I've had the honor of serving as best man in the weddings of two of my closest friends. In each case, I was proud to stand before a large group of family, friends and well-wishers who had gathered to celebrate the unions. I've dispensed rings, paid ministers, and witnessed the signing of marriage licenses. As happy as I was for my heterosexual friends, I understood being gay meant I was legally barred from having the same rights.

Well, not really. As groups like Lou Sheldons Traditional Values Coalition like to point out with no detectable trace of irony, I still have the right to marry. I would just have to marry a woman. It doesn't matter to them that such a marriage would be a hollow sham and a greater blasphemy to the institution than Britney Spears' 55-hours of semi-bliss. My letter to Sheldon questioning his curious silence on the pop star's headline-seeking antics went unanswered. There wasn't a mention of her Vegas nuptials on their Web site. What a surprise.

And now we have Massachusetts, whose Supreme Judicial Court issued an advisory ruling Wednesday calling for equal civil marriage rights for gay people. "Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity," the court explained, "civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition."

A "deeply troubled" President Bush, in his State of the Union speech, launched a warning shot in this culture war by blaming "activist judges" for attacking the sanctity of marriage. Bush then took a few moments to threaten a constitutional amendment to protect straight people from having to share the marriage spotlight.

Bush doesn't seem to know or care that the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by former President Clinton allows states to define marriages for themselves and allows other states to recognize or ignore same-sex marriages. Considering his budget problems, his politically-radioactive revamping of the space program and his inability to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in a election year, he was probably glad for the distraction from his record. He can't find Osama bin Laden, but he can tell straight voters he'll protect them from me. I'm oddly flattered.

Bush's definition of an "activist judge" seems to be "any judge who makes a decision I don't like." I can't be the only person who finds it ironic and remarkable that he wants to keep government out of such a sensitive and personal arena while simultaneously creating "Marriage Protection Week" and calling for government funding of marriage counseling for poor people.

Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is equally upset with these "activist judges," arguing that they've stepped into matters better reserved for the legislature. Never mind that Massachusetts has had nearly five years -- since Vermont's Supreme Court issued a similar ruling -- to deal with the issue. The state's high court interpreted existing law and found the state had given no rational reason to exclude same-sex couples from a civil institution. The "compromise" of civil unions was found lacking because it confers second-class status on gay citizens.

And make no mistake, second-class status is what this fight is about. Gay rights opponents fight tooth-and-nail to make sure gays are kept comfortably in society's margins, devoid of respect and stability, unprotected from discrimination in housing and employment. They're afraid having a state recognize gay marriages would force them to admit committed relationships
between gay people are just as alternately fulfilling, infuriating and boring as their own.

Ham-handed amendments designed to encode hateful discrimination into the Constitution of the United States are never a good idea, and a majority of Americans recognize that. I'm glad nobody thought of such and amendment when the same sky-is-falling arguments were made against interracial marriages in 1967. "Activist judges," indeed.

If Bush and Romney really want to protect marriage, they could start with a push to eliminate no-fault divorce. I'll be happy to talk to them about what constitutes a real threat to marriage when they've stopped attending to the speck in the gay population's eye while ignoring the 50 percent divorce rate beam their own.

I work. I pay taxes. I vote. I am not a second-class citizen, and I want the rights I am due as an American to marry the person of my choice. I want to share in the privileges and obligations contained in marriage. If and when I decide to marry, I will have no shortage of friends -- religious, atheist, straight and gay -- there to celebrate with me. If I'm willing to say "I do," it's not the president's place to tell me "No, you don't."