activist judges

[low_delta]

I asked a question, a while back about why judges that don't oppose gay marriage are considered to be "activist judges." I saw on a message board tonight the following explanation:

I also tend to believe that the real problem with what is going on in Massachusetts is that it is originating with the judicial branch. Some of the issues raised:

(1) Its pretty clear that this is an undemocratic result. The elected representatives and polls of the folks are all strongly opposed to gay marriage. The man/woman definition of marriage has been in the statute books for literally centuries, put their via the democratic process.

Say what you will about how democracy is limited in a constitutional republic, we should nonetheless be careful of overturning democratically supported institutions without a clear constitutional mandate. Democracy may suck, but it beats the hell out of rule by oligarchy. There's a balance here, and its my sense that the court overstepped its role.

What this idiot is saying is that there's no law restricting an activity, even though the people would like there to be. So a judge that rules said activity is allowable is acting out of the proper bounds of the judiciary, but a judge disallowing said activity, even though no law forbids it, would not be "judicial activism"?

Fuckheads

And then he goes on about "clear constitutional mandates." Excuse me? It's a cultural preference, not a basic human right. Or a right designed to protect the existence of our nation.