All the judges did in this case was say The law enacted by the state legislature did not follow the state Constitution. If the elected representatives wanted to ban gay marriage, they have to change the state constitution.
This is not judicial activism. The judges acted in a strict accordance to the laws.
Look at it this way, in Washington DC they had the most restrictive handgun ban in the nation, the elected representatives liked it, the mayor liked it, the vast majority of people liked it, the cops liked it, but that law violated the US Constitution, so the judges threw the law out. Now not one freeper would dare call those Judges Activist.
But what's the difference between the two? Oh yeah we like guns more than gay marriage.
Not really. What the court said was...
"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the majority.
Their statement admits in its wording that this is an expanded interpretation of the text, otherwise the word "now" is superfluous. If it is something that is "now" understood, then there was an earlier time when it was not understood. Your acceptance of expansive, elastic definitions is what allows the left its unrelenting quest to remake this country through the courts.
Accepting anything but original understanding of the text is what permits the far left to argue that when the US Constitution remarks about "militias" it is speaking of the National Guard (something understood now) instead of every able-bodied person over the age of 18. Either the text has an intrinsic meaning or it has an expansive and elastic meaning. Which means it has no meaning which cannot be redefined in the moment.