It should be noted that the court case ruling doesn't mandate the state to marry the two "plaintiffs" (or whatever they're called). All it's doing is giving the state's legislative branch (that's funny-langue for "Congress") 180 days (I think that's the term, anywho) to come up with a semantic loophole to the legal marriage/religious marriage thing (most likely, the same "civil unions" that Vermont allows), or to amend the state's consitution, so that the court ruling becomes irrelevant. The state's governor is really opposed to letting two people of the same gender marry (and has the congress on his side, IIRC), so the latter is a lot more likely than it'd usually be (in the US, consitutional amendments are ass-harder to pass than laws).
And don't kindle the flame.
