n I can’t believe an editorial praised the Supreme Judicial Court decision regarding gay marriage (“Gay Marriage Inevitable,” pg. 12, Feb. 5). First of all, it is not the job, or the right, of any court to force the Legislature to pass a law. It’s called separation of powers. The judges on the SJC need to look into that. The courts are only supposed to consider the constitutionality of current laws, not force the Legislature to write new ones.

Second, the author points out that some states may not recognize gay marriage. However, that statement ignores the fact that the SJC specifically cited the fact that civil unions are only recognized in its home state as a reason to force the Legislature to grant gays and lesbians full marriage rights. In other words, the SJC is trying to push its ideology not only on the Legislature, but also on every citizen of the United States, a majority of whom do not support gay marriage rights.

The author also says that, “According to the SJC’s ruling, nowhere in the state constitution does it say marriage can only be between a man and a woman.” What happens in 10 years when someone wants to marry his or her sibling? That’s not specifically prohibited in the Massachusetts Constitution. How about wanting to marry an animal? It may sound like paranoia, but these are legitimate questions.

Maybe the SJC should leave the lawmaking to the Legislature. Here’s hoping Tom Finneran and his colleagues in the Legislature show a little backbone and stand up to the SJC’s power-grab. If they don’t, it sets a precedent that gives the SJC power over the entire state government.

Jeffrey Hexel

CAS ’05