BOSTON (AP) – A day after he accused justices on the Supreme Judicial Court of legalizing same-sex marriage to please “their like-minded friends in the communities they socialize in,” Gov. Mitt Romney sought to portray his comment as a generic criticism of their legal approach.

The Republican chief executive said the four justices who authored the 2003 majority opinion were not so much reflecting the views of their particular social circles, but of the community at large. Instead, he argued, they should have rooted their opinion not in public opinion, but precedent and the four corners of the state constitution.

“The judiciary should be grounded in the constitution and the law and precedents, and if there’s going to be a change from that base, it should be made by the Legislature and the people,” Romney told reporters after attending a Veterans’ Day ceremony at the Statehouse.

He added: “I think the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court erred by reading into our constitution something that was clearly not there. They found a right that John Adams would be very surprised to suggest that it was found within our constitution … and they instead looked at their own values and the values of the community which they associate with – the community at large.”

He said he was not implying anything about where the justices live or with whom they socialize.

Romney’s remarks, made during a speech in Washington, prompted a rebuttal from Attorney General Tom Reilly, the state’s top law enforcement officer and a candidate for next year’s Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

He accused the governor of continuing a pattern of denigrating Massachusetts to out-of-state audiences, and of playing up to conservative audiences to advance a possible presidential run in 2008. Romney spoke in Washington to the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention.

“It’s one thing for the governor to disagree with their interpretation and decision; it’s another thing to question their motivation. He has absolutely no right to do that,” Reilly said. “I don’t always agree with their decision. But I don’t question their motivation.”

The landmark ruling was written by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and supported by Associate Justices John Greaney, Roderick Ireland and Judith Cowin. Of them, Marshall, Ireland and Cowin were nominated to the bench by Republican governors, while Greaney was nominated by a Democrat.

Three associate justices disagreed: Francis Spina, Martha Sosman and Robert Cordy. All three were nominated by Republican governors.

In his capacity as attorney general, Reilly carried the state’s position against the plaintiffs in the case that sought to legalize same-sex marriage. After the court released its ruling, he also criticized it, saying such a major change in social policy should be decided by the Legislature.

He suggested lawmakers create civil unions that provided the same rights as marriage, but he abandoned that position earlier this year as he ramped up his gubernatorial campaign. He said that society had changed since the marriages began in May 2004 and he subsequently favored same-sex marriage.

Yesterday, Reilly cited his personal relationships with all four who joined in the majority opinion as he rebuffed Romney’s criticism. He also enumerated their personal differences, including Marshall’s childhood in South Africa, Ireland’s background as the only African-American on the court, Cowin’s work as a prosecutor and Greaney’s lengthy career as a housing, superior and appeals court judge.

“Four people of distinctly different backgrounds came to the same conclusion,” the attorney general said. “Whether you agree with it or not, they deserve to be treated with respect.”