I take strenuous exception to Lisa Pampuch’s column of May 20.
It doesn’t take a legal scholar to see that the California Supreme
Court’s recent ruling to depart from strict adherence to the
judicial precedent of millennia in favor of a progressive and new
social policy allowing persons of the same sex to marry is
inconsistent with the restraint expected of a two-year-old child,
let alone an appellate court judge.
&
amp;#8194;
Judicial activism: Judicial philosophy which motivates judges to depart from strict adherence to judicial precedent in favor of progressive and new social policies which are not always consistent with the restraint expected of appellate judges. It is commonly marked by decisions calling for social engineering and occasionally these decisions represent intrusions into legislative and executive matters.
~ Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition 
Marriage. Legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
~ Ibid.
I take strenuous exception to Lisa Pampuch’s column of May 20. It doesn’t take a legal scholar to see that the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling to depart from strict adherence to the judicial precedent of millennia in favor of a progressive and new social policy allowing persons of the same sex to marry is inconsistent with the restraint expected of a two-year-old child, let alone an appellate court judge. 
This decision is 100 percent social engineering. It intrudes into the legislative matter of overturning Proposition 22, which passed in a landslide. It intrudes into the executive matter of how every city and county in this state is expected to handle marriage. It rewrites the very meaning of marriage as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary. 
For Lisa Pampuch to say that the term activist judge, immediately derived from judicial activism, only applies to judges with whom the speaker disagrees is not only inaccurate, it is snide. I am sure that Ms. Pampuch would agree with me that Kelo vs New London, which stripped property owners of protections against eminent domain abuse, is a piece of judicial activism. I have no idea where she stands on another piece of judicial activism, In Re Rachel L, which states that homeschooling is against the law. And I see that she objects to having anyone call the gay marriage ruling judicial activism.
Perhaps Ms. Pampuch is merely admitting to her own proclivities when she accuses others of calling judicial activism by its proper name only when they disagree with the decision. The definition raises an interesting point, though. Why is it not broader? Why is it not “Judicial philosophy which motivates judges to depart from strict adherence to judicial precedent in favor of progressive or conservative and new or archaic social policies which are not always consistent with the restraint expected of appellate judges. It is commonly marked by decisions calling for social engineering or reverting to antediluvian social compacts, and occasionally these decisions represent intrusions into legislative and executive matters.”
I admit that the revised definition is overly cumbersome. Perhaps we should let judicial activism continue to stand for progressive judicial meddling, and coin a new term, such as paleo-judicial activism, for its evil conservative twin. 
In point of fact, we do not need a term for conservative judicial activism. One needs no term for what does not exist. This pendulum swings only one way: toward a non-existent utopia. In contrast to the definition of judicial activism, the definition of marriage is clarity itself: “Marriage. Legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.”  
Clearly, this kind of intolerance is bound to rile people. Bigamists and polygamists are going to feel excluded by the use of the singular adjective “one,” likewise the polyandrists and group-marriage advocates. The North American Man Boy Love Association is excluded on two counts. The difference between loving animals and using one for sexual gratification remains clear. And homosexuals will have to continue to dignify their unions with other terms. 
Curiously, of all the excluded groups, only homosexuals seem to be fussing about exclusion and intolerance. The core of the argument seems to be that a homosexual can’t marry the one he loves. But really, does anyone have the right to marry the one he loves? Let’s say that someone wants to marry someone else. They can marry only if both are: unmarried, unrelated to a specified degree, of age, of sound mind, willing, and, oh, yes, of opposite gender.
Note that being in love is not a requirement, though certainly a splendid addendum. On Nov. 4, we have an opportunity to strike a blow against judicial activism. Mark your calendars. 
