"Don't Look, Ethel!"

First of all, as I set out to write this, I would like to say that as far as I'm concerned, I AM married.

Robert Samuel Cox became my first and only husband (and third spouse) the day I moved in with him under his roof on June 13, 2006. That day will always be our official anniversary as long as we live, and no matter how many times we make it "legal," in however many different states and countries during our lifetime together, which I hopes lasts at least until he is 103 and I am 107 (start saving now for our golden anniversary party, folks).

I am fond of saying that I don't need to go through any church ceremonies to bless Robert's and my relationship. Every morning that we wake up together in each other's arms, we know that God has blessed us and approves of our love. It's as simple as that. We know, and God knows, that we are meant to be together and that the first halves of our separate lives were simply an overture to a great love story between two men who make each other complete.

Of course, what we know and what God knows isn't shared knowledge. There are people out there --- family members, strangers, politicians and preachers --- who think they know how we and other gay and lesbian people should live our lives. As of this writing, they have won most of the battles and have done their best to second-guess us and God by passing laws that prevent us from qualifying for marriage under American law and refusing to approve laws that allow us to have the same legal status as our heterosexual counterparts.

If it were just a matter of having people disapprove of our "lifestyle" --- a word used as a purposeful insult by that unattractive old right-wing religious zealot, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and other unfocused fools --- we wouldn't give a darn, a damn, or a diddly-squat about human marriage laws. Our LIVES --- the heartbeats that keep us going and grow stronger with love for each other every day --- are not a fashion statement, a style, a choice (although at this point, if I COULD choose my sexual orientation, I see no reason to choose to be anything but what makes me the happy person I have become). It is just rude (and un-Christian) for Dobson and other dingleberries of his ilk to call it anything else.

But because American laws have been perverted by bigotry from allowing Robert and me automatic rights to inherit each other's estates, name each other as insurance beneficiaries, visit each other in hospitals and be considered a family, I have to support the issue of gay marriage. Which is why I urge everyone reading this to observe National Freedom to Marry Day in whatever supportive way they can.

National Freedom to Marry Day is a non-official United States holiday held annually on Feb. 12 to promote same-sex marriage. The holiday was founded in 1999 by Lambda Legal, a gay rights advocacy law firm based out of Washington, DC.

The most notable National Freedom to Marry Day was February 12, 2004 when, following a directive from San Francisco, California mayor Gavin Newsom to his county clerk, the City and County of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On February 10, Newsom had asked the clerk's office to make the changes on the "forms and documents used to apply for and issue marriage licenses…in order to provide [them] on a non–discriminatory basis."

It is my opinion that the states' involvement in the use of the word "marriage" as a description for the legal act of two people being given the right to live together constitutes a violation of the Constitutional separation of church and state. "Marriage" should be a word restricted to church use --- a description of the ceremony used by many different kinds of religions to unite two people together in the eyes of whatever deity is being worshipped. "Civil union" or "domestic partnership" is a neutral legal term that correctly describes what happens when the state gets involved in recognizing the decision of two people who live together.

The word "marriage" has evolved to have a connotation of religiosity attached to it, and therefore, should be left to churches, synagogues, temples, and other religious bodies to deal with it. The churches SHOULD have the right to marry whom they please. But the state should only prevent those unions that involve non-consenting humans or domestic animals.

I have mixed feelings about whether or not a person should be allowed to enter into such non-religious unions/partnerships with more than one person or with a close family member --- the arguments against such activities all involve the assumption of sexual activity between the people involved, and I feel that government has no business making assumptions about things potentially going on between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.

Right now, the discussion is about men forming domestic partnerships with other men and women doing the same with other women. Yes, the prospect of such possibilities offends people who believe that such activities violates their own religious beliefs. But if they don't like it, they don't have to be a part of it. As Ray Stevens said in his song, "The Streak," "Don't look, Ethel!"

Robert and I are living proof that a same-sex relationship between loving adults can be successful, or at least as boring as a heterosexual relationship, in terms of what we reveal to the outside world. We don't discuss what goes on in the privacy of our bedroom and don't ask any of our straight friends about their comparable activities. What we do talk about is our happiness with each other, our concerns (and occasional complaints) that derive from two people sharing space and air on a daily basis, finances, politics, theology, interior decorating, meal menus, each other's health, household chores, our pets, our children and our friends. The order of priorities changes from moment to moment and day by day.

When we disagree, it's usually about something pretty mundane --- Robert says my eating habits are unhealthy and that he has invested too much energy, time and money in me to have me up and die on him and find another husband. I complain that he doesn't talk enough about his feelings and wants to move to the Falkland Islands when we retire. In other words, our agenda is hardly a gay one but very much like every other married couple's --- we want to keep loving each other, be content and find ways of compromising so we don't have to sweat the small stuff.

Why anyone would want to keep two aging and boring people from sharing our wonderful, mundane lives with each other is beyond me. But the fact is, there are people who do.

It's time for the religious right to wake up and realize that their cause, while having savored the victory of a few battles, is basically a losing one. Coming generations of young people already have seen positive images of gay people in the media and will continue to do so as time goes by.

In our own basically conservative community of Middlesboro, Kentucky, most people shrug when they meet or talk about us. Robert and James are those two guys who live together on the edge of town not far from the Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. One of us has taught a couple of generations of Middlesboro's college students, and the other does background checks for gun buyers and occasionally writes for newspapers or the Internet. We go to church, perform in community theater, shop for bargains, donate time and books to the local Literacy Council Book Fair, employ a couple of our neighbors as housekeeper and landscaper, send out Christmas newsletters and occasionally entertain our gay and straight friends at our house (sometimes at the same time). One of our friends is teaching her daughter, in true southern style, to call us "Mr. Robert" and "Mr. James." A few others have invited us to baseball games, straight men's poker nights and bridal showers.

I expect that when Kentucky gets around to approving same-sex unions (it will probably be one of the last, right behind our neighbors, Tennessee and Virginia), Robert and I will have our children or some young, sturdy gay friends wheel us up the steps to the local courthouse and be made "legal." Or, we may head to all of the other states (or countries like Canada, Spain, The Netherlands and Belgium) that have already made some kind of legal arrangements for people like us and go through a ceremony there. Hey, what better way to broaden one's horizons than by getting hitched every place you visit?

Someday, when our increasingly liberal church finally takes the final step and starts performing same-sex marriage ceremonies, we will take the plunge, but it will be as much for the benefit of our friends who want to see us go through the ritual as it will be for us to confirm what we already know about our relationship: We already are married and divinely blessed.