On Nov. 18, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued a ruling that stated homosexual couples have the right to marry, giving the Massachusetts Legislature 180 days to make any necessary changes to state laws.This landmark ruling elicited a wide range of reactions. Gay residents of Massachusetts, not surprisingly, were pleased. Conservative religious and political leaders, perhaps even less surprisingly, were not. And they were quite vocal about it, too.

Let's start with the President. In his response to the ruling, George W. Bush said, "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman."

Then there was Gov. Mitt Romney. His response was, "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear."

So there you have it: The question, however it was originally phrased to Bush and Romney, boils down to: "Why should the institution of marriage be restricted to a man and a woman?" Both of them responded by saying marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.

Such a response is a meaningless tautology. And, while admittedly even less intelligent than most arguments against gay marriage, it illustrates the troubling fact that we let our leaders off far too easily.

Gay marriage is a prime example of a catchphrase issue. When you hear people speak out against it, they use terms like "sanctity of marriage," "protection of marriage," "natural law," and the like. Such advocates talk about how gay marriage will undermine morality and cause the collapse of the family, but they don't feel particularly inclined to cite evidence.

I for one have always been at a loss about this issue. I simply don't see how allowing gay couples to wed will have any impact whatsoever on me, my family, my friends or anyone else who does not wish to marry someone of the same sex. I have tremendous difficulty understanding any argument against granting gays full civil rights that is not firmly rooted in Biblical doctrine, which - last time I checked - was not supposed to influence legislative or judicial action.

Apparently, so do those who are incensed by this ruling.

Take for example, a poll cited in the Nov. 21 Christian Science Monitor conducted by the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. 28 percent of those opposed to gay marriage felt it was "morally wrong or inconsistent with the Bible," 17 percent said it was "against my religious beliefs," and 16 percent said that "marriage is between a man and a woman."

So, at least 61 percent of those opposed to gay marriage feel the way they do because their religious beliefs tell them to or because, ahem, "marriage is between a man and a woman."

Given the way our leaders address the issue, it is not surprising that people don't seem to have given this much thought. Instead of viewing our leaders with a healthy dose of skepticism, we have a tendency to respond to certain key phrases ("Oh no, they're going to steal marriage!") without considering whether there is anything behind them.

The fact is, homosexuality has nothing to do with morality and those who practice it have no sinister agenda. I have never heard a principled, logical, secular argument as to why homosexuality is immoral, and - as of the date I'm writing this - I have never been handed a brightly-colored flyer stating, "Homosexuality: It's the Sexuality of the 21st Century!" thereby delineating why I should, as "Seinfeld" once put it, "join the other team."

Members of a truly effective democracy must not get riled up when they hear catchphrases meant to evoke outrage or patriotic fervor rather than discussion. Instead, they must examine what those in charge are saying on the basis of logic and reason.

This is not limited to gay marriage. Take drugs laws, for example. Many are currently serving life sentences for nonviolent marijuana-related offenses, and few politicians have ever had to fully rationalize this.

Instead of making them step up to the plate, we as an American public instead salivate and cheer when politicians tell us how they are going to be "tough on crime," fight the "war on drugs" and "take back the streets." There doesn't have to be logic to the way any of it is conducted because those responsible are engaged in a campaign of pacification. Drugs and crime are bad, taking back the streets is good, and as long as the three are addressed in pithy slogans, the busy American public does not take the time to fully critique the actions of policy makers.

If things keep going in this direction, we will soon enter an era of political promises encapsulated in catchy jingles and campaign platforms fit for billboards.

The SJC should be applauded for ruling with reason. If they had instead listened to the throngs of talking heads and self-appointed moral leaders, surely the ruling would have come down seven to zero against gay marriage.

One last point that should be mentioned regards a more specific critique of their ruling: The oft-repeated notion that the judges are somehow "hijacking" the process of lawmaking from the people.

In his Nov. 19 "Talking Points" segment, Bill O'Reilly cited a poll indicating most Americans are against gay marriage and said that "the will of the people must be taken into account here."

For someone who attended the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, O'Reilly exhibits an alarming ignorance as to how the system works. Since when were judges supposed to rule according to "the will of the people?" That's the legislative branch, Bill. Judges in situations like this one rule according to the constitution (in this case the Massachusetts one). The SJC judges examined at a previously enacted state law banning same-sex marriages, looked at its constitutionality, and struck down the law. That's what judges do. The will of the people matters little if it is not in accordance with the constitution.