Correct. Notice the C in Correct is capitalized.
so how is that different from the massachusetts supreme court declaring the law against gay marriage unconstitutional?
Because their is no right to gay marriage in the Massachusetts Constitution and 200 years of Massachusetts jurisprudence has recognized a marriage to be between one man and one woman as has federal jurisprudence. In fact the Massachusetts Constitution specifically states that all matters of marriage are the province of the legislature and the Governor. The courts were notably absent in that section.
if the state doesn't have the right to prohibit you from living where you want, why do they have the right to prohibit you from marrying who you want?
The institution of marriage does not discriminate. Any man, of age, can marry and woman, of age, though their are prohibitions depending on DNA. Now if the state said that homosexual men could not marry either hetero or homosexual woman that would be discrimination and violate the Constitution of Massachusetts and the US.
does anyone understand what i'm saying here?
Sure, you want courts to legislate when the legislation accrues to your benefit. No surprise there.
judicial activism is not inherently bad.
LOL, of course it is. The Judiciary, for the most part is an unelected branch of government and federal judges are never required to answer to the electorate.
states do not have the right to pass whatever laws they want. they can't restrict your personal freedoms. and if they try to, the purpose of the courts is to stop them.
Neither states nor the feds can abridge your inalienable rights, at least they shouldn't be able to. But their are rights and privileges and then there is license and it would do you well to learn the difference right after you learn proper English.