The question of whether a judge is an activist judge or not is often answered by who's side he/she is on and who you ask.

What I want to ask here tho is why is it people think we should vote on whether gays should marry or not? Marriage has been determined to be an inherent right. One of the most `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." This has been affirmed by several Supreme Court decisions. (See below) And no, as of yet they have not been applied to gays by the US Supreme Court as they have by the State Supreme Courts of California and Massachusetts.

Basic civil rights are not something we vote on. There was a time when we also prohibited interracial marriages. Should that have been subject to a public vote? In fact let me ask those of you who think we should vote on gay marriage if you also think we should have voted on interracial marriages? To be consistent you must. And should we let each state decide? Should an interracial couple have to worry about traveling from one state to another and losing their rights as they travel as gays would?

By logical extension if you believe in states rights and majority rule then just about all civil rights should be subject to a popular vote. In fact the public should be able to vote on whether to share a water fountain or a lunch counter.

You know if we had interracial couples couldn't have married in South Carolina until 1998. That's when the state finally got around to changing the law. And you know. It barely passed then. A 60/40 vote. In some counties it failed. So is a public vote the way to decide peoples civil rights? Or gay marriage?

Link

Since the right to marry is of fundamental importance, e. g., Loving v. Virginia,

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.