BOSTON -- The Supreme Judicial Court ruled the state's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and lawmakers now have 180 days to act, but activists on both sides of the ruling are wondering what, exactly, Massachusetts legislators can or will do.

Video

Plaintiffs React To Court's Decision Gail Huff Reports On Legislative Reaction Natalie Jacobson Reports On Lesbian Couple's Reaction Church Community Reacts To Decision Romney Reacts To Decision

Seven couples had sued the state for the right to obtain marriage licenses and the SJC ruled four to three in their favor Tuesday, saying: "Without the right to marry, one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the law."

Gov. Mitt Romney, however, opposes the ruling and said he'll work with the Legislature to come up with an alternative, while still staying within the law.

"There's obviously some room in the statute that's going to be established by the Legislature and the administration that will conform with the Supreme Judicial Court decision which would be short of marriage," Romney said.

The plaintiffs, however, said that a civil union law like Vermont's would not pass muster under the SJC's ruling, because the court specifically mandated gay marriage.

NewsCenter 5's Gail Huff reported that lawmakers' hands may be tied because there's no way to prohibit gay marriages before the court's 180 deadline. The Legislature's current session ends Wednesday.

"They've given us 180 days to take action. We're not sure that any action that we take is going to affect the decision of the court," said Senate President Robert Travaglini.

Retired Superior Court Judge Robert Barton agreed.

"Why they gave the Legislature 180 days to do anything is beyond me, because there's nothing they can do. The SJC, they're not going to bargain. They made a decision. So the Legislature isn't going to say, 'Well, if we pass a civil union bill, will you back off on the marriage?' That isn't how it works," Barton said.

Romney, however, in denouncing the SJC ruling, seemed to be calling for a solution that may take longer to enact -- a revision of the state Constitution.

"And that Constitutional amendment process will be consistent with what I think the feelings are of the people of the commonwealth and of course the entire sweep of recorded history," said Romney.

Even a Constitutional amendment would take time. By state law, the matter would have to be taken up in the new legislative year and lawmakers would have to call a special session and then pass the proposed amendment for two consecutive years.

"The earliest that you could have an effective constitutional amendment would be 2006 and it seems that's all the legislature can do," said Barton.

So with gays winning the right to marry in Massachusetts, there looms a larger question: will their marriages be recognized outside the Bay State?

"Ultimately the issue of whether other states have to acknowledge a gay marriage from Massachusetts is going to wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court. It can't not wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court," said Paul Martinek of Lawyer's Weekly.

Currently, 37 other states specifically ban gay marriage. The SJC's ruling will undoubtedly have some implications in a political year which encompasses a presidential campaign.