Marriage “is an engagement, by which a single man and a single woman, of sufficient discretion, take each other for husband and wife”. This definition of marriage, as both the department and the Superior Court judge point out, derives from the common law.
When the activist court chooses to disregard the most obvious and central fact of this definition, namely that it's one man and one woman, why not disregard the limitation of two parties ? Why require those parties to be humman ?
As the activist judges had to be willing blind to thousands of years of definition, there is no logical reason, other than that they know it would enrage many, for these restrictions.
You don''t want me to marry my couch. What right have you to restrict my freedom, and my happiness, that such an arrangement would bring ? After all, marriage to one's choice (according to these activist clowns) is a "basic civil right" ! How dare you try to restrict it only to humans !
The only arguments you've given why homosexuals should be "married" is that a) they're human, b) have feelings, and c) can enter into contracts.
Why can't I marry my mother ? She fits all those criteria ?
Activist judges and their ridiculous twisting of everyday words will ruin us. That was the jist of sartorius' comment, and my statement was a particular example of it.