[puroresu]

The day a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of gays to marry is ratified, I'll agree with your analogy.

The provisions of the Massachusetts constitution used by the judges in the gay marriage case were never in anyone's wildest dreams intended to authorize the courts to legalize gay marriage. The judges simply decided that they personally favored gay marriage, perverted the actual meaning of the state constitution, and then imposed their belief on the people of Massachusetts for no better reason than an arrogant confidence that they could get away with it.

In contrast, the second amendment was explicitly designed to protect our rights to arm ourselves.

A better analogy to the Massachusetts gay marriage decision would be one in which the justices personally believe that handguns are dangerous, so they order the legislature to ban them despite having no constitutional authority to do so. They then announce that if the legislature fails to comply, they'll start ordering local police to confiscate people's guns without legislative authority.

[jde1953]

"The judges simply decided that they personally favored gay marriage, perverted the actual meaning of the state constitution, and then imposed their belief on the people of Massachusetts for no better reason than an arrogant confidence that they could get away with it."

Well, I haven't read the decision in full, so I'll take your word for it that that is exactly how the decision reads. [grin]

"A better analogy to the Massachusetts gay marriage decision would be one in which the justices personally believe that handguns are dangerous, so they order the legislature to ban them despite having no constitutional authority to do so. They then announce that if the legislature fails to comply, they'll start ordering local police to confiscate people's guns without legislative authority."

But this case didn't happen in a vacuum; the judges didn't wake up one morning and say, "Hey, let's change the marriage laws!" As I understand it: a case was brought, the decision was that the current situation was unconstitutional. In fact, the judges _did_ turn the question over to the legislature, telling them, "please bring the law in line with the constitution." The current ruling is on the proposed law, which is still not in line with the constitution of Massachusetts.