Yes, of course I read it.
It isn't balanced.
It's basically one side moaning about the fact that their view isn't standard operating procedure, as usual.

Did you know the marriage act even prohibits people *adopted* into a family marrying within it?
Even if they *cease* to be adopted!

Why is the focus of "reform" so narrow?
Why is it still illegal to marry a relative (even an adopted one?) or more than one person?

If it's really about "love" between consenting adults, why stop at just monogamous gay couples?

You can't "love" your sister, your adopted sister, your sister and your boyfriend, your sister and your boyfriend and his adopted brother?

Seems we still have "some way to go".

Dear Shocker,

I keep making the same mistake of
inter-acting with you.
I should have known better.

You should have known you have no valid comeback to my spotlighting the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of the pro- argument.

Dear Shocker,

Yeah, right.

You go on believing that.

The website explains the history of this issue in this
country.

BTW:

I don't have to even try - when A.J. Philips
has done such a good job on the article thread
on this issue.

You go on believing that.