The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that the state constitution requires the state to recognize marriage regardless of the gender(s) of those involved. This is a mistake.
I say this not because I support the Federal Marriage Amendment (hardly), or oppose gay marriage (I don't), nor because I think that the court is fundamentally wrong -- Lochner and contract and all that -- but because I think that the last time a court did something this fundamental (Roe v Wade), it caused more problems than it solved.
Divisive social changes such as this cannot be made by judicial fiat. (Nor, by the way, can they be avoided by a blocking Amendment -- that's a mistake of an even higher order.) Changes like this fundamentally require broad public consensus before they can be accepted. Abortion was well on its way to being an accepted right in most, if not all, states when the US Supreme Court short-circuited the process and left the opponents no method of redress.
People can accept losing a legislative battle. It happens all the time. Taxes double, they still pay them. Anti-smoking laws pass, smokers grumble and go outside and smoke. But when a court imposes laws from the bench, this acceptance is generally absent. Only in cases where the general mood is either leading the court, or public opinion is irrevocably moving that way (e.g. African-American civil rights), can a court get away with supplanting the legislative process. Even then it's not the best idea.
Sucessful as the civil rights process was, the Brown decision was widely fought -- to the point of the 101st Airborne marching protesters off school grounds, literally at bayonet point. In the process, the public school system was greatly harmed as the dead-enders, or those wishing to avoid court-ordered busing, withdrew from the public schools. On the other hand, the civil rights laws passed by Congress (Public Accomodations Act, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Poll Tax Amendment) were accepted as legitimate by most, once the votes were counted.
This ruling is a mistake. It rushes something that is probably inevitable, but done in this way will have no closure -- and may prove counterproductive as the FMA portends. This must come from the people, and the people's legislature, or not at all.
UPDATE: After a bit of give-and-take with a gay blogger who strongly favors this ruling, I've come to the conclusion that