[gridlock]

Why would you wierdly change 500 years of legal history just to get around the awkwardness of "gay marriage"?

It is not just a little awkwardness. Our government is not able, for one reason or another, to grant special rights and responsibilities to one group of people and deny them to others. It will default to the position of inclusiveness. Therefore any government definition of marriage will inevitably include gay marriage.

It is simply none of the government's business.

[WOSG]

There is nothing special about keeping the legal as well as dictionary definition of marriage at one man and one woman.

This decision was a mere 4-3 decision by an already hopelessly Liberal Kangaroo court to rewrite the Mass Constitution to pretend it said something IT DOESNT SAY. The ruling is wholly without merit or foundation.
This is a well-orchestrated campaign to redefine the definition of words to destroy traditional forms of culture. "Gay marriage" remains an oxymoron; even if a bicycle is redefined as a motor vehicle for drivers license purposes, it doesnt make it a motor car. The culture wars continue!

"It is simply none of the government's business. " I have refuted this amply on the other posts. Govt has been overseeing the marriage contract for centuries.