I'm sorry. You lost me. A court striking down a state law, that has heretofore been for about 200 years deemed in accord with the pertinent constitutional language, and giving time to the state to rewrite it to the court's liking, is not activism, but if SCOTUS does the same thing under its reading of similar language in the federal constitution, it is, loses me on both counts. Maybe it is incipient senile dementia on my part.
A group of citizens of the State of Massachusetts challenged a longstanding State law. The Court found that law to be in violation of the State's constitution and "sided" with the citizens.
The fact that an unconstitutional law stood for a long period of time does not make it constitutional; California's Supreme Court struck down anti-myscegenation laws that had stood for a long time and those laws are in no way by anyone considered to be constitutional, nor is the Court's decision considered to be "bad" activism.
My point was that if SCOTUS had struck down the State Law, rather than the State Court, I could have understood the claim of activism.
Whether I personally approve of same sex marriage or not is not the case here, what I do believe that the State has no logical legal reasons to deny marriage licenses to same sex couples. The only argument that I've seen on this subject is A) it's always been done this way, and B) it's a sin.
Well, things (and society) change, we don't stick red "A's" on people guilty of adultery any more, public nudity is against the law, except of course in South Beach , and I can buy beer on Sundays (you may not be able to in your State, but I can).
Some changes came about as a result of changes in legislation, others as a result of Court challenges, and some laws we just stop enforcing (topless German stewardesses on the beach in Miami), now, in Massachusetts, gay couples may be able to get married without having to wait for their legislature to build up enough cojones to actually change the State's laws.
America will go on.