Well I dont find fault with the logic that the Court used to strike down the Civil Union law and make the definition of marriage apply to any couple.

Quote Originally Posted by initial article
“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”
The logic of the court falls in line with the Equal Opporunity laws that have been legislated by both the United States Congress and from what I can read that most states have also legislated also.


Just to throw a bit of history into the equation the purpose of a state sanctioned marriage was never about love or emotion it was about something else entirily