The court based its ruling in part on protections against "discrimination" and limited "domestic partnership" rights already granted to homosexuals by the Legislature. This rationale -- that because the state offers limited "rights," it must offer more expansive ones -- turns logic on its head. It should, however, serve as a cautionary tale for politicians who think that such measures to appease homosexual activists will forestall the counterfeiting of marriage itself. Instead, they merely accelerate it.