Looking over this ruling, I am dismayed by the sloppiness of the

“jurisprudence.” I haven’t even been to law school, but I can see through

this stuff.

Example: “We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two

persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.”

Do you, by God! Then you are construing it in a way it has never been

construed before. I see nothing in your “construal” to prevent me from

marrying my sister, for example. Is this actually OK in the state of

Massachusetts?

Marriage is hedged about with all sorts of restrictions and exclusions, and

always has been. If you think those restrictions and exclusions should all

be swept away, have the guts to say so. If you think some of them should be

swept away while others are retained, tell us which. What you CANNOT do is

pretend that you are construing the laws of the state of Massachusetts with

slipshod statements like that. Lawyers are supposed to be precise in their

language.

Where do they GET these people?