Charles, you fail the test:
As you note in your own citation, the court acknowledged that “in their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration.”
And so the court makes a “declaration.” It’s a declaratory judgment, i.e., the court’s misguided declaration of its opinion as to constitutionality.
WITH NO COURT ORDER FOLLOWING BEYOND THE DECLARATION.
I challenged you to quote the Goodridge decision’s ORDER that Romney (a) must instruct that marriage licenses be amended to read “Partner 1” and “Partner 2” or (b) must instruct justices of the peace to perform homosexual “marriage” ceremonies or resign.
You have not done so. And I’m not talking about some philosophical musing by the court.
Romney himself, at his own initiative, used his executive authority to actually implement homosexual “marriage” in Massachusetts in the absence of a court order to do so.
He was fully within his constitutional authority, under the doctrine of separation of powers, to ignore a court ruling that clearly violated the state constitution, which states that only the Legislature shall make law regarding marriage; in fact, he swore an oath to uphold the state constitution. The court’s opinion attempted to make NEW LAW, which it cannot legitimately do either by legislating or reinterpreting something that was clearly not legislative intent when enacted.
Since you cannot show a COURT ORDER to actually do anything, I trust you will concede that Romney was not compelled at any point to use the authority of his separate branch of govt to actually implement homosexual “marriage.”
Unless you want to go back and try again to produce any section of Goodridge which ORDERED him to do anything.
No court is going to write what you asked. I presumed your question was hyperliteral, and you simply wanted me to prove my point that Romney had no choice.
I’ve shown you exactly what they said, and how it changed the law, and if you want to ignore it, then maybe what you said before about their being “truth” and “fiction” wasn’t so applicable in your case.
In fact, the reference you cite about declaration was the court noting that the plaintiffs wanted the court to “declare” that the LAW allowed them to get married, and they went further and said the CONSTITUTION allowed them to get married.
The term “declaration”, like “declaratory judgment” and “declare”, are LEGAL terms that have a much more precise and operative meaning than some of their interpretations in common usage.
A court declaration has the force of law. When the court DECLARES that the marriage law’s statement “man and woman” is CONSTRUED to mean “persons”, that’s what it now means. It’s not some philosphical excercise.
Of course, I guess that’s what your problem has been all along, that you do not have an understanding of the legal terms and purpose of court rulings, and so think the supreme court would be taking their time on esoteric musings of no effect.
I’ve shown you the citations, given you the link, and explained in simple english what they were saying in their legalese. If you decide not to accept what the words mean, I can’t do anything more for you. If you have a lawyer friend, take the ruling to them, and ask them to explain it to you.
If you want to figure it out for yourself, try going to the central paragraph I told you you could ignore. Read what they write about the canadian court. Go look at that ruling in the newspapers — see how that court ruling changed the law and started same-sex marriage in Canada. Then read where this court says they are doing the SAME THING, and that they have a right to do so. Think about what that means, and realise they are making same-sex marriage OUT OF the existing law.
If you aren’t convinced, follow the citations given by the court, and read those rulings through.
If your argument is that Romney could have refused to follow the law, and thus forced a same-sex couple to file with the court and get a court ruling specifically forcing him to follow the law, you are correct, but only in the same way that a governor can always ignore the law and wait until the courts order him to follow the law.
But the question isn’t whether Romney was ever found in violation of a court order, it was whether Romney was required by the court order to implement marriage. He was, and if he had refused, the court would have issued a ruling compelling him to follow the previous ruling.
Courts don’t usually include such language in their rulings, because by and large the executive branch asks their lawyers and then does what the courts required them to do, without having to be found in violation of the law first.
After all, you could walk into a shop and take things off the shelf and walk out. If nobody gets a court to find you guilty, you can keep what you took. But nobody would argue that that means you had a right to take things UNTIL the court found you guilty of doing it.