>>Do you think it was progress when they repealed their Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act? Or did it help lead to gay marriage? What should the rules be? one man and one woman of the same race, same religion (no athiests), willing and able to have children?
>>
>>>Sure, if you call that progress. As a next step, perhaps they will be even more progressive and legalize marriage with pets.
>
>I don't think the civil right movement and gay marriage thing is exactly the same thing.

I do. I think it is extremely similar.

>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/07/gay_marriage_isnt_civil_rights/

This is an opinion piece. There aren't any actual facts in it except for his historical references to the civil rights movement. Everything else is his own opinion of what marriage is, and what it means to change that.

Anybody can write an opinion piece. I can't see what might give this more weight than anybody else's opinion piece. And, if he's going to quote definitions, then perhaps he should go the whole way. Instead of "a union between a man and a woman", it should be "a union between a free man and a free woman". In other words, slaves, or indentured people can't marry either. Sorry, doesn't work for me.