WIGGLE ROOM

Mass governor Ovenmitt "The Idiot" Romney, Attorney General Tom "The Putz" Reilly and others are claiming the court decision provides "wiggle room" to enact civil unions in lieu of marriage. They claim the decision is unclear, or ambiguous, and that the reason for the stay of 180 days is to afford them the opportunity to find alternatives to actual marriage.

Not so.

Outside legal specialists, including Laurence H. Tribe, professor of
constitutional law at Harvard Law School, sharply dismissed any notion that
the court was leaving Romney or the Legislature any option other than to
accept same-sex marriage and implement its ruling.

"He must have read a different opinion and not the court's decision
which I read very carefully yesterday," Tribe said, when told of Romney's
interpretation of the justices' 4-to-3 decision.

"I think that the court could hardly have been clearer about the
proposition that the basic definition of marriage has to be broadened for it to meet the requirements of the state constitution," Tribe said. "Certainly just listing benefits won't fit the court's theme."

"The Legislature is encouraged to look through the hundred different
provisions of state law in which marriage enters the picture, and make sure
the references to his and hers and other terms written with the assumption
that marriage is between a man and a woman are made consistent with the
court's own opinion," Tribe said.

Of course, that won't stop the opponents from trying their best to circumvent, block, twist, or challenge the decision, and that's really no surprise. One irony is that as long as they fight the decision and keep the debate inflamed, the more people will be talking about it, and the more likely other state challenges will appear. Based on the Massachusetts decision, some speculate other sympathetic state courts will also rule in favor of same-sex marriage. But this decision was based on the Massachusetts constitution exclusively, and no other factors--though the judges made a point of acknowledging that there is no reason in general why same-sex marriage should be prohibited.

Other state constitutions may not of course have such language that can be interpreted the way our's was.

Perhaps more importantly, some have speculated that it would be a mistake for the Rebublicans to use this as a wedge issue in the election, since it will backfire on them (see below SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, CULTURE WARS AND THE ELECTION). It seems hardly likely that they will heed these warnings (hooray), and the internal wranglings in Massachusetts will inflame them even more.

As so many have noted, the next six months are going to be lively. The culture wars go nuclear.