Since the essay below didn't seem to provoke comment, let's try this: Here in Michigan, a pair of 'same-sex domestic partners' have sued the state. Their claim is that present state law makes it impossible for each of them to adopt the other's individually-adopted children. Therefore the state law against same-sex marriage must be overturned. To do otherwise seems to be 'contrary' to the federal law requiring 'equal protection'. The nitwits arguing for The State have so dropped the ball that an activist federal judge has just issued a very hostile ruling that agrees with the plaintiff same-sex couple's position. I believe their entire argument is off-point because in order to invoke 'equal protection' it's necessary to change an essential definition woven into the fabric of society for centuries. 'Marriage' is to be between one man and one woman. Anything other than that is an aberration. In fact it's written into the State Constitution by a vote of the people. Let me give this example of what should be said: It's well known that the most 'successful' (regardless of definition) men are over six feet tall. They therefore have a natural advantage that isn't available to those of us who are only five feet ten or so. That doesn't give me 'equal protection under the law'. Therefore, I simply demand that the definition of a one foot measurement be altered in such a way that one foot must become ten inches instead of twelve. If a foot is only ten inches I'll be more than six feet tall. Now I get to be 'equal'. A twelve-inch-foot is, after all, arbitrary and does me damage. If you don't 'buy' this argument you can't buy the argument now before the court in the appeal process. Discuss! KS And by the way, I believe that any properly-established domestic partnership should have such things as insurance coverage, inheritance reciprocity and other such technicalities. Same sex couples should NOT, however, be enabled to call their civil partnership a marriage.