Changing the subject, but I see the connection. There can be a bitterly fought conflict between lawmakers and judges. Sure, the judiciary can be a check against majoritarian rule through appropriate judicial review of Constitutions. However, the miscegenation result in no way prejudices the present matter. On the present matter, the SJC are dead wrong, preposterously wrong.
Things change.
Things change via the rule of law. Is there any imaginable fair reading of the Massachusetts Constitution that leads inexorably to the Goodridge decision? Of course not.
Government is limited. Concretion is the friend of limited government. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. Judges must not be allowed to dispense with commonsense understanding, turning concrete into abstract, whenever they favor an antihierarchical result. That is a prescription for unlimited government, the rule by judges.