditional marriage have surrendered.

Tired of Hearing about Gay Marriage?

Aarrgh! No, I'm not suddenly a pirate; that's my expression for frustration.

One of my very best friends, whom I've known for, well, more years than I confess to, called me up today and said she liked my last post about gay marriage.

With barely a sentence in-between, she then said that she's tired of hearing about gay marriage, because she feels there's nothing she can do about it; she's a fish swimming upstream, and the gay lobbies are so powerful that even if the people vote their view, the lobbies will keep pushing for the courts to overturn it.

She said, "I feel like no amount of letter writing, or emails or phone calls will make a bit of difference; they're so determined. Gays who want to get married are such an infinitesimal number of people, why don't they just live their lives and enjoy all the rights that are the same as marriage and just leave us alone?"

She wants gay marriage advocates to buzz off, but since they're not, she'll succumb to them. She said sure, she'll vote for Prop 8, and she did, but once the aggressive gay marriage advocates press to undo it, well, she doesn't like it, but feels powerless.

Do you think I'm insane for staying so passionate about this issue? Should I join my friend and go out for some decaf coffee? Should I stop writing my book because nobody wants to hear about this anymore?

Wiping Out Rights--Not Possible with Proposition 8 in California

An article in the Thursday Wall Street Journal about gay marriage in California caught my eye. In his "Law Journal" column, Geoffrey A. Fowler offers his update on the battle to strike or uphold the people's clarification of the state constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Needless to say--though absurdly, apparently necessary to say--the framers of California's state constitution in 1849 assumed "marriage" could only mean the joining of a man and a woman. But last year, the state supreme court did not hold that way--so the people voted to make their intention clear.

Last week, arguments supporting voters' will (Proposition 8) were made by Ken Starr, and opposed by former "Governor Moonbeam" Jerry Brown. It looks like the court will uphold Proposition 8, "partly out of respect for California's initiative process," throwing 18,000 gay "marriages" performed between May and the voters' reaction into doubt.

Ken Starr pointed out that a "legal notion" of "the putative spouse doctrine" would let those marriages continue, since it basically grandfathers in relationships made by those believing their joining was actually marriage, even if they really weren't.

The Journal piece says this "could open yet another legal challenge from an unmarried gay couple saying they are being treated unequally. 'We haven't seen this kind of targeted wiping out of a specific group's rights before,' says David Cruz, a professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of law."

Reading that nearly cost me my dinner. Well DUH, of course marriages between two of the same gender would be treated differently than marriages between opposites! They are basically, fundamentally, irreducibly different! Resisting the effort to homogenize two sexes into one doesn't imply one is inferior but recognizes the reality that they are different. All the popular paperbacks out there written by scientists telling us that women's brains are different from men's brains, and every cell in their bodies clearly marked as either male or female don't seem to be enough to convince these agenda-driven crusaders of simple fact.

Okay. Maybe one or two of these guys admit that male and female are different, but they think that shouldn't matter--for the purpose of marriage, they should be interchangeable. The mantra is "a person should be able to marry whomever he or she chooses."

Well, tough luck, even if gay marriage were the law, no one would be able to marry whom he or she chooses. A person could not marry his sibling. A person could not marry a second or third or fourth spouse. A person could not marry a child. A person could not marry his pet.

At least, not legally. I suppose a person could indeed perform a little ceremony and "marry" his sister or son or goat. But the government wouldn't recognize it, and I doubt gay activists would, either.

But the part of the article quote above that really irks me is not the fact gay marriage advocates ignore (and likely support!) continued restrictions on marriage. What gets my...well, goat...is the stupidity and ignorance of this David Cruz, supposedly aware of the legal rulings of his state, who suggests that any "rights" of gays who choose to legally couple would be removed or lost. And the reason for that is that California has a law, enacted in January, 2005, that specifically gives registered domestic partners in that state "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations and duties under the law...as granted to married spouses." (California Family Code, Section 297-297.5)

But gays don't want all the rights and protections they claim to want; they've already got them. They want the word marriage specifically in order to erase any differences between the sexes, for the purpose of changing morals--so that their sexual act is just as respectable, lofty and important to society as the sexuality of heterosexuals who, theoretically at least, may create the next generation.

I'm not a homophobe. I have gay close relatives and gay friends, and I hope they enjoy their lives with whomever they please. But to suggest that the consequences of their sex act, and even their permanent human commitment, is as valuable and important to society as the combining of opposites--i.e. that society has an equal stake in recognizing or setting aside their union--is a denial of reality. The joining of male and female is different than the joining of two males or two females, and I personally believe the effort to shrug off and eliminate noting that is insane.

Professor Cruz, California citizens who voted for Proposition 8 seek no "targeted wiping out of a specific group's rights." The rights of gays to form permanent unions, simply called "domestic partnerships" in recognition of obvious differences between genders, stands. Nobody's rights for all the benefits and obligations of marriage change one bit. Well, perhaps those who want to use the word the way it's been used for thousands of years--our rights are under assault.

Marriage has a definition that recognizes undeniable sex differences. That's the issue. It's not some evil plot to remove "rights."

"Shame" Penn "Milks" the Oscars for Extant "Equal Rights" for Gays

Did you watch the Academy Awards? Me, neither. Well, I saw Hugh Jackman's opening song-collage and thought, "eh." With my criteria for films of no violence, no suspense and no slapstick, I hadn't seen any of the contenders for awards. Plus, I had better stuff to do with three-and-a-half hours on a Sunday evening.

But I asked someone who did see the Oscars about it, and he told me (among other things) that Sean Penn's nod for "Milk" was unexpected, and that "Milk" also won for Best Original Screenplay. He said the show ignored politics and the expected kudos to Barack Obama, except when Penn called him "elegant." I decided to check out his acceptance on You Tube.

I realize that Sean Penn won Best Actor for his portrayal of one now considered a standard-bearer for gay rights. But I was surprised at the venom with which he "shamed" those on the prevailing side in a California election: "...I think it's a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame, and the shame in their grand-children's eyes if they continue that way of support. We've got to have equal rights for everyone..." His voice was cracking.

OK, I realize he means "equal rights to marry whom one chooses." But everyone does have equal rights, including to legally marry a person of the opposite gender, and he has equal restrictions, too (from marrying a child, from marrying one already married, from marrying one's sibling, etc.). Everyone also has equal rights to make personal commitments, live with whom he chooses, pledge love, and organize (no pun intended) his sex life.

Then I decided to watch the acceptance speech of Dustin Lance Black, who grabbed the statuette for "Milk's" Best Original Screenplay: "The story of Harvey Milk gave me hope that I could live my life and one day get married..." (Am I to assume this person I've never heard of before could be...gay?)

He continued, "If Harvey had not been taken from us...I think he'd want me to say to all the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight...that you're beautiful, wonderful creatures of value, and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you and that very soon, I promise you, that you will have equal rights federally across this great nation of ours [sic]."

I agree. Every person is a wonderful creature of value, loved by God, with equal rights federally (across this great nation of ours)-- except for lots of stuff that varies by many different kinds of status. For example...It's great there's no military draft at the moment, but even now men age 18 (and not women of any age) have to register. Here in my community, free anonymous AIDS tests are being offered--to black people only. In nearly every public establishment, rest rooms are segregated by gender. And I notice that my national phone company has some nifty offers going--to new customers only. Or look at all the rewards Obama's stimulus package gives to only defaulting homeowners--discriminating against the financially responsible.

Meanwhile, I was catching up on my "mountain" of newspapers-to-be-read, and while savoring the delight of my favorite section, New York Times' "Style," I came across two articles that suggest public homosexual coupling is already ho-hum. One, from the December 21, 2008 (okay, I'm way behind) "Vows" column, celebrated the marriage of Jeff Weinstein, 61, and John Perreault, 71, shown embracing in a one-third-page color photo, as Rachel Peters, a Provincetown, Mass. Justice of the Peace, smiles approvingly.

Mr. Perreault, in case you're not a New Yorker, "was an art critic at The Village Voice and then The SoHo News, and his nude portrait by the painter Alice Neel is part of the permanent collection of the Whitney Museum of American Art." Mr. Weinstein is "an arts and culture commentator," formerly an English lecturer at San Diego State University, and also a food writer.

The reason why I'd clipped this story is because I'm doing a book on marriage as the combination of opposites, and here was a couple described in the story as "a study in congruent contrasts." One is "tall and gingery," the other "short and dark." One "is a slow burner" while the other's "a live wire." One, "a people person," the other "more of a loner." Why do you need two sexes to have "opposites"?

Well, you don't need two sexes to have opposites unite. But you need two sexes for legal marriage, government's sanction for sexual coupling that theoretically could (and usually does) include the creation of society's future generation.

Jeff and John, who love each other, made a lifelong commitment in 1977. They worked during that time to gain benefits for their partnership accorded married people, successfully advocating for employee health benefits at The Village Voice in 1982. They've apparently enjoyed a close and mutually rewarding relationship for 32 years.

I found the article about their ceremony touching: "Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Perreault wept while reading Walt Whitman poems to each other," after which they moved matching friendship rings from their right to their left hands. I wish them well. "John continues to surprise me," Jeff said of his new "spouse." "I still don't know what's deep inside him. And I still want to know."

I'm not going to touch "what's deep inside him." I really don't want to know. Because plenty of men have close bonds with other men, even the love and commitment that long-term friendship can bring. Even sharing an abode doesn't necessarily imply any kind of hook-up. Plenty of people room together--and become best friends and confidants--but wouldn't dream of a homosexual liaison.

The only thing clearly different between those relationships and Jeff and John's is the physical attraction and expression that's part of Jeff and John's connection. It is that aspect that causes Mr. Perrault and Mr. Weinstein to declare their devotion and live together rather than just meet up for poker, or to peruse museums and sample gourmet restaurants. Or even to have a lively intellectual interchange via phone, email or in-person chats.

Now comes the question: "But the difference between platonic and romantic cross-sex relationships is sexual expression, too. Why should straights get the perks of marriage, and gays not?" Answer: because straights had the word 'marriage' first--and always used it to mean the combining of physiologically opposite genders sexually, the outcome of which can be vastly consequential.

Note two aspects to that answer: 1) "...physiologically opposite genders..." Men and women are different in every cell of their bodies. They fit together in a way suggested by anatomy. 2) "...the outcome of which can be vastly consequential." Male-female sexuality enables the creation of new human beings who require nurturing and support until adulthood. The permanent joining of parents for the upbringing of offspring is of crucial importance to society.

The second article I clipped from The Times' "Sunday Style" section (February 15, 2009) is a "Field Notes" column, "Of Course You Can Have It All," about gays' wedding (and commitment/civil union) ceremonies. What struck me is the insistence that two men or two women pledging their lives to each other is identical to opposite sexes marrying.

For example, Berkeley, CA (surprise!) residents Tina Cansler, 31, a college student, gave her partner, Katie Krolikowski, 35, a biology professor, a solitaire diamond ring, spurring "close family friend" Kim Smith to host for them "a traditional engagement party" which, she said "is completely appropriate" given "that it is the same kind of relationship as if a man and woman were to get married."

Berkeley resident (yes) Cortney Bucks, 29, also presented a diamond when she got on one knee and proposed to Stacy Thompson, 31: "Politically and cathartically it was important to us to have all the things men and women have in preparation for their marriage," Ms. Bucks declared. "I kept thinking, 'Why shouldn't we, why couldn't we have it all?"

May I respond, Ms. Bucks? You can have all the accoutrements of traditional marriages--the ring, the bended-knee, the blow-out reception, the fabulous gowns--but you can never have "it all" because "it" is the combining of male and female. That is marriage. And unless the term is re-defined against citizens' will (remember, you can't make "table" into "chair" without losing all specificity, which is what definitions are all about), "marriage" is all we've got to describe cross-sex permanent commitment.

The issue is about semantics, but semantics are crucial. I don't mind if two men or two women want to make their lives together, or want to get engaged or want to call their relationship anything they want. I don't mind if they receive benefits that nowadays unmarried heterosexual live-togethers do. I'm actually glad when gays and lesbians maintain stable relationships, because commitment brings mature behavior, which is good for society.

But I want to protect the definition of marriage, because without it, there's no term at all for that unique combining of male and female, the only means to create children, and the best way to raise them.

So, Sean Penn and Dustin Lance Black, enjoy your gold Oscars. Keep assuring audiences that God loves them, and that they have value. But don't use the positive, noble-sounding term "equal rights," as a euphemism for "eliminate marriage as the world has always known it."

I promise you, Sean, Dustin and "all the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight," right now, federally, you have equal rights... across this great nation of ours. The folks who voted in Proposition 8 in California don't hate you. They're just feeling defensive about the "marriage" they know and hold dear.

One Reassurring Election Result

The good news in an otherwise disheartening slate of returns was that voters in California, where I was born, raised and lived until moving to the Northwest a dozen years ago, confirmed their previous declaration that marriage can only be defined as one man, one woman.

After four-and-a-half months of gay marriage, sanctioned by only a one-judge margin (4-3) in a case negating the citizens' 2000 ballot initiative and a law that defined marriage traditionally, a majority inserted the time-honored definition into the state constitution, where it cannot be dislodged.

Though this may tear asunder the use of a particular word for gay couples, it does nothing to change their practical status, as California law already gives those in civil unions complete parity of rights with married couples.

And of course, gays always had an equal right to marry, the same right as any other adult, to choose one of the opposite gender. All that's happened is something linguistic, but deeply significant. It is a message that there are indeed gender differences that must be recognized, and even more importantly, that there is one combining of those differences that we hold as the highest, and for most, God-sanctified means of building connections, raising children, and creating a stable society.

This is extremely meaningful for me, as my husband had suggested I put my work on hold pending California's vote. I'm doing a book explaining the importance of marriage as the uniting of opposites; if Proposition 8 had failed, it would have opened the door for national gay marriage and symbolized Americans' indifference toward my subject. With Barack Obama's pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, nothing could have stopped state reciprocity and the generalizing and devaluing of the institution. Now, I'll write with greater urgency.

And what about those same-sex couples who thought they'd married? There's no way to know how many people this affects, since shortly after the mid-May ruling, wedding licenses in California began listing "Party A" and "Party B" for "bride" and "groom." A study released last month by UCLA's Williams Institute looked at the differences in marriage rates between pre-and post-gay marriage rulings at the same times of year, and assumed any increase was gays. Using that questionable standard, they announced that 11,000 gay marriages had been performed. Williams' Gary Gates says many of these are couples who traveled to California for the ceremony, since the bulk of the weddings occurred at top tourist destinations.

By comparison, Massachusetts, the only other state legalizing gay unions, records 10,385 such couplings in four years --since May, 2004, according to a recent LA Times article.

The big fear was that Californians, like the proverbial frog boiled in slowly-heated water, had grown used to the idea of gay marriage, and, given big donors to the No on 8 campaign like the Service Employees International Union ($500,000) and the California Teachers Assn. ($250,000), would roll over and accept it. This outcome reassures us that no matter who's at the helm of the political wheel, our basic values will keep our nation turning the right direction.

Gimme Shelter

It's almost the "Feast of Tabernacles," the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. It's called "the season of our rejoicing," as God has allowed us to clear our slates at Yom Kippur, and now, by constructing a booth in our back yard where we take all our meals and spend as much time as we can, we show our confidence that God provides our true shelter.

We have eight days of holiday, the first two and last two being full-out "yom tov," days when, like Shabbat, we stop work and any creative activity. The big difference from the Sabbath for families like us who are hosting guests in our succa is that we can cook via the transfer of flame. The intermediate days of the festival are less restrictive but still a notch more special than non-holidays.

This year we enter the festive week more acutely aware of our vulnerability, which is a theme of Sukkot. Our backyard booths, covered by cut branches--in the northwest, fir--have roofs whose formerly-living, water-filled organic matter evoke the "clouds of glory" that protected the Jews in their historic wanderings in the wilderness prior to entry in the Promised Land. In the wilderness, the Jews were dependent on God for everything, from their manna food to the miraculous repair of their clothing, to their climate-controlled environments. The message? After being forgiven our sins, we must not get too cocky and assume our own amenities are any less from God.

With the stock market tumbling, the government scrambling, voters confused, disenchanted and seeking change, we are all feeling vulnerable.

It makes me anxious. Not only is national finance teetering, but so are institutions that have been the bedrock of civilization. Connecticut, in a 4-3 judicial ruling Thursday that cannot be appealed, will begin allowing gay marriages October 28. The decision written by Judge Richard Palmer held that civil unions violate equal protection clauses, a whopper of a difference from the rulings (also each by one judge's vote) that brought gay marriage to Massachusetts and California. This is a precedent whose domino effect could destroy the essential character of marriage, and yet with news dominated by an election maelstrom and financial chaos, received yawning coverage and little comment.

Yes, it's the economy, stupid, and stupid we are, most folk parroting buzzwords like "subprime mortgage" and "fannie mae and freddie mac" without really understanding what's going on. Derivitives? Hedge funds? Can you clearly define them? Yet most people are willing to blame Bush for it all, forgetting that we were in a huge boom just last October, and it's only since Democrats controlled both houses of Congress that suddenly those "subprimes" and "fannie and freddie" caused Wall Street collapse. In fact, in the last presidential debates, "Wall Street" was used as a synonym for "greed and corruption."

It's just not that simple.

And so, with much insecurity, we move to our succa. I personally could use a dose of emuna, faith in God. I can't say that sitting in the succa for meals provides it for me, frankly. But serving our guests, observing this time together as a family, noting the colder nights and threatening rain does remind me that political and financial issues are, like most everything, temporal. This, too, shall pass, and so being anxious about it serves no purpose at all.

Chag Sameach--a happy, meaningful Sukkot--and may we all take refuge in the most significant kind of shelter.