An excerpt fromthe decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ...

Enlightening reading, especially for people who get all of their information from mainstream media and presidential blather about 'activist judges.' The case they make is carefully reasoned and somewhat objective. Really, the only way you could possibly take issue with the decision is if you're convinced that homosexuality is a learned or chosen behavior. Is that what we want enshrined in our Constitution?

Here, the plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions, or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race. [FN28] If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit. [FN29]