I got stuck dealing with a dead hard disk and couldn't make it up to Cambridge City Hall tonight. I'm considering a quick trip up during lunch, assuming I'm not home waiting for the refrigerator repairman (it's been that kind of week).

But no matter how crazy things are for me today -- and it is now TODAY, the City of Cambridge, my city, has been issuing licenses for 45 minutes now -- I will be thinking happy thoughts that finally, my marriage license means something new. It means something I can share with those who have been denied it in the past. Ron Crews can claim that his marriage is somehow devalued by this; mine is strengthened.

Shared joy is increased.

Let. There. Be. Love.

Let there be love!

Huzzah, huzzah!

I made it to Cambridge City Hall tonight. If you will forgive the self-promotion: the best of the pictures and all the pictures (including the Morris dancers), full-sized. I wish I was a better photographer.

A little after midnight, we all sung the Star Spangled Banner. Take that, Fred Phelps.

Man, Bryant, were those spectators, participants, friends and family, or what? What a crowd!

Little bit of everything. You can't really see it in the pictures, but there was a roped off pathway up to the City Hall; every few minutes a couple would head up and into the building to the accompanyment of wild cheering.

It was incredible.

The first victory in what will probably be a long war...but let us be gay! As it were.

I think we'll win, ultimately. And the arguments against same-sex marriage will seem as ridiculous in a couple of decades as the arguments against racial marriage seem now -- funny, they're the same arguments.

I wonder if it's a coincidence that the official start of legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts began on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education? I'm betting the MA Supreme Court had it in mind.

I wonder if it's a coincidence that the official start of legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts began on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education? I'm betting the MA Supreme Court had it in mind.

Their decision was announced November 18 (I remember because it was my birthday), so this is about six months later. I thought that was the criterion they had in mind.

But it's a nice coincidence.

Cue The Flintstones theme song: "We'll have a gay old time!"

I just checked the "Days between two dates" section of the World Almanac ("Don't leave home without it"), and it's been 181 days from November 18, 2003, to today, May 17, 2004. I don't know if the Mass. Supreme Court included the extra day because yesterday was Sunday or because of the leap year.

Meanwhile, W doesn't seem to get the resonance between what's happening today and what happened fifty years ago. This is on the Yahoo! Reuters news feed:

TOPEKA, Kan. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) renewed his call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday as gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts became the first in the United States to marry legally.

"The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate," the Republican president said in a written statement.

The White House issued the statement as hundreds of gay and lesbian couples lined up to exchange wedding vows in Massachusetts, and as Bush traveled to Topeka to commemorate the 50th anniversary of a landmark Supreme Court ruling that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional.

Most moronic argument against same-sex marriage I've seen so far today:

"Until they can prove that two men or two women can have children," Mr. Grasso added, "to me it is not marriage. It is filth."

From this NYTimes article

So, Mr. Grasso, where would that put you in the human cloning debate?

Wow. So men with low sperm count or women with blocked fallopian tubes who get married are "filth", too, by that logic.

Nice, Mr. Grasso.

Funny thing, though; Andy's NYT link now leads to an article with no mention of Mr. Grasso. Instead they have this charming quote:

"Two men and two women marrying each other is a passport to hell" said Katherine Hockenbarger from Topeka, Kan., who was standing on an American flag.

Aside from the ambiguity about what "two men and two women marrying each other" means, stop degrading our flag, Ms. Hockenbarger!

Hey, can we sic the anti-flag-burning idiots on her?

Lois: the decision just says that it's stayed for 180 days, not until May 17, 2004. My guess is that under general rules of construction, it got bumped a day because it would have been Sunday.

But I bet they knew it would be Sunday. I dunno, they didn't have to hand down their ruling on the exact day they did either.

But perhaps I sound like I'm accusing them of "judicial activism," so I'll shut up now.

Coincidence. That's it. :-)

For the Grasso article, try here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/national/17OPPO.html

I must have copy-and-pasted from the wrong window. Sorry!

Wow. So men with low sperm count or women with blocked fallopian tubes who get married are "filth", too, by that logic.

There are people who think that way. Two good friends of mine, who adopted because they had fertility problems, found out just how many of their families think this way. Especially when they went to a family wedding and the priest made a very pointed sermon about how the only purpose of marriage is procreation, making it quite clear who he was referring to.

Wow, Julia. What a scumbag. I didn't quite realize there were anti-adoption activists out there. So this jerk priest thinks orphans should all be raised in foster care? And he thinks couples who discover after marriage that they have fertility problems should get annulments?

Wow. The levels of depravity that result from mindlessly following rules (as opposed to thoughtfully applying principles) never cease to amaze me.

What did they do? Did they walk out?

I'm reminded of a wedding I went to once...the sermon was so appalling (the bride was pregnant) that everyone was talking all through the reception about how disgusting it was. Even the minister's son distanced himself! In the receiving line, I told the groom "well, you're married now. That means you never have to stand there and listen to someone call your wife a whore again."

Got me a big grin from a pretty boy. Always nice. Up to that point (this is before the reception, remember) he hadn't realized that anyone else shared his opinion, or noticed the heroic self-control it took him not to reach over and paste the dude.

Slugging the officiant generally doesn't improve matters at a wedding, I'd say. And it wouldn't have been appropriate, though by the end of the sermon it probably would have gotten a standing ovation.

Xopher posts: And he thinks couples who discover after marriage that they have fertility problems should get annulments?

Sad to say, he probably thinks couples who discover fertility problems after marriage should be forced to get annulments ... thereby leaving out any chance that they might decide to stay married anyway. Right now I don't put a lot of credence into anything Catholic priests say about sex, for obvious reasons. (Assuming he was Catholic -- Julia actually didn't say).

Oh, god Xopher - did that minister go into the whole "Whore Gomer" passage? One of my friends had that tagged on to her during her wedding, and that minister barely escaped the premises with his smug mug intact.

My wife and I currently have no children, and our marriage ceremony was in her parents' back yard, officiated by the mayor of the town. No religious involvement, no procreation--so by many of the anti-same-sex-marriage "arguments" it's just as invalid as any of the marriages that were able to finally begin taking place yesterday.

Is it any wonder why I'm so angry at the opponents who spout said arguments?

{mutter}will look into that plug-in, just had the post eaten when the link dropped{/mutter}

From what they said, the priest wasn't anti-adoption as such, just anti anyone who wasn't going to breed more little Catholics being allowed to marry. He'd probably have been perfectly happy for the kids to be adopted by a couple who were producing on their own account on a regular basis.

And yes, it was a Roman Catholic wedding, although the attitude can be found in other denominations. It probably didn't help that they'd both ended their previous marriages by divorce.

I know sane, thoughtful, compassionate Catholic priests who'd be horrified by this sort of behaviour. I just have to remind myself of that every so often.

Another place the "marriage is for procreation" argument doesn't wash is marriages between people past the age of procreation. There doesn't seem to be any barriers to getting married for those in rest homes or retirement communities (other than complaints of children worried about their inheritance that is). I suspect Liz Taylor has been past her childbearing years for at least the last couple of her marriages. And (to play devil's advocate) wouldn't that argument suggest that older men should divorce wives past the age of fertility and marry fertile ones?

I'm appalled by the "holier than thou" behavior at some weddings. Sigh, why can't people just learn the golden rule? "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything." (the musical strains of "What the world needs now. Is love, sweet love." echo through the hollows of my mind).
Anon

Useful tip: if the link from the NYT has that "CND" bit in it (like the one Andy Perrin initially posted), it means it's a continuing story, and will probably be superseded later. I think I got that from CJR's Campaign Desk or Jay Rosen's Press Think, but wherever. It's saved me some confusion to know that.

Jill - actually is was the Harlot of Babylon IIRC. He may have mentioned that whole "go and sin no more" bit too, to show that he was a Compassionate Conservative. If his sermon had been a comment post here, it'd've been disemvowelled in a hurry.

Shelly Rae Clift, I thought the Golden Rule was "Do unto others..." Not that yours isn't good too. (I forget where I first heard it as "If you can't say something nice about a person, come sit next to me.")

Another rule I like is the "Two Out Of Three" rule. Under the TOOT rule, you evaluate whether something you're considering saying is a) True, b) Necessary, and/or c) Kind. If you have at least two out of three, say it. I'm not too good at keeping this rule, mind you (favoring, in practice, a set more like "a) At least half true, b) Witty, and/or c) Kind"), but I'm trying to reform!

Xopher, I'd never heard that TOOT rule before; it's great! Not that I expect to be able to keep it myself, but I'll try.

"If you can't say something nice about a person, come sit next to me" is usually attributed to Alice Roosevelt, I believe. Love the TOOT rule!

"Another place the "marriage is for procreation" argument doesn't wash is marriages between people past the age of procreation. There doesn't seem to be any barriers to getting married for those in rest homes or retirement communities (other than complaints of children worried about their inheritance that is)."

Actually this prohibition was routine in nursing homes until fairly recently - mid-eighties or so. Even married couples were given single beds, or separate rooms (with other roommates!). The idea that someone's parents' peers might have the urge to be sexually active ticked off way too many people. One of the many things I don't understand, don't want to understand, about my fellow humans.

It's interesting to see reports about marriage-is-for-procreation types who actually apply this to opposite-sex couples who are elderly, infertile, etc. This is insane, but at least it's consistent.

The line I've more usually seen is the mealy-mouthed "in principle any opposite-sex couple is fertile." And in principle, ostriches and penguins can fly.

An anti-gay marriage poster at Amptoons used the metaphor of two glasses of water. A given 12-oz. glass may be empty, but in principle it can hold more water than a 6-oz. glass. Amp gave the perfect answer: "This doesn't mean we should then prohibit drinking out of 6-oz. glasses."