In 2003, the Massachusetts Senate had certified a question to the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asking if a proposed civil unions
bill that EXPLICITLY provides that “eligible same-sex couples the
opportunity to obtain the benefits, protections, rights and
responsibilities afforded to opposite sex couples by the marriage laws
of the commonwealth, without entering into a marriage” and that
“spouses in a civil union shall have all the same benefits,
protections, rights and responsibilities under law as are granted to
spouses in a marriage”. Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440
Mass. 1201, 802 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 2004)

Several gay rights groups submitted amici briefs arguing that the
civil unions bill would violate the Massachusetts ERA, on the basis
that civil unions are “separate and unequal” and a form of
“segregation”, GLAD Brief, Opinions, at 12, because they denied the
“social recognition” that comes with marriage, Id. at 24,they would
“mark [same-sex couples] as inferior to their heterosexual
counterparts and diminish their status in the community” regardless of
whether they provided “the same benefits, protections,rights and
responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”,
Civil Rights Brief in Opinions at 12 , and that civil unions “would
not constitute equality, because their relationships still would not
be recognized by the rest of society as being as valued as
heterosexual relationships.” id. at 13

And in Li v. State of Oregon, 338 Or 376, 388, 110 P3d 91 (Or. Sup.
Ct. 2005) plaintiffs had argued that civil unions would be “inherently
stigmatizing" and "inherently separate and unequal” Reply Brief of
Plaintiff-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, Li, at 10.

And in Jackson v. Abercrombie , the plaintiffs are suing because of
the "special status" of marriage, not just
the "bundle of rights" which the civil union law would allow them. See
Complaint in Jackson v. Abercrombie, CV11-009734-ACK-KSC, at 13,
quoting Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 315 at
289, 957 A.2d 407 at 416 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2008)

The underlying fallacies of these arguments are the assumptions that
the social recognition and social value, and social status of marriage
is independent of the male-female dynamic, and that heterosexual
relationships are valued BECAUSE they are called marriages. If this be
so, it is not because of anything in the proposed civil unions acts,
but the solely due to the construction sodomist fundamentalists choose
to put upon it.

In other words, the purpose of same-sex “marriage” is to make sodomist
fundamentalists feel better about themselves.

The inmates are running the asylum. Now let's get some pedophiles in top leadership positions so pedophilia can be legalized.

This is no joke, folks. If you want your kids taught that homosexuality is acceptable behavior in public schools; if you want your kid to experiment with and consider a homosexual lifestyle, keep electing homosexuals into leadership positions, keep promoting homosexuals within your organizations, and keep your mouth shut about your concerns about homosexual indoctrination of your children. The country will be like California in no time.

Here's a nice picture of Speaker Fox with the guy he sodomizes (or from whom he is sodomized): https://picasaweb.google.com/114721726276672302782/RepresentativeFox?authuser=0&feat=directlink#5699835794263702290