From: "Richard Hong" 

>> implies that the sexual orientation of the couple living together for 2
years is irrelevant.

John,

I think it's funny that if the language of the ruling was to say that the
sexual orientation was completely irrelevant, then I would have been
"married" to my college roommates - we lived together for more
than 2 years, despite the fact that we were all *heterosexual*. 

Of course, if they then try to add a required component of sexual
relationship, then my roommates and I are no longer covered ... but an
elderly couple which would like to be recognized as "married"
under that law but have no sexual relationship due to dysfunction would not
qualify either.

Defining these things in a common-sense way is easy; defining them as a
matter of law is harder.

Rich

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5