Gay activists are asking one to accept the premise that marriage belongs to a particular person in the first place. Guess what, it doesn't. The institution of marriage is much larger than any one person and is not subject to the whim of any one society. Legally, Marriage is: "The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex." Black's Law Dictionary, (Fourth Edition) No matter what the MA Supreme Judicial Court wants to pretend, homosexual relationships, no matter how "loving", are not marriages. They can never be marriages. Marriage is unique in that it is founded upon the distinction between the opposite sexes. If I have an Orange in my Hand, and I insist to you that it is an apple, That doesn't make it an apple. No matter how much I personally believe or want what I have in my hand to be an apple, it does not make it an apple. No Court, No Law, No Edict and No amount of insistance can change the fact, that what I hold in my hand is still an orange. Marriage is a unique relationship between a man and a woman BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN SEX. That last point, of which I keep harping is key. Without the fundamental difference in sex, you can't have a marriage. What makes a marriage a marriage is the unique relationship based on the Distinction of the sexes. This is the precise conclusion that the Kentucky Court of appeals reached in Jones V Hallahan when they said: In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage. This is the precise reason that the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker V Nelson stated: n commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex. (This position was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court; Baker V Nelson 409 U.S. 810) It is not the job of Congress to help a minority play pretend. It is not the job of any court, it is not a function of government. This entire issue is soley about a small and vocal minority trying to use the power of government, to rewrite the definition of a word so they can gain acceptance and approval. Just as government doesn't have the power to issue edicts pretending that the Sky is Red, neither do activists have the power to use government to pretend that their relationships are a marriage.