This is nothing new. In Australia, there have been similar articles. I hope they never legalise gay marriage because it is disgusting and not the way God created marriage to be. Marriage is meant to ONLY be between man and woman.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, this has to be regarded as one of the bigger stories of 2003. It reignited a national debate over gay marriage that still continues well into this year's presidential election.

Yet another skirmish in the culture wars. This is something having to do with individual behavior, community standards aren't threatened by it and the government and interpretations of the law can do next to nothing to stop gays from marrying. The question of judicial activism comes up frequently; judges should simply interpret what's in the constitution and base that as law. Instead what we have today are judges promoting social agendas and stretching constitutional interpretation to the limit, and this can be equally applied to both liberals and conservatives. Judges decide cases not according to the letter of the law, but rather in adherence to rigid personal beliefs. On issues with religious overtones like gay rights, it must be understood that the separation of church and state does not mean that this country was designed as a completely secular or religious state. It shouldn't be so much of a hot button issue, but like Janet Jackson's boob, people make a big deal out of nothing.

Everyone has rights protected by the Constitution. Finally, a court realized it.

I'm proud to say I live in Massachusetts!

What took them so long? There is nothing sanctified about marriage. It was invented in order to protect property rights, not to somehow join two people in the eyes of God. Gay people have the same rights as the rest of us, so they should be able to enjoy legally-sanctioned marriage.

It's a significant first step for human rights. Hopefully, more states will follow suit.

The importance of this event is not that it approved or sanctioned gay marriage. It didn't really do that. What it did was send a message to lawmakers that ANY law has to apply equally to all its citizens. Now it's up to The Great And General Court (the Mass. legislature) to define marriage as opposed to civil union and to apply the benefits of same to all its citizens equally.