The MA Supreme Court merely questioned the validity of the MA marriage law.
Romney CHOSE to go far beyond anything that the court had decreed...and since when do the Judicial and Executive branches have the power to Legislate?
Romney CHOSE not only to exceed the court's self-inflated "mandate" but to overthrow the very principle of our constitutional government.
I call that TREASON.
Then came the Supreme Judicial Courts ruling in November 2003 that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry. In its 4-3 decision, the court gave the Legislature 180 days to take such action as it may deem appropriate. Opponents of same-sex marriage citing a quirk in the states colonial-era Constitution that gave the governor authority over matters related to marriage argued that the courts decision was not binding and urged Romney to ignore it.
But Romney did not want to trigger a constitutional crisis seeking, his adviser Flaherty said, to be respectful of the law and respectful of people at the same time. Initially, he struck a balanced tone with his two-track move to find a legislative solution that would satisfy the court while corralling support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. We certainly have to follow the law, and the Supreme Court has laid down what we must do, he said on NBCsToday show the day after the ruling. But in my view, the right action is to follow two courses at the same time.
But the governor quickly dropped all talk about complying with the ruling. Behind the scenes, Romney advisers worked to come up with ways to head it off, according to those involved. They consulted conservative constitutional experts such as historian Matthew Spalding, who works closely with former Reagan Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III at the Heritage Foundation.
It was soon clear that Romney could not push a gay marriage ban through the states liberal-leaning Legislature. So he helped persuade Republicans to support a compromise amendment that barred same-sex marriage but legalized civil unions.