As of 12:01 a.m. Monday, same-sex couples were officially granted state recognition of marriages due to a decision handed down earlier this year from the Massachusetts Supreme Court, currently making them the only state in the union to fully recognize same-sex marriages.

The reaction was, of course, predictable — proponents of same-sex marriage were jubilant while detractors protested The-Fall-Of-Western-Civilization-As We-Know-It.

However, such a victory handed down from the judiciary is likely to be short-lived — unlike the Supreme Court decisions last summer like Lawrence v. Texas (which found anti-sodomy laws to be unconstitutional), this mandate from a state court is already in the process of being countermanded by the state legislature.

In 2006, Massachusetts residents will vote on a compromise initiative which will forbid same-sex marriage but allow for recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples — a solution likely to satisfy no one.

Religious conservatives will argue such a half-measure is simply a gradual encroachment into the sacred institution of marriage while gay-rights advocates will (rightly) contend that it grants them second-class privileges.

Meanwhile, advocates of same-sex marriage may find that sometimes half a loaf is worse than none at all. Recognizing civil unions for same-sex couples massively deflates their claim of disenfranchisement — indeed, the reaction of many who are only tepidly sympathetic to the claim of homosexuals would simply ask, “Isn’t this enough? Haven’t you gotten most of what you wanted?”

From here it is those steadfast upon equal recognition that suddenly look like the unreasonable party —making further progress on the issue nearly impossible for the time being.

What the Massachusetts decision makes clear (as have the myriad of decisions before it) is that justice by judicial fiat is rarely a meaningful and lasting substitute for sound legislative remedy.

While the Massachusetts decision provides temporary relief for same-sex couples, given the way the decision was imposed upon the public, such measures are notoriously short-lived when faced with a population determined to amend the state constitution if necessary.

Such was the case after Hawaii’s infamous 1993 state Supreme Court decision which ruled barring same-sex couples from obtaining marriage licenses was unconstitutional. The result was a swift amendment of the state constitution along with the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which exempted states from their Constitutional obligations under the Full Faith and Credit clause to recognize same-sex unions from other states.

How then does one provide for a satisfactory legislative redress for all parties involved when both have legitimate claims to contend?

Religious conservatives argue that marriage is a sacred institution which should not be arbitrarily redefined at the whim of the state while LGBT advocates contend that legal institutions like marriage should be made equally accessible to all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation.

The answer is so simple that it frequently escapes notice — simply cut the proverbial Gordian Knot. Like the original puzzle of ancient Macedonia, the current dilemma leaves no loose ends exposed — no conventional means of simply unfurling the conflict in an amicable way to all sides exists.

Like Alexander the Great, sometimes the solution is to simply put a sword through it — and unbind the state from marriage once and for all.

The idea seems shocking at first, but consider—what is the institution of marriage in the eyes of the state other than a series of legal protections offered to two consenting adults?

Legal devices like power of attorney, joint custody, joint credit, and so forth — all of these things are institutions which theoretically exist on an a la carte basis already, joined together into one convenient and accessible legal institution.

Likewise, the broad public support for civil unions indicates the population as a whole is not opposed to granting homosexuals legal protections — but rather, their objection lies in redefining what has been an institution which has endured millennia.

While the Massachusetts decision may provide a brief reason for champions of same-sex marriage to celebrate, such judicial mandates have a history of providing illusory relief at best.

Yet, rather than having to endure yet another century of wrangling for legal dominance, both sides came to an agreement which provides reasonable concessions to both sides — if only they are willing to abandon orthodoxy.