What the Court Said - Forgetting the national implications for a moment, I keep coming back to what the SJC could have meant in referring the issue to the legislature.

I had thought, based on the majority opinion, that the marriage licensing statute itself was silent on whether couples could be same-sex. Apparently the plaintiffs thought so too, because the only relief they requested was a declaratory judgment construing the statute to be available to gay couples. The high court obliged. I think the key here may lie in the recent Canadian gay marriage rulings -- which according to the SJC "redefined the common law meaning of marriage" (referring to law developed by courts, not by statute). The Bay State court has now done the exact same in Massachusetts. To do so, the SJC said, is "entirely consonant with established principles of jurisprudence empowering a court to refine a common-law principle in light of evolving constitutional standards."

Doesn't that provide the answer right there? Marriage includes gays right now, in Massachusetts. The only thing left is to clean up any stray inconsistencies in the code or administrative procedures (e.g., license forms that say "husband" and "wife"). Wow -- that is historic. Too bad the court muddled its message.