Let's first, get something straight. The law in Mass. defined marriage as a heterosexual affair (no pun intended). The constitution of Mass. included an "Equal protection" clause.
Now, the judges looked at these two laws, and decided that disallowing SSM was contrary to equal protection.
Ignore for a moment, whether or not you agree with them, and let's take a look at the validity of their action. They saw two laws that one can make an argument that there is contradition. They made that argument, and decided that the statement in the Constitution of the State _overrode_ the law.
I fail to see how this is a problem. In fact, they didn't even force SSM marriage on the state. They gave the state time to correct the law, reword it, and make it fit with the state's consitution.
And, oh, poor you, cry me a river, the judges made a decision that contradicts what the polled majority of the nation thinks (polls are not valid anyway- even "scientific" ones are easily skewed). There's a reason judges are not elected- it's because judges should be able to make difficult choices that fly in the face of popular opinion. Our founding fathers _knew_ that letting the public get its way all the time, the screaming mass of humanity that it is, was a bad idea. A million people in agreement are not always more right than one person in dissent.
Now, I'll throw this challenge out here, and ask that you send some conservatives to this for me. I'd like to hear _one_ convincing argument that:
- Does not rely on biblical authority - the government is still, and hopefully always be, secular
- Does not share the same flaws with the civil unions that no one is bitching so much about (sharing insurance, etc)
- Does not use a slippery slope to claim that this will lead to legalized beastiality, paedophelia or polyamory all of which are completely seperate issues.
Anyone? The conservatives that hang in sos_usa have been a let down so far. I'm trying to figure out why this is such a bad idea as to have people screaming bloody murder over it.