Activist Judges?

[ambitious_wench]

Recently King George V said:

The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate. I called on the Congress to pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. The need for that amendment is still urgent, and I repeat that call today.

"Activist Judges"?

Just what the hell is an activist judge?

I have this image of Judge Judy in her robes with the snowy lace collar chaining herself to a redwood tree in Santa Cruz, or perhaps Antonin Scalia marching in solidarity with the Boston Police on the picket lines at the Fleet Center at the DNC.

The term irks me. Yes, I am on the side of the judges that say that marriage is a secular contract between adults capable of consenting to the responsibilities inherant in such an agreement, and that it should not be limited to male/female couples. However, I don't agree with Scalia, or any number of other judges who feel that their religious views should hold sway over mine. I don't call them names, or disparage their role in our judicial system.

Likewise, the number of these so-called "activist judges" isn't relevant; Just like the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's, a majority doesn't mean that it's right when it comes to constitutional rights.

As my grandmother used to say "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?"

Frankly, a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman scares the water out of me. I urge my conservative readers to take a page from one conservative senator who says that he is opposed to any constitutional amendment that restricts freedom for American citizens.

So I say hurrah for the activist judges who take a reasoned, non-religious stand on the ethics of "tradition" vs. civil rights for all.

Comments

[lilithraevyn.livejournal.com]

This exact issue was what prompted me to send This Letter (http://www.livejournal.com/users/lilithraevyn/362511.html) to the White House. For all the good it did. I received a return note thanking me for my support of Mr. Bush's whatever.

I sent a similar letter (http://www.livejournal.com/users/lilithraevyn/362325.html) to my district representative.

Not only did he call these judges "activist judges" but in a previous quote, lumped them together and called people supporting homosexual marriages as "Anti-Family Extremists".

[djfiggy.livejournal.com]

It's funny, the Conservative Party up here says "where are the checks and balances" when it comes to our "activist judges" interpreting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They want parliament to have a say. The way I see it, those judges are the check and balance that make sure nutball politicians don't screw our legal system up beyond recognition! After all, they didn't just get to be judges as a plum job, AFAIK, they got there by knowing the law well.
As much as I too want all of Canada in on the government and not just Ontario and Quebec dominate federal politics, why is it that the parties that support that idea are all so scary?