The Massachusetts decision

There's only so much fine-print legalese I can read at one sitting, but I've made my way through the principal majority opinion (by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall). I decided to post an entry of my own rather than continuing the discussion in fj's journal.

I'm considerably heartened by what I've read so far. The opinion makes specific reference to the Ontario decision, and no mention at all of Vermont. It refers throughout to "civil marriage", and asserts repeatedly that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples has no "rational basis".

Best of all, the remedy says the following:

"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. 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."

I read this as saying that they're ordering the lower court to rule for the plaintiffs, but that they're staying the judgement for 180 days to give the Legislature a chance to fix the law (i.e., bring it into accordance with the Constitution as determined by the SJC's ruling). What this suggests to me is that if the Legislature fails to act, the judgement goes into effect, and the state would have to sue in order to try to prevent it. (I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, so I could be completely off base, but that's how it reads to me.)

My reading of the opinion also suggests that Vermont-style civil unions wouldn't meet the court's standard, but I might be wrong about that too.

Nonetheless, I think I'll hold off on ordering the gown.