Gwyn,
Let's be careful about the whole "equal" thing. "Separate but equal" is a term opponents like to use in order to draw an analogy with the racial equality movement, especially in the "Brown v. Board of Education" and "Plessy v, Ferguson" decisions. I go along with the term, because it's really pointless to argue whether on not it's applicable unless it is used to make a non-symbolic point, but it's not my term. It's yours.
However, since you've described what I think, let me correct the record. There are two ways that "separate but equal" isn't a good analogy. In the case of the racial civil rights movement, the issue at hand was that the government was in fact enforcing a separation. Blacks and whites wanted to mingle, but the government wasn't allowing it. Is that what's happening here? I think not. The separation happens naturally. The State of Vermont is acknowledging an existing separation, not imposing one.
As for equality, if you look at my writings, you'll see I use the phrase "equal rights, privileges, and obligations". In discussion with Upchurch, I acknowledged that the name change would be an "actual difference." What I have argued is that it is possible to have equal rights privileges and obligations, and if you did so, there would be no denial of fundamental rights by having the name change.
As it turns out, you could probably have unequal rights privileges and obligations without denying a fundamental right, but that's not the topic under discussion with Upchurch.
And as has already been noted by other posters, it most certainly is a moral judgment. Nor is there anything wrong with it as a judgment.
On this point, I must disagree. If I want my child to choose a female partner, it is not because I feel that choosing a male partner would be an immoral choice. There are lots of things I hope he is and I hope he does. Every parent wants certain things for his child. Every parent wants his child to be perfect, and every parent has a different idea of what "perfect" is. That doesn't mean that any deviation is immoral. My child is short right now, even compared to his age group. I hope he gets taller, when compared to his peers. That doesn't mean I think being short is immoral.
But when you expect the government to support it, you need to show reasons why there is an objective need for it in society, and if there is any religious view which disadvantaged by supporting it, there must be strict scrutiny on the reasons advanced.
Let's note that there is a confusion here between constitution law as embodied in Supreme Court precedents, and justice. While there is frequently a correlation between the two, it might cause some confusion. Something might be unconstitutional without being unjust.
I am assuming that your use of the phrase "strict scrutiny" is not accidental, and refers to the test used in deciding whether a law or policy is unconstitutional under the theory of substantive due process. If so, I don't think you've used the correct term. Strict scrutiny is only applied when there is a fundamental right involved. Some people will argue that having the name "marriage" applied to a relationship regardless of the gender of the individuals is a fundamental right, but I would not accept that without a compelling argument. That's where Upchurch would eventually have to go.
In the absence of a denial of a fundamental right, then rational basis is the appropriate test, and most people think there is a rational basis to distinguish between opposite sex and same sex unions. I won't go into my justification of such, but the New York Supreme Court did a find job of doing so a couple of weeks ago, in their ruling that New York's marriage laws were constitutional, and that it was an appropriate matter for the legislature to decide. (If you need a link, I'll provide it.)
