Supreme Judicial Court rules voters can vote on gay marriage

Mass. court: AG did not err in approving gay marriage question.

However, Blue Mass. Group notes this does not mean the Legislature has to put the question on the ballot as part of a constitutional convention that starts Wednesday (also click on the Blue Mass. Group link for a copy of the ruling):

... Today's full-page ad in the Globe, sponsored by MassEquality and signed by over 100 business and civic leaders, including a number of prominent Republicans (including Charlie Baker, Wayne Budd, Gloria Larson, and Ralph Martin, and I'm sure more whose names I didn't immediately recognize), gets it exactly right.

I urge the Legislature to reject the proposed constitutional amendment and, instead, move on to other important issues like strengthening the economy, improving our schools and protecting our neighborhoods.

Matt Margolis on Hub Politics: I have to say I'm surprised by this ruling:

... Gay interest groups naturally are upset that Massachusetts may get the opportunity to vote on this issue. ...

He also takes aim at that ad, which he says never even mentions "gay marriage":

... This kind of fear mongering is irresponsible. The Freedom To Marry Foundation doesn't even have enough courage to actually explain what it is they are opposing.

Dan Kennedy takes a look at some of the parliamentary and constitutional wrangling that could happen on Wednesday.

Alison Rose: Remember when interracial marriage was illegal because, after all, it "went against longstanding tradition"?