The Massachusetts constitution, written as it was 227 years ago, is completely silent on gay marriage. Nevertheless, the state's highest court, by a 4-3 vote, claimed that it mandated gay marriage. The Massachusetts constitution demands that the state legislature vote "yea" or "nay" on ballot questions that have met the signature requirements and have been approved by state officials. The ballot initiative affirming marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman met those requirements and received the proper approval. Yet, the legislature has blocked a vote on it. The state's high court, though the state's constitution clearly says that the legislature must vote, refuses to mandate the legislators to vote, order the initiative on the ballot, invalidate its earlier legislation from the bench, or take any of a number of actions that would restore self-government to the Bay State. The court acknowledges the unconstitutionality of the legislature's inaction, it just says that, unlike the instance of it ordering the recognition of gay marriage, it is powerless to do anything. Today is the last day of the state legislature's session. By blocking the vote on the measure, by failing to meet their constitutionally-mandated responsibility, state legislators force the backers of traditional marriage to collect signatures all over again, and delay the ballot initiative to, at the earliest, 2010. It's always harder to overturn than to institute. It's even harder to overturn when the democratic means to do this have been taken away.

Government in Massachusetts is a socialist oligarchy. There is nothing "democratic" about the Bay State.

I'm not sure I understand all of this properly but it seems if the State Legislature will not do its constitutional duty and the Courts will not mandate them to do their constitutional duty then the only recourse it seems the citizens have is a revolution.

The same goes for the Federal Governemnt as well. If the House and the Senate continue to disregard the Constitution and the Courts will not force them to uphold the Constitution then it would seem the only recourse the citizens would have is revolution.

Is Renaldo in? I want to show him my tool box.

The only shame is the act that an entire group of people are having their rights taken away because of some silly bronze-age superstitions in an old book.

That's the shame.

Hey Butt Nut, the "right" to get married only exists between a man and a woman and no matter how much court ordered legal arm bending takes place or whether legally bound entities decide to spit on the laws they are sworn to uphold will change that.

R.P:
Do elaborate.

Its really not relevant as planning, conducting, participating in, and being party to, a homosexual wedding are all perfectly legal.

What is referred to when people say that gay marriage is illegal, is that marriage licenses and other forms of official social recognition are not afforded to homosexual marriages.

So really, gays are not fighting for the right to get married. They already have that. They are fighting for official social approval of homosexual marriage.

Hmm...seems like there is free live sex available.