  Gay marriage became officially legal in Massachusetts on Monday. I am all for same sex marriage. But I have a problem with Conservatives arguing that the judges in Massachusetts are "Shredding the Constitution. " I'm not what you might call a Constitutional scholar, but my understanding is that rights and duties not specifically given to the federal and state governments respectively are reserved for the people. Civil laws (the things dealing with marriage contracts and the like) are specifically due to the states. The Federal Government has the right to determine how the individual state civil laws relate to other states, but does not (at this time) have the right to determine what those laws can be. That's what the Protection of Marriage Act is all about. It only says that homosexual civil unions performed in a given state do not have to be recognized as legally binding in other states.
I read the Massachusetts State Constitution (at least thoroughly skimmed it) and read the judicial ruling that brought Massachusetts to the present situation. I didn't find anything in the State Constitution that defines marriage. All I found was that the state had the right to determine what officials had the authority to perform marriages. The State Supreme Court determined that because there was no legal definition of marriage it can not be restricted only to heterosexual couples. The marriage contract is between two persons. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by saying that the issue is up to the state of Massachusetts.
I think law is a matter of hair splitting. This is a fine example. The people of Massachusetts can amend their State Constitution so that marriage is defined as a civil union between a man and a woman. Until that happens marriage is a civil union between two consenting persons. 
