They then "stayed" their ruling for 6 months to give the legislature time to act.
The legislature refused to act to stop it. They also refused to allow a vote on a constitutional amendment which was being pushed by every pro-marriage organization as the way to stop gay marriage. Why would the entire focus be on amending the constitution, if as a few argue, the court didn't actually do anything, and had no power to change anything, and therefore the existing marriage laws had not changed?
Why would any person have sued over the marriage law in Mass if the courts had no power to rule in their favor? Gay marriage opponents took this case to federal court, trying to get it overturned. Why would they waste time doing that, if the ruling was meaningless?
All of us were alive when the court ruled, and all of us saw the headlines about the court approving gay marriage.
Here are some actual FreeRepublic threads from that time. Notice the decided absense of any argument that the SJC ruling was meaningless, had no effect, and could be ignored by all as a non-event.
Finneran cites three options on SJC ruling (MA Speaker on Gay Marriage) (December 5, 2003):
Finneran, who until yesterday had not spoken publicly on the historic Nov. 18 ruling, said he sees three options for the Legislature: a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a civil unions bill for same-sex couples, or doing nothing and letting the ruling stand.
...
Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor and constitutional specialist who has followed the SJC's ruling closely, said he concurs with Finneran's assertion that the Legislature has the option of amending the constitution, a process that will take until at least 2006, or of doing nothing. Inaction, he said, would result in same-sex couples marrying next spring, when the court's 180-day stay on the decision is up.
Same-Sex Marriage Opponents Emboldened [Randall Terry Joins the Fight] (Nov 21, 2003) Path Clear for Same-Sex Marriages in Mass.(Buh-Buh Mom and Pop Families?) (May 15, 2004):
With the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to step in and block gay marriages in Massachusetts, same-sex couples planning to marry could be confident that, beginning Monday, they could tie the knot.The End of the Gay Marriage Debate (Jeff Jacoby) (May 16, 2004):
...
The state's highest court had ruled in November that the state Constitution allowed gay couples to marry, and declared that the process could begin Monday. Gay marriage opponents challenged that ruling in the federal courts and took the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
At the most obvious level, the legalization of same-sex marriage is the doing of four justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.Massachusetts Gay marriage decision met with optism, dismay (November 18, 2003):
And both supporters and opponents of gay marriage warned that the battle may not be over. The high court's 4-3 ruling opened the door for gay marriages in the state. But for some supporters, there was lingering concern that the Legislature would somehow derail that victory. And the idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage being placed on the ballot in 2006 had powerful supporters.Marriage Counselor [Federal Marriage Amendment article] (March 2004)
Names Posted of Opponents to Mass. Gay Marriage:
(Brockton, MA) — Supporters of gay marriage in Massachusetts have posted all 123,356 names and addresses of those who signed a petition to reverse legalized same-sex marriage throughout the state on a well known gay rights Web site. Supporters of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts shattered a 20-year-old record for the most certified signatures ever gathered in support of a proposed ballot question.'Gay' marriage ruling's consequences 'dire' (November 19, 2003):
...
The proposed amendment is intended to overrule a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision that legalized same-sex "marriage" in May 2004. An estimated 6,500 gay and lesbian couples have since married in the state.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided homosexual couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution and should be allowed to apply for marriage licenses, overturning a ruling by a lower court handed down in May 2002 which said state law does not convey the right of marriage to homosexual couples.In all of these threads, and a bunch of others, you will never ANY suggestion that the court ruling wouldn't directly lead to Gay Marriage being legal, absent action from the legislature. And nobody mentions Romney negatively (there are a couple of positive Romney comments, which I have studiously avoided quoting)
...
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy said the decision "is on an order of magnitude that is beyond the capacity of words."
...
"The dire ramifications of what is happening in the United States and other Western nations cannot be overstated," said James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family. "For millennia, traditional marriage – the union of one man and one woman – has been celebrated by every culture on Earth as the cornerstone of society. But now, we have this activist court that is arrogant enough to say that those thousands of years of culture are simply wrong."
...
Steve Crampton, the AFA Center's chief counsel, said he agreed with the words of dissenting Justice Sosman who observed, "today, the court has transformed its role as protector of individual rights into the role of creator of rights." Crampton said the "ruling marks one of the darkest days in the history of American law. Unless the people of the state of Massachusetts rise up with one voice in opposition to this lawless and socially destructive decision, it will destroy society as we know it."
...
"For anyone who has not understood the cultural struggle today, this is the perfect illustration," said Bauer, president of American Values. 'Four robed individuals are attempting to seize power from the people of Massachusetts and their elected officials and order a cultural outcome of their choosing. These unelected judges would try to impose what no elected legislature would dare consider. And in fact, they are ordering the unprecedented destruction of marriage despite tremendous public support for the key building block of society."
...
"This is the wake-up call for both the American public and our elected officials," Perkins said. "If we do not amend the Massachusetts state constitution so that it explicitly protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and if we do not amend the U.S. Constitution with a federal marriage amendment that will protect marriage on the federal level, we will lose marriage in this nation."
...
J. Edward Pawlick, attorney for Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage said the Massachusetts Supreme Court "has now joined the Legislature and Gov. Jane Swift in violating Massachusetts law. They have all refused to follow the state Constitution and allow the voters to decide gay marriage at the ballot box even though 130,000 people signed a petition to do so and all the necessary requirements were followed," he said.
...
"If judges think they can impose their personal agenda on the Legislature and tell the government to create new law, that's completely backwards," said Randy Thomasson, executive director of the group, which has filed a lawsuit against California's "gay marriage" law, passed earlier this year.
Romney created 'gay' marriage, family groups say
01/16/2007Nearly four dozen pro-family leaders and activists have made public their direct challenge to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is considering a run for the presidency in 2008, to document his opposition to homosexual marriages.
And they say he ignored them.
According to the organization MassResistance.org, the leaders hand-delivered a letter to the former governor on Dec. 20, before he left office, documenting why they believe he voluntarily instituted directives that created homosexual “marriages” in that state, even though he did not have to.
They asked him to act in response, and they say he didn’t even acknowledge the letter.
Among those challenging Romney were Paul Weyrich, of the Free Congress Foundation; Sandy Rios, of Culture Campaign; Robert Knight, who drafted the federal Defense of Marriage Act; Linda Harvey, of Mission America; Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network; Randy Thomasson, of Campaign for Children and Families; Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth; David E. Smith, of the Illinois Family Institute; Joe Glover, of the Family Policy Network; Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute; John Haskins’ of the Parents’ Rights Coalition, and others.
The group’s letter cited state constitutional provisions and court rulings, showing that while the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the creation of homosexual marriages, it did not have the authority to order the governor to institute them or the legislature to create them.
The letter had called on Romney to reverse his “erroneous directives which began homosexual ‘marriages’ through an executive order” but signers noted that Romney declined to act.
“Under the Massachusetts Constitution, only the Legislature may change the statutes,” the group said. “Of his own volition, Romney issued “constitutionally fraudulent ‘homosexual marriage’ licenses’” and with no authorizing legislation, he ordered marriage licenses to be changed from “husband” and “wife,” to “Party A” and “Party B.”
Cited as support in the letter is the legal and constitutional research posted by “Robert Paine” on his RobertPaine.blogspot.com.
“Mitt Romney is not the ‘Defender of Marriage and the Constitution he is posing as,” said Haskins. “There is no question that awareness of Romney’s abuse of power, in not even waiting for the legislature to change the law, is growing among conservative leaders and in the pro-family grass roots nationally.”