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.
“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.”
Another reason the decision was illegitimate on its face: the citation of a foreign court’s ruling as precedent by which to interpret the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts.
I agree with Huckabee on this point, referring to federal judges:
“Any federal judge who uses some international law as a precedent to make a court decision, ought to be impeached.”
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/angelia_wilson/2007/12/president_huckabee_hope_and_le.html