That's not what you are arguing in favor of however.
You want government to have the ability to pass judgement of the matrimonial wishes of a segment of the citizenry.
Limited government would not micro-manage this issue.
[Limited government is] not what you are arguing for however.
You didn't deny my assertion that concretely defining things is a good way to reduce government's role. As an example, Article I Section 8 concretely enumerates the federal government's powers. Do you agree that that is a good thing?
You want government to have the ability to pass judgement on the matrimonial wishes of a segment of the citizenry.
Pass judgement on wishes?? No, the law must define what configuration of persons are eligible for this state-defined legal status.
Limited government would not micro-manage this issue.
Micro-manage?? Again, at this point we are just talking about the definition. Do you think the framers of the Massachusetts Constitution intentionally left it ambiguous whether or not the two participants in marriage must be of two genders?
The SJC - creating a judicial doctrine - substituted its concrete definition for the original (implicit) concrete definition. Should a judicial doctrine be so different from the plain meaning of the Constitutional text?