[Modernman]

No, it is not anarchy. It is not the job of the courts to demand legislation. Their job is to interpret the laws and not to demand that the laws be changed.

I have no idea whether or not this is true under Mass. law or its constitution. Considering the lack of outcry from Mass. legislators, my feeling is that they do not really object to this ruling.

[freedomluvr1778]

Everyone, this is very interesting and answers the BIG questions as to why the State Legislature asked the court for an opinion:

Chapter III, Article II of the Mass. Constitution states the following:

Article II. Each branch of the legislature, as well as the governor and council, shall have authority to require the opinions of the justices of the supreme judicial court, upon important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions.

-------------------------------------------------------

I had no idea this was in their constitution until I looked it up. It looks like the Legislature did exactly what the Constitution provides for, and the court rendered their opinion. Whether the Legislature has to follow it or not, I don't know for sure, but it would be silly to invoke Article II, Chapter III if they weren't going to follow the advice.

FYI, I disagree with the Supreme Courts ruling(based upon the Vermont Ruling), but what has occurred appears to be within the guidelines of the State Constitution. Just thought I'd put that out there.

[puroresu]

#####Considering the lack of outcry from Mass. legislators, my feeling is that they do not really object to this ruling.#####


Several factors are at play here.

First, ever since the desegregation cases, the courts have posed as the embodiment of fashionable morality. The courts are painted as the greatest engine of "social progress" by our media, our school textbooks, and our law schools. The result has been decades of incremental power consolidation by the courts, and subsequent deference to that power by the legislative branches.

Second, many legislators prefer having controversial issues decided by the courts. It keeps them from having to vote on those issues directly. So a large segment of any legislature breaths a sigh of relief every time the courts usurp their power. There are no doubt many legislators in Massachusetts who would gladly turn EVERY issue over to the courts.

Third, the political class is generally far to the left of the electorate. They regard the "common folk", with their regular church attendance and their at least partial attachment to concepts of right and wrong, as rubes and nitwits. But they also have a fear of the people because of their ability to boot them from office. Few members of the Massachusetts legislature would openly argue for gay marriage or vote for it directly. That might lead to getting booted from office by the "rubes". But the court ruling gives them wiggle room. They can oppose overturning the decision on assorted technical grounds, while lying to their constituents about their true feelings. They can tell their constituents, "I oppose gay marriage as much as you do, but tragically the court gave us no option but to legalize it. As much as I oppose what the court did, I felt more harm would come to our system of government, more rancor would be created, and more divisiveness would occur, if we prolonged this debate by calling for constitutional conventions, etc. etc. etc."

This last point, by the way, explains why John Kerry, John Edwards, and many of the other presidential candidates say they oppose gay marriage, but are also opposed to doing anything to stop it. They know gay marriage will come to America not because the people want it, but because the people ramming it down our throats, the courts, don't have to ever stand for election.

[McGavin999]

Considering the lack of outcry from Mass. legislators, my feeling is that they do not really object to this ruling.

That's why I suggest we don't bother to alter the constitution. Let's just kick Mass. out of the US.