Well I was just doing some reading about the recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and found this article with lots of information in it.
Well I had a problem with the decision as soon as I read this part.
The Massachusetts decision made no mention of an alternative solution [Vermont's decision to allow civil union], but instead pointed to a recent decision in Ontario, Canada, that changed the common law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to the issuance of marriage licenses there.
Who cares what Canada does? You cannot make laws in your country based on what other countries do. If we did that weed would be legal (which may not be a bad idea), and apartheid would have been abolished just after South Africa got rid of it (which apartheid is a bad idea).
Parts of the decision were based on the separate but equal principle which apartheid is based on:
"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion requested by the state Senate.
The difference is that people are born black (it is genetic), and people become gay (if you can find a gay gene, all the gay people will give you lots of money). The homosexual people (or to be politically correct the non-heterosexual people) have chosen to be different, and therefore should be treated differently. No one (who is rational) proposes criminals should get the same rights as free people. Criminals choose to be different, and are therefore treated differently.