Although this is great news, the local articles makes rather disturbing points as well. Both Finneran and Romney oppose gay marriage and the Massachusetts legislature has considered constitutional amendments that would restrict marriage to heterosexual marriage only. I would encourage anyone and everyone to write to both Tom Finneran and Governor Romney, as well as their local representatives to urge them to reject such amendments.

More importantly than that is to write Travaglini. He is the head of the Senate, is a supporter of equal marriage, and is in the position to stop any attempt at an admendment dead for or against dead.

Support he feels is much more likely have an effect.

For the lazy ones, Massachusetts State Senator Robert Travaglini's e-mail address is RTravagl@senate.state.ma.us.

The MGLPC form (http://www.ma2002.com/MGLPC/start.php?id=1) allows you to send letters to Travaglini, Finneran, Romney, and your local representative all at once.

Here's some legal analysis: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56818-2003Nov18.html

Renee Landers: The Supreme Judicial Court's opinion essentially gives the legislature 180 days to enact amendments to Massachusetts statutes that would give effect to the court's opinion, that is, to recognize marriage in order to eliminate discriminations that attach to couples who are not permitted to marry. If the legislature does not enact appropriate amendments to the statutes within that time period, the Superior Court(the state trial court) would have the ability to enter an order implementing the SJC opinion. After 180 days, as a result of either legislative action or an order by the Superior Court, marriage licenses should begin to be granted to same-sex couples.

Another possibility would be for the legislature to begin the lengthy process for amending the state constitution to overrule the court's opinion. The process for amending the constitution calls for two successive legislatures to vote favorably on an amendment and for that amendment to be submitted to the voters after the legislative action is completed. At a minimum, this process takes 3 years. The earliest such an amendment could appear on the state ballot would be November 2006.

Cambridge, Mass.: In terms of sorting out the practical effect of the ruling, what will happen if the General Court fails to act within 180 days? Seems like the ruling will kick in, the common-law definition of marriage will change and same-sex marriage will finally become a reality.
For opponents of same-sex marriage, will this require them to pass a constitutional amendment or just a new statute?

Renee Landers: The last sentence of your question contains the answer. In order to avoid the impact of the SJC decision--which seems to require the state to grant the ability to marry to same-sex couples--the state would need to adopt an amendment to the state constitution. This process takes a minimum of three years to complete. Two successive state legislatures must adopt the proposed amendment and then the proposed amendment must be submitted to the voters for approval.

Washington, D.C.: What would happen if the legislature simply does nothing or votes to put an amendment before the voters in 2006 banning gay marriage? Would the courts demand the issuance of marriage licences after 180 days have passed?

Renee Landers: I think that the clear instruction in the court's opinion is that the Superior Court should issue an order to permit the granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples if the legislature does not enact a statute to implement the decision within 180 days.

Renee Landers: Because the decision was based on the state constitution, the only way the decision could be overturned by a federal court would be for the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that same-sex marriage is not permitted by the federal constitution. I don't think that such a result is likely.

The citizens of Massachusetts could adopt a constitutional amendment overruling the court's opinion. That process takes a minimum of three years. The process requires two successive state legislatures to act favorably on a proposed amendment and for the voters to approve the amendment.

Unsurprisingly, the beer sodden cabal of frat boys that pass for the leadership of this nation have come out in favor of a constitutional admendment to ban same-sex marriage.
I wonder, if any of these people could pass the "specificly, how" test of explain how this SJC hurts their constituants in any way other than their sense of ill-founded moralizing?
Do you think that when GWB's brother Neil, dumped his wife of 22 years in an email, he did it because of the insiduous homosexual lobby ruining marriage , or because he was a spoiled brat with the nasal lining no thicker than a gnat wing?
I want to hear someone explain to me "how" the evolutionary mechanism of pair bonding is hurt by this?

Our society seems to be deteriorating before my eyes. What is a society that mocks its most reveered institutions. It's bedrock foundation....the basic family! It is never enough to respect individuals personal relationships with gay couples. The demands are greater and greater. But what else should be expected? To sucumb to wrongs leads to a dimished and hollow society. Least we forget why so many other great societies before us have failed....often from within! So this path may lead us indeed. No more need be said.