Yeah? Show me.
But, fair warning, if you merely cut-n-paste from a spin site, you'll lose this one. They usually take a certain key quote out of context and it doesn't mean what they say on the hit sites. Read the decision.
And again, if a court makes an unconsitutional decision, the executive has a sworn duty to oppose them.
How is it unconstitutional for the court to interpret the law in the absence of legally defined terms? We agree that their interpretation sucks rocks, but, barring legislative override, they were within their powers and duties to administer judgment over vaguely defined terms.
The problem lies in the existing code. When it was written, around 1913, homosexual conduct was illegal, so no one thought that outlawing issuing marriage licenses to them was necessary. Since then, homosexual behavior has become legal, but the marriage code was never updated to bar homosexuals from applying. Right now, it only bars "parties" (note the vagueness of that term) who are close blood relatives, polygamous, underage or certain out-of-staters. None of those are homosexuals. The code does not define marriage anywhere; it just assumes the commonplace 1913 definition was good enough.
If they thought the law was unconstitutional, they should have overturned it.
But even they didn't have the chutzpah to do that.
As it was, their opinion was just that. An opinion. One that the legislative branch refused to endorse. Unfortunately, Mitt Romney made no such refusal.
Exactly what do you think would have happened to Mitt Romney if he had simply done nothing?
Do you think the legislature would have had the guts to impeach him for following their example of inaction?
I'll have to address your response late tonight...