Attorneys for the state, however, argued that the law is being enforced in an evenhanded way for both heterosexual and same-sex couples. They said Massachusetts risks a backlash if it ignores the laws of other states by allowing same-sex couples to marry here when such unions are prohibited in their own states.
Because the "logic" used by the court to legalize homosexual marriage in Mass. certainly allowed its extension. Obviously if other states have a right to define it as they choose, then so did the Mass. people through their legislature. So it's inconsistent, but I think they've realized that the rest of the country -- rushing to put marriage amendments to their constitution in place -- to not want Massachusetts to do the chossing for them. Even with that, they left the door open in two states. Clearly NY and Rhode Island ban homosexual marriage. These ativist judges were just reading those states' judicial tea leaves and hoping they are political weak enough and judicially activist enough to pull a Massachusetts on their citizens.
I think Rhode Island might be the next state.