BOSTON -- The state Supreme Judicial Court Wednesday clarified its ruling on gay marriage, telling the state Senate that civil unions are not an acceptable alternative in Massachusetts.

Video

Kelley Tuthill Reports On Ruling David Boeri Reports On Wedding Preps RESOURCES Survey: Agree With Gay Marriage? Ruling: Read SJC's Decision Discussion: Should The Courts Be Making Gay Marriage Law? Opinion:SJC's Opinion To Senate Article:White House 'Troubled'

Responding to state lawmakers, the high court ruled that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples will satisfy its landmark decision issued last fall.

The White House called the court's latest opinion "deeply troubling," again raising the possibility of a U.S. constitutional amendment that would bar same-sex marriages. At the same time, supporters of gay marriage hailed the ruling.

NewsCenter 5's Kelly Tuthill reported that while gay and lesbian couples celebrated the latest court opinion, and said they'll be putting down deposits for May weddings, opponents at the State House are gearing up for a fight. Gov. Mitt Romney said the state has heard from the court, but not from the people.

"The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage," Romney said.

Gay advocates said the court's decision is the final word on the issue.

"Today, any confusion that anyone may have had in his or her own mind about what the court meant in its historic ruling on Nov. 18, 2003, has now been laid to rest," said Mary Bonauto, the attorney for seven gay couples who sued the commonwealth for the right to legally marry.

The court ruled last fall that the state's constitution was discriminatory and that the Legislature had six months to amend the law to legalize gay marriages. The state Senate, however, asked the court for an advisory opinion, wanting to know if civil unions, rather than actual marriage, would suffice.

In its advisory opinion issued Wednesday, the court said no, writing, "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the commonwealth discriminate against a defined class. No amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain."

"The court has now been perfectly clear that [marriage and civil unions] are not equal. And for those folks who support equality, it's clear that the thing to do is to stand by the Goodrich decision and to oppose any effort to write discrimination into our constitution in Massachusetts," said Bonauto.

But Romney said the issue is too important to leave to a one-vote majority of the SJC.

"This is why it's imperative that we proceed with the legitimate process of amending our state constitution," he said, which would define exactly what legal marriage is in the state.

Rep. Phil Travis, a Rehoboth, Mass., Democrat said that process would begin next week at the state's Constitutional Convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"Is marriage the union of one man and one woman? Yes it is. House Bill 3190 spells that out in the form of a legislative amendment to the constitution and now 101 of my colleagues, including myself, will have to be counted, hopefully next Wednesday, to render the decision of whether they're going to put it on the ballot in the year 2006," said Travis.

Opponents are also considering other options, including a statutory change, in addition to the amendment, which would change the laws in Massachusetts to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. They could also do nothing before the May 17 deadline.