i still haven't quite formed an opinion on this whole thing yet, but interesting:
"We heard from Bill B. on his concerns about the current gay marriage crisis: "I am a Conservative and could care less if gays and lesbian couples win the right to marry. I believe that it is an idea that is coming to the fore in the nation's social conciseness, much like women's suffrage and anti-slavery did in their times. What troubles me, however, is the attempt to jump start the process with judicial activism. Better to let the people of a state bring pressure on their elected representatives to change the law, or for that matter to bring an amendment to the federal constitution for gay marriage. I know that activists want things changed now but if it is truly worth fighting for, get out and change hearts and minds, instead of building judicial sandcastles.""

"Judicial activism is one of those things you hate if it's not for your cause, and you love if it is. Bottom line: it's the judicial branch being proactive, instead of reactive, regarding the law."

-->but should the judicial branch really be proactive? isn't that the job of the legislators? ah, convolution