Amid all the furor about "activist judges" on the gay marriage issue, I feel that an important point is drowned out. In the Massachusetts ruling allowing gay marriage, the Supreme Judicial Court of Mass. (SJC) didn't just impose some arbitrary standard on the population of the state. What they ruled was that NOT allowing marriage between same sex couples was unconstitutional under the law of the Mass. constitution. The constitution is the foundation for many laws in the state. You can't just decide to not like some part of the state constitution and ignore it. It is the SJC's job to interpret the constitution and that is what it did.

I note that a California court has come to the same conclusion. This is from the San Francisco Chronicle:

News that a judge declared California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional fell Monday on a San Francisco City Hall that was a ghost of the noisy, floral-scented building it was around this time last year, when thousands came to wed their same-sex partners before the ceremonies were halted by court order.