[Torie]

Luis, I think when folks speak about marriage and the laws pertaining to it, in the public square, they mean marriage licenses, to which attend a package of rights and duties. They do not mean "marriage" in a spiritual or religious sense. So to suggest otherwise, is to deflect the debate a bit.

One interesting think about the Mass situation, is whether the law will trigger social security survivor benefits for gay marrieds, and whether if it is called "civil unions," and the Mass Supremes allow that, it will not. There is quite a bit of state money potentially riding on, well, terminology.

[Luis Gonzalez]

There are two distinct and separate issues here, having to do with two distinct and separate institutions, governed by two distinct and separate sets of laws.

There is marriage, and there is Holy Matrimony.

A government licensed magistrate cannot perform the rites of Holy Matrimony, and the clergy does not perform civil ceremonies.

The definition of Holy Matrimony will remain unchanged as long as there is a Church, as the core beliefs are not governed by societal changes.

Marriage will be defined in accordance to the will of society at large.

Just as the definition of marriage went from "the union of one man and one woman, both of the same race", to "one man, one woman", it will end up as "the union of two persons".

Judicial activism is only "bad" when it derives from partisanship within the Court.