[marty60]

Well property rights are down the tubes, why not Contractual rights also.

I find it interesting that the same people that claim to be against judicial activism are at the same time practicing it. With this SC I wouldn't take a chance on this gettting there.

The Socialist must be getting a bang out of conservs, pushing the leftist agenda. Anyone that thinks they can get a law passed that ONLY applies to "gays" are somking funny cigs.

[Eastbound]

You are right, of course. The wording is wrong. This could have been resolved on an individual basis without the courts or amendments. Simply by firing the county clerk who issued a marriage license to those who do not qualify under the legal definition of the word 'marriage.'

Even the USSC would have problems juggling it around, as it must use words in their opinions and decisions that are already defined.

I'm at a loss to understand how the Mass. Supreme Court ever got away with re-defining the word, marriage. Very bad precedent. In fact, an ominous one.