It's becoming a tiresome scenario. Gay marriage proponents win a round and the religious right strikes back. That's certainly the case in Massachusetts, the only state in the country where gay marriage is now legal. Spurred on by a petition drive by a right-wing "pro-family" group, a lame duck state legislature on Tuesday January 2 backed a proposed anti-gay amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. The measure must be voted on again to go on next year's ballot. At this writing, it seems fairly certain that it will be approved, despite last minute maneuvering by the state's newly elected Democratic governor, Deval Patrick, who supports gay marriage.

If the voters approve the measure, it will mark an end to wedding bells for queer couples. Only those with opposite genitals would legally be able to make the trip down the aisle. The proposition would not, however, invalidate the licenses of those queer couples who have already exchanged vows.

I'm not a big fan of marriage. I don't think the state has any business legitimatizing and rewarding anyone's relationship. Married couples get a lot of benefits I as a single person do not enjoy. Not only tax breaks but also shared health benefits, insurance rate cuts, etc. It's not fair. Government should stay out of our bedrooms and personal lives altogether.

But since right-wingers insist on defining marriage as a union of two persons with different genitals, I suggest that they take their crusade to its logical conclusion. In this age of gender blurring, anyone can claim to be anything they want. What's to stop a passable drag queen with an androgynous name from marrying her downtown corporate-type boyfriend? "Do you Chlamydia Jones take Johnny Gogetter for your lawfully wedded husband?"

In order to assure that the letter of the law is adhered to, I propose a a simple dropping of the pants. That way, the county clerk could see for him- or herself that it's a dick and a vagina who will be reciting their "I Dos." Photos could be taken to keep a permanent public record. That way no one could ever question the validity of the union. And future historians could have proof that in Massachusetts marriage wasn't for sissies.

In fact, "I now pronounce you dick and vagina," could be the new conclusion to the marriage ceremony in the Bay State. To further ensure that neither party ever violates this rule, each could swear on the Bible not to alter their genitals. "I do hereby swear not to tamper with my god-given genitals that make this marriage a holy institution under the lord my god who is of course a fully-equipped patriarch, capable of fornicating with a bona fide virgin to produce offspring of the godly kind."

Once this proposition becomes law, ads could be placed on buses and subways (not to mention Fox TV) explaining who can be legally wed in Massachusetts. Celebrities could contribute photos of their body parts for the billboards. Young fans would be inspired to emulate their idols in pursuing marriages that adhere to the state's new definition. The genitals of music stars and even ex-presidents (Bill Clinton comes to mind) could make their appearances as well. "And now Celine Dion and Enrique Iglesias' genitals with a special message..." Fallen right-wingers such as Mark Foley and Ted Haggart could redeem themselves by allowing their dicks to be used in this wholesome manner.

Public displays of married genitals would be seen as pro-family.

Tommi Avicolli Mecca is a radical, southern Italian, working-class queer performer, writer and activist whose work can be seen at www.avicollimecca.com and myspace.com/peacenikssf.