Finally someone (who writes court opinions) states the obvious:
"The dissimilitude between the terms `civil marriage' and `civil union' is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status."There will be no backsliding with regards to the Enlightenment. Barring religious (either proscribed officially or simply superstitious) reasons, there is no argument to support the prohibition against gay marriage. Period, point blank.
The opinion added: "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain."
Thank goodness that a court finally had the nerve to call it the way it is.