I’ve always thought that each state should define marriage as long as some court can’t find a way to foist one definition of marriage on another state. I’d vote against gay “marriage” but if Massachusetts wants to have it, that’s fine with me. I agree as a general principle that there is too much government intervetion in marriage. The less government we have, the less chance for government to get its hands on the definition. For instance, if we had a flat tax, we wouldn’t need marriage defined for tax purposes.
Interesting you bring up Massachusetts, and talk of “if they want to have gay marriage’. Massachusetts never voted for gay marriage.
In fact, citizen groups gathered signatures to put a marriage amendment on the ballot to be voted on, and the legislature adjourned in 2008 rather than vote on putting that on the ballot. In Mass, both signatures and the vote of the legislature are needed to put initiatives on the ballot for voters.
So, a major point is that Mass. never indicated that it wanted same-sex marriage. It was forced on them by a court.
And even as we speak, gay activists are working on getting same-sex marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their dream is getting a “Roe vs. Wade” type ruling mandating 50 state same-sex marriage.
So, the point is, each state is NOT going to be allowed to deal with marriage on its own. Gay activists have decided to force this through the courts. And they won’t stop until the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.