You're still harping that beat-up old nonsensical bit of straw around?
People are supposed to marry the person they love, not the person you approve of.
Yeah I know, thats what the SJC of Mass said in their opinion and you're repeating of it verbatim confirms my informed opinion that neither you nor they have the power to redefine words by fiat.
But I believe you've shown yourself to be polyphobic here Luis by using the singular. Who are you to limit marriage to two people? Though I must admit your definition and the SJC's are magnanimous enough to allow a brother and sister, et al, to enter into a platonic marriage to access econoomic advvantages not currently available to them.
Are you a cold person? Can you not love your grandmother, your brother, or your neighbor without requiring any sort of "marriage" or sexual component to the relationship?
So if you love your goat you should be allowed to marry it? What about if you love your two-year old?
Now you will probably respond that neither of those examples are valid because they are not mentally capable of entering into a marriage contract.
OK. We'll try another one. What about your severely mentally disabled friend? Or perhaps the guy who lives in the group home down the street who thinks he's Napolean. What? They aren't capable either? What about the person who struggles with severe depression or paranoia? Still not capable?
Then how can someone with a serious mental illness (Same-sex Attraction Disorder (SAD)) be capable of entering a marriage contract either?
All people are heterosexual. We all have heterosexual physiology. Any behavior that 'abuses' that physiology is disordered. Only the mentally ill practice homosexual behavior.
So why sentence the mentally ill to a lifetime (or in the case of 'gay' males, 18 months) married to someone who they only think they love because they are mentally ill. Wouldn't it be better to get them cured and have them marry someone more fitting?