My marriage is about to collapse. And it's my fault.

Or so say opponents of Boston's domestic partnership legislation.

Written by me and approved by the City Council on a 9-4 vote, the legislation has been stalled before the Massachusetts House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House held up any vote, instead referring the legislation to the Supreme Judicial Court for review.

The Court just recently gave the proposed law a clean bill of health. It is now back before the House.

On its face the legislation doesn't do much. It extends spousal health benefits to the handful of city workers who are gay and have registered as couples under Boston's domestic partnership ordinance. Probably only a few dozen people will be directly affected by it.

But the controversy the legislation has created isn't really about extending health benefits to a new group of workers. It runs far deeper than that. As opponents of the legislation correctly understand, the real issue at stake is civil recognition of gay relationships.

When heterosexuals choose to commit themselves to a long-term relationship, civil society acknowledges that relationship and calls it marriage. Marriage is an important and serious institution. When heterosexuals marry, we take their union seriously. We provide many incentives for them to stay together, including special tax treatment, spousal benefits and the like. We provide strong sanctions should they decide to divorce.

When one looks at how we treat marriage, it's quite clear: we want people to get married. There are good reasons for that. Marriage provides stability not only for couples, but for communities. It is arguably one of the most critical building blocks upon which our society is based.

Gays and lesbians cannot get married however. Why not?

Is it because they cannot (conventionally) have children? If so then why do we permit marriages where couples are infertile or too old to have children?

Is it because they are incapable of entering into long-term relationships? Plainly not. One's sexual orientation does not determine one's capacity for monogamy (or promiscuity). Indeed, there are many gay and lesbian couples I know whose relationships have endured for decades — far longer than many marriages.

Is it because we would prefer gays to be promiscuous instead of monogamous? Is it because we would prefer gay relationships to be short-lived rather than long term? Hardly.

The only objection to gay marriage ultimately comes down to some notion that it undermines straight marriage. Somehow, the argument runs, permitting gays to marry degrades the notion of marriage itself.

So back to the original question. Is my marriage hurt by domestic partnerships? Is my marriage hurt by gay marriage?

Not at all. When gays and lesbians argue that they want to marry, they are arguing on behalf of marriage itself. They are arguing that it is such a desirable institution that it should be extended to them as well. The notion of gay marriage does not mock the institution of marriage. It exalts it.

This July 21st marks the 14th year Laurie and I have been married. It's a good institution — so good, it should be extended to all.