The judiciary is not authorized to change the meaning of a law, because that would be writing a new law.
If the existing law was sufficient and needn't be changed in order to accommodate "civil unions," then there would be no REASON to direct the legislature to change it. Because the legislature decided not to change it, the law STILL DID NOT accommodate civil unions.
As EV said, the governor's duty is to the Constitution, and whenever an opinion of the court violates the principle terms of that Constitution, he is bound by his oath to defy it. Checks and balances are in place to prevent abuse of this executive discretion.
If the existing law was sufficient and needn't be changed in order to accommodate "civil unions," then there would be no REASON to direct the legislature to change it.
It becomes obvious that neither you nor EV have read the Goodrich decision, nor the MA Marriage code in question. The legislature was not, let me repeat that for the hard of hearing, WAS NOT directed to change anything. That is spin. It is a misrepresentation. It is a fib, a lie, a falsehood.
The existing law failed to define its terms. It assumed male/female unions and did not bother to make that explicit IN THE CODE. This lack of specificity allowed the Court a pretext for saying what the operative definition would be for the state of MA. It was a legislative loophole.
Knowing it was a legislative loophole, the Court directed that its decision would be held in abeyance for 180 days, in order to give the legislative branch a chance to assert their authority to express the definition by law, but DID NOT direct them to do anything. The legislature declined, thereby tacitly agreeing that the court was correct in their interpretation of the existing statute.
As EV said, the governor's duty is to the Constitution, and whenever an opinion of the court violates the principle terms of that Constitution, he is bound by his oath to defy it.
He has neither the delegated authority nor legal standing to ignore both the Court and the Legislature because he doesn't like the law. His constitutional duty was to enforce the existing law, as interpreted by the Courts and the Legislature. Which he did, while introducing measures to over ride both by amendment.