This sounds like a loser for the left, from a couple of standpoints.
1st, since when does a court have the power to directe the legislature to write a law? Did the branches become un-co-equal when I wasn't looking?

2nd, this will open a can of worms that the left & gays aren't expecting. If gay marriage is required on the grounds of equal protection, then why wouldn't polygamy be required to be legal? Ditto marriage between parent & sibling, brothers & sisters, etc.

On what rational basis could these remain illegal while gay marriage becomes legal?

Can't see Bill Clinton getting away with a criticsm of the SC decision driven by a need to "defend the sanctity of marriage"...

Ray -- The press is bobbling the Court's order, which was "Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

A few years ago the Ohio Supreme Court ordered the Ohio legislature to revise the method of school funding. The legislature tinkered with it a bit. The Supreme Court told them to try again, and the legislature, unwilling to raise taxes without a popular vote, decided to stone wall the court. Eventually the court gave up.

I wonder if the Massachusttes General Assembly has the huevos to take that tactic?

HUZZAH !! HUZZAH !!

The good guys win another.

ray:

Why should polygamy be illegal ?

Here's where the Democrats' special interest constituency politics is really going to get interesting.

There's no question the majority supporters of gay rights in general and of gay marriages in particular are Democrats and many are major financial contributors to the party. How much the issue means to them versus how much they want Bush out of office will determine how much of a factor the issue becomes in 2004. If their dislike of Bush overrides everything, they'll stay relatively silent on the issue for the next 50 weeks. If not, then the eventual Democratic nominee is going to have a choice to make or will have to do some fancy issue straddling between now and Nov. 2, 2004.

I wouldn't be surprised if gay marriage became fully legal in the next fifteen years or so.

John:

I'm sure the Dem candidates would prefer to evade the issue for another 50 weeks. The question is, can they? E.g., howzabout Sen. Kerry (D. Mass)? 'Debate Moderator: Senator Kerry, do you support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and woman?' Can hardly duck that question as an issue of states' rights, given that Sen. Kerry is a voting citizen of Massachusetts. Once he opines, can the rest of the field resist piling on? Oh, and the Massachusetts Supreme Court's six month stay (which is actually a do-as-we-say-or-else) expires, by my math, in mid-May, 2003, on the eve of the Democratic nominating convention. Think the Democratic nominee can duck the finality of that order by convention time? [Given that Massachusetts law requires a constitutional amendment to be adopted by two consecutive legislatures, and only then to be submitted to the voters -- as I understand it a two year plus process -- are there those who suspect that the Mass. Supreme Court's six month stay/deadline may be synchronized with the Democratic nominating convention? just askin']

I'm reminded of 1988, when Candidate Dukakis tried to get all nuanced about flag burning and wife rape. President Bush's press release is perfect in tone and substance. 'I don't want to have to amend the Constitution, I'd rather work with responsible people to avoid it. But if activist judges are gonna legislate the definition of marriage contrary to the wishes of 80 percent of Americans, and if a minority of Senators are gonna hold up my conservative judicial appointments, well then, I guess we're just gonna have to tack a common-sense amendment onto the Constitution. Thank you, I'll be appearing here for two shows nightly for the next four years.'

Fred Jacobsen
San Francisco

At least one thing is certain: Nobody is more upset about the SJC's decision than Mike Dukakis's Lt. Gov. What's a poor Sugar Momma-wedded, Skull and Bones-ing, not exactly 100% Boston Brahmin to do? Fire another campaign manager? This could be as indecipherable as his stance on the war.