[ClearCase_guy]

Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't Gov Romney veto a same-sex marriage bill? Would two-thirds of the state legislature really vote to override that veto?

We've got checks and balances for a reason. A court can only "force" the issue if EVERYONE plays along.

[Arkinsaw]

You are assuming that there is a majority in their legislature that is not celebrating the decision.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Treats everyone equally and the heteros can go to RI, Conn, or NH and get married. The gays will have to settle for half a loaf in Vermont.

[GeronL]

why don't they pass a statute that would forbid the court from making such orders?

[Mike4Freedom]

Are you serious? Forbid new marriages for everyone in the whole state? Aren't you getting a little carried away?

Gay couples are pledging lifetime allegiance to each other and living together now. The legal title will make little difference except make more business for divorce lawyers.

There isn't anything that married couples do now that could not be arranged with some advance planning-wills, contracts, advanced directives, durable power of attorney for medical decisions, etc. Don't go postal over this.

[supercat]

It would seem a little crazy for Masachusetts to require people seeking to get married to get their marriage licenses elsewhere, but Massachusetts is a small enough state it probably wouldn't be too hard for people seeking to get married to go to another state to do so. Still crazy, though. How does requiring that a marriage consist of one man--gay, straight, or bi--and one woman, likewise gay, straight, or bi, constitute discrimination?

[FormerLib]

My father-in-law has joked that he might just marry all of his children to evade the inheritance tax.

That'll get those leftists' attention! Lost tax revenue!

[Unam Sanctam]

This assumes the Massachusetts legislators really care about protecting marriage.

[SuziQ]

I'd seen someone suggest that Gov. Romney give an order to Town Clerks NOT to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples until the citizens of MA had the chance to vote on the matter. Don't know if he could do that, but it works for me!

[PizzaDriver]

Davey Crockett is quoted to have said:
"Be Sure you are right, then go ahead!"

What if the Legislature would pass a law making it clear that ONLY the Elected Legislators can creat new Laws with impunity and immunity from Legal Action. Only "Elected Legislators" can not be sued for damages and costs incurred by their authoring of New Law.
Then, Judges could be taken to court by individuals or Other States, their own assests will be at risk, when Judges write LAWS. Desenting Judges would be protected, Majority Judges could loose homes, cars, pensions, etc.

How sure are these Judges?

[vanmorrison]

I want to see the "good" people of Massachusetts, who have become the most leftist bunch of Democrat-enabling jerks this side of San Francisco, get every crappy result of their asinine politics they've got coming. It couldn't happen to a nicer group of people! Particularly all those brain-dead Democrat Irish Catholics who've propped up the Kennedy gang for so long.

[kingu]

IMHO, the only real answer is for the legislature to send a curt note to the supreme court stating: "Your attempt to legislate a solution has exceeded your constitutional limits and violated the separation of powers. Your choices are outlined in the decision made; either make them or not. Strike down all the marriage laws in the state as being unconstitutional or not, any other reply will be ignored by this body or result in immediate impeachment for violating your oath of office."