The irrationality of Vermont's permit for gay marriageThis essay explains the rationale behind Vermont's decision - and its effect especially on conservative groups. In December 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court decided that, all things considered, it was a violation of the Vermont Constitution to deny same-sex couples the benefits that go to married couples. But the court did not find this to be proven that the marriage laws were intended to discriminate against women, lesbians and gays just as other laws had discriminated against blacks in the past. Vermont's laws were intended to ensure marriage, or establish marriage as an appropriate context for sexuality, not to burden people with disabilities. But why past lawmakers held such beliefs — or whether those beliefs were still defensible — judges no longer thought they could say. However, they recognized that it was wonderful to establish a new form of marriage on their own. Such a move, they admitted, “could have unforeseen and disruptive consequences.” They then refused to argue that "the applicants are entitled to a marriage licence". The judges instead declared that "judicial authority is not final authority", and therefore placed the question whether same-sex couples can benefit from the benefits of marriage without the union being described as a "marriage" in the hands of the legislator. ". Vermont's decision has raised alarm bells in the conservative community, with broadsides once again fired at "judicial activism." But a closer look at the text of the decision yields a slightly different answer: yes, and yet no; It's not as bad as it sounds, but it could be worse. The judges would no doubt recoil at the accusation of judicial activism, but their surprise would only confirm how deeply the premises of that activism have penetrated. Because judges are perhaps no longer even aware of how much they have distanced themselves from any constraints contained in the constitutional text, or in the principles of jurisprudence themselves. Consider what the justices seriously offer as the basis of their judgment in this case: the so-called common benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution, which reads: That government is, or ought to be, established for the common benefit, protection, and safety. of the people, nation or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family or group of persons, forming part of that community alone.