Would this be considered an activist judicial decision?

[Doctrine1st]

Both now in NY and in Washington, bans on publicly voted gay marriages have been upheld with the rational of the majority being, and a paraphrased summation; "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation (and) is essential to the survival of the human race."

Ok all you strict constructionists out there, to me this is a rather weak argument but I ask, is that an activist decision?

 

[ElvisFan42]

No state's original constitution addresses same-sex marriage. If, at any time between then and now, an amendment was put to the people, to allow or disallow it, and they voted on it and it passed, and it was not deemed unconstitutional, wouldn't it then become part of the constitution? It seems it would be a pretty tough arguement to deem it unconstitutional.

I'm not sure why these judges feel the need to add their opinion, they have a process and precednt to stand on. I'm not sure it's activism, but it's surely leaning towards it.

 

[Borealis]

Both now in NY and in Washington, bans on publicly voted gay marriages have been upheld with the rational of the majority being, and a paraphrased summation; "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation (and) is essential to the survival of the human race."

Ok all you strict constructionists out there, to me this is a rather weak argument but I ask, is that an activist decision?

Can I get a link or something to work with, please?

 

[Inconel]

Yes, a link would be nice. In Washinton State, there was no previous legal recognition of gay marriage, and the recent decision maintained the current law- not something I would consider "activist".

 

[Doctrine1st]

Sorry folks:

"In a splintered decision, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote that the state's marriage law was enacted to "promote procreation and to encourage stable families."

"The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/278896_samesex26ww.html

 

[Borealis]

Sorry folks:

"In a splintered decision, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote that the state's marriage law was enacted to "promote procreation and to encourage stable families."

"The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/278896_samesex26ww.html

Okay, let's take a look at the very first paragraph of the article, shall we?

The state Supreme Court today upheld Washington's law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, rejecting the argument of 19 same-sex couples that they've been unfairly denied the right to wed.

So the state Supreme Court was not writing law themselves, they were upholding an already-existing law that had been put in place by the legislature.

The answer to your OP question is: No. This is not judicial activism. Judicial activism is, for example, when the court basically (or literally) orders the legislature to pass certain laws that suit the current desires of the judiciary.

 

[burrow_owl]

SCOTUS in Kelo deferred to a legislature, yet we agree that was activist. So the issue is whether the court erred on what should have been an easy Constitutional call. The court muffed this one, so it's activism.

QED.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Okay, let's take a look at the very first paragraph of the article, shall we?

So the state Supreme Court was not writing law themselves, they were upholding an already-existing law that had been put in place by the legislature.

The answer to your OP question is: No. This is not judicial activism. Judicial activism is, for example, when the court basically (or literally) orders the legislature to pass certain laws that suit the current desires of the judiciary.

Okay, thanks for your input.

So given this ruling and your comment, since the courts are upholding existing state laws, the sumpreme okaying abortion is not judicial activism because they are upholding state legislation?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

The residents of a state made a vote and the courts upheld up. It's doing exactly what they were created to do.

 

[DieHappy]

I don't think the law in Kelo was nearly as clear as this one seems to be. When a law passes that does not violate the constitution, it is not activism to uphold it. It is activism to either push change where no law exists or to strike down a law for reasons other than it violating the constitution. I agree that procreation is a pretty dumb reason to let the law stand, but the judge should have simply said, "there's no reason to not let this stand."