4. Misc.

Here's what's really undermining the sacredness of modern marriage: soap operas, wedding planning, longer work days, cuter secretaries, fights over money, reality TV, low-rise pants, mothers-in-law, boredom, Victoria's Secret catalogs, going to bed mad, the billable hour, that stubborn 7 pounds, the Wiggles, Internet chat rooms, and selfishness. In fact we should start amending the Constitution to deal with the Wiggles immediately.

Here's why marriage will likely survive last week's crushing decision out of Massachusetts: Because despite all the horrors of Section 4, above, human beings want and deserve a soul mate; someone to grow old with, someone who thinks our dopey entry in the New Yorker cartoon competition is hilarious, and someone to help carry the shopping bags. Gay couples have asked the state to explain why such privileges should be denied them and have yet to receive an answer that is credible.

The decision to make a marriage "sacred" does not belong to the state—if the state were in charge of mandating sacredness in matrimony, we'd have to pave over both Nevada and Jessica Simpson. We make marriage sacred by choosing to treat it that way, one couple at a time. We make marriage a joke by treating it like a two-week jungle safari. There is no evidence that gay couples are any more inclined toward that latter course than supermodels, rock stars, or that poor spineless bald man on Who Wants to Marry My Dad? There's good evidence that most of them will take the commitment very seriously, as do the rest of us. There will be more "sanctity" in marriage when we recognize that people of all orientations can make sacred choices. Good for Massachusetts for recognizing that truth.

In New York City today, we're suffering from a touch of cognitive dissonance. On television and radio and the front pages of our leading newspapers, we hear that federal and local authorities fear we are in such serious jeopardy that they have raised the threat alert level to orange-plus. "We've never quite seen it at this level before," said Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge. "The strategic indicators suggest that it is the most significant threat reporting since 9/11." According to White House press secretary Scott McClellan, "terrorists abroad are anticipating attacks that they believe will rival or exceed the scope and impact of those we experienced on Sept. 11."

Yet on the Op-Ed pages and the propaganda chatter channels, we're assured that the world is a far safer place since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. We're told that the Bush administration's muscular policies have forced Libya into surrender, but nobody mentions that Libya hasn't been a significant threat for at least a decade.

While we await our fate, I would like to hear the president explain how the bloody $200 billion invasion of Iraq improved our defenses against terrorism -- and also why, a week after Saddam's capture, the United States is confronting the worst threat from al-Qaida since the disaster of September 2001. Over the past several days, Washington's great minds have mocked Howard Dean for daring to say what the White House now more or less acknowledges: War in Iraq has made us no safer than we were last spring.