Reply #26: Rationalist perspective

[many a good man]

Government has the right to encourage behavior that benefits society as a whole. It can be reasonably shown that a stable home with two parents is beneficial not only to the child, but to society as a whole. Therefore marriage should be promoted by granting additional legal rights to the married couple.

Rationalism seeks to find the common good without relying on religious edicts. Ethical behavior, similar to "morality" in religion, can also be promoted by the state. The Constitution is celebrated as a rationalist document that frees society from the irrational constraints imposed by religion and tradition.

By these standards, I don't think it can be proven that sexuality is harmful to society. Likewise, it can be argued that marriage between homosexuals would contribute to the stability of society. I believe this is quite properly a civil rights matter for the Court to decide and not for the masses, through their representatives in the Legislatures.

There is no practical difference legally between the terms "civl union" and "marriage." Yet the court decided by syntactically dividing the two you are effectually discriminating against one.

Note: I saw a Roman Catholic priest on TV once say that contrary to conventional wisdom, "marriage" is actually the civil act, and churches are merely giving their blessing to this civil act. After all, one usually must get a marriage license from a civil authority before the church ceremony. Priests (et.al.) are merely acting as agents of the state when they perform the marriage in the context of a religious ceremony. It is only for "political" reasons that we find it convenient to choose a different term. For political reasons, it is unfortunate that the Massachusetts court happened to make this decision in an election year.