I may have doubts about my marriage, or the relevance of the institution for me, but I do not doubt its importance to countless millions. I've not yet discussed here that I'm an active supporter of same-sex marriage rights.

My community of friends considers it one of the major civil rights issues of our times. My sister is devoting her career to the protection of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, and in Rob's and my circle of close friends we have two sets of married women, one of which is raising an adopted daughter.

Sickeningly, thirty-seven states define marriage in such a way to prohibit the marriage of same-sex couples. Vermont reversed this trend when in 2000 it enacted civil union legislation for gay and lesbian couples and rejected constitutional amendments limiting marriage.

California followed through on comprehensive domestic partner legislation in 2003, the same year in which Massachusetts legalized gay marriage when its courts ruled it would be discriminatory to not allow same-sex couples to marry. California has now joined Massachusetts in allowing full marriage rights, and Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage just last week.

But as with the hetero population, some marriages will end in divorce (same-sex marriage has been legal for such a short time, divorce rates have not yet been established). In Massachusetts, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the same organization that fought to gain marriage for all, must now help couples divorce.

According to GLAD's document "Separation, Divorce and Marriage Equality," "Some of the federal protections available for married couples allow the couple's house and some other assets to be transferred or sold without tax consequences, allow a court to split a pension earned by one party during the marriage without tax consequences, and allow a person to continue receiving health insurance coverage through a former spouse. These protections are not available to same-sex couples."

I know same-sex marriage can be a polarizing issue, but I don't understand why. Among the most ridiculous arguments against it is that it somehow renders marriage between a man and woman less meaningful.

When a friend of mine and her girlfriend had a civil union ceremony in Vermont in 2001, it didn't change my marriage to Rob at all. But when it became legal and they got married in Massachusetts, if it did anything at all, it strengthened my bond to Rob. When couples celebrate marriage with their communities they not only strengthen their commitment to each other, but among those couples who witness the act. For a while, anyway.