For the conservatives up in arms about the Massachusetts StateSupreme Court ruling this week on gay marriages, Goodridge v.Department of Public Health, Ed Board’s advice is to chillout.  While good advice in general for the Christian right, itis of special importance here.

The question the state’s highest court was asked to decidewas if the state’s constitution permitted the denial of therights and benefits of marriage to individuals of the same sex. Relying heavily on the recent Texas sodomy case, Lawrence v.Texas, as well as on Loving v. Virginia, a 1967 case in which theSupreme Court found it unconstitutional to bar blacks and whitesfrom marrying, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that lawssetting aside marriage only for heterosexual couples did violatethe state’s constitution.

While there is much for gay rights activists to celebrate inthis decision, it doesn’t sound the apocalyptic note for theinstitution of marriage as some have claimed. This case, whilemonumental, is not guaranteed to have much legal impact outside ofMassachusetts.  This is because the ruling involved a statelaw and its evaluation in light of a state constitution.  Aconstitution which Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall says is”if anything, more protective of individual liberty andequality than the federal Constitution.”  This meansthat the decision cannot necessarily be seen as an accurateforecast for a federal challenge to the gay marriage ban. The moreprotective nature of the state constitution is in questionhere.

The decision’s basis in Massachusetts’ constitutioncaused the ruling to be narrow and only applicable to the state.This also prevents the decision from being appealed to the UnitedStates Supreme Court, whose ruling would be binding on all thestates.

Legal scholars are divided over what will happen next, but fewwould advise same sex couples across the country to start bookingchapels.

Traveling down the legal road of “what if” is seldomenlightening but it is a road well traveled and deserves someattention.  So, what if Massachusetts begins issuing marriagelicense to same sex couples?  For the thirty-seven states thatcurrently have laws that prohibit recognition of such marriages itwould mean very little.  Anticipating such a development thefederal Defense of Marriage Act — which has been on the booksfor seven years now — does not require a state to recognizeanother’s state same sex marriage license.  While thisprovision will undoubtedly be challenged in federal court as aviolation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, no such challengehas been prevented because no same sex marriage licenses have beenissued.

The only real short-term effect that the Massachusetts rulingwill have is that it has once again moved the issue of gay marriageto the political forefront.  If anything, those against theidea of same sex marriage should be thankful for the ruling and itsfortuitous timing at the onset of the presidential campaign.