That's a very misleading (at the very least -- I'd say it was simply wrong) use of the word 'objective', then, and also I rather doubt that's what he means -- do you really think that he would say that if most people agreed that it was fine to discriminate against same-sex couples, that would be the objective general good?

I rather suspect that in that case he would instead argue that the point of the law was to protect even whose minorities against whom the majority would happily discriminate from the consequences of 'what most peopel can agree on'.

Do you really think he's basing his idea of the objective general good on sands as shifting as 'what most people agree on'?

S.