GRRRR. This is the verydefinition of judicial activism. By what right does an appointed-for-life judge veto the religious beliefs of an entire state?
Liberals should remember the consequences that their movement bore when Roe v. Wade was shoved down the nation's throat 40 years ago. It actually undermines support for the cause that has been imposed.
It don't know that it can be the "definition" of judicial activism unless you can offer a rebuttal to the actual legal reasoning used by the judges to arrive at the decision. "But my religious beliefs!" isn't a valid legal argument.
