The chairman of the state's Conservative Party, Michael Long, said a decision in favor of gay marriage would amount to nothing more than activism on the bench. The party filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the defense side several weeks ago.Long is essentially denying the judicial branch's right to interpret the state's highest law. Now, I'm no legal scholar, but if a state law could possibly violate the state's constitution, isn't it the judicial branch's responsibility to determine whether it does (and take appropriate action if it does)?
This seems like another case of people who claim to support the rule of law being hypocritical and covering their tails with a strict constructionism that conveniently overlooks important legal principles. One of these principles is that since the constitution is a higher rule than individual pieces of legislation, it should be able to automatically negate any law that attempts to controvert it.
And that's the problem with so many calls against "judicial activism" -- its opponents refuse to acknowledge that interpretation of laws -- and constitutions -- is necessary for just enforcement of them.