Your statement is flat false.
Did you read the exact words of Ellen Goodman's column? She said the SJC wrote the definition of marriage.. In the Massachusetts Constitution it is defined as a union of a man and a woman.
The State was found to be in violation of their own Constitution when they refuse to issue some couples marriage licenses based on a State-sponsored dissapproval of their choice of partner via the gender make up of the couple in question, thus creating a second-class citizen.
Your statement is correct.
However, the dissents seem to be much more convincing than the majority opinion.
No one required me to sign a contract forcing my wife and I to have children prior to being issued a marriage license.
Right, but here I am talking about what marriage is all about in the general sense. Can you honestly ponder life in Western Civilization over generations and not see the purpose of marriage as being about children and families and generations?,If not, I do not know what planet you are living on.
Stability is exactly what the likely end-result of same-sex couples marrying will bring about.
I am in favor of better stability for same-sex couples. That stability, if it does come about, will be good for the people among us who are gay. A little tweaking of existing civil contract law may do the trick.
Looked at that way, the issues of gay couples do not seem to have much impact on stability of the American family. It is only when these issues impact marriage law that I get concerned.