I'm against, but it might be the right decision for you.
"They are quite important to the "law is the law" discussion, if what I suspect is true. "
Really, I'm quite sure that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the merits of any homosexual marriage or civil union case. It's very much unsettled law.
"What is your definition of judicial activism? "
If you are a jurist who is substituting your political beliefs (to include your moral, philosophical or religious beliefs) in the place of the written law to reach a decision you believe is just or in keeping with your political philosophy, then you are a judicial activist.
Sometimes - especially in lower court - jurists have to decide a case in a manner that they personal believe is immoral or unjust, but they are bound by oath to follow the law. It seems many here today are advocating that jurists abandon that oath to make decisions that they find more philosophically or theologically palatable.
"So that premise applies to Lawrence v. Texas, correct?"
Sure. Although I would never vote for a politician who thought that what went on in your bedroom was any of his business. This decision probably sets bad precedent for other unrelated cases, but I'm not going to cry over the fact that people in TX aren't going to be prosecuted for activities between two consenting adults. It's none of my business.
You are against what exactly? Please be specific?
Really, I'm quite sure that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the merits of any homosexual marriage or civil union case. It's very much unsettled law.
We already established that you are mistaken. Baker is a decision on the merits, albeit a summary decision. Period. It is the law. The lower courts are bound to follow Baker until the Supreme Court instructs otherwise.
If you are a jurist who is substituting your political beliefs (to include your moral, philosophical or religious beliefs) in the place of the written law to reach a decision you believe is just or in keeping with your political philosophy, then you are a judicial activist. Sometimes - especially in lower court - jurists have to decide a case in a manner that they personal believe is immoral or unjust, but they are bound by oath to follow the law. It seems many here today are advocating that jurists abandon that oath to make decisions that they find more philosophically or theologically palatable.
Do you believe that there is ever a time when the written law so conflicts with Natural Law that you would not obey it?
Let's go back to my earlier questions. If the Constitution were amended to ban the civilian possession of firearms, would you turn in your weapons?
Do you have a point where YOU would refuse to obey the law, or are you really going to stick with your "the law is the law" premise? (I suspect that we both know that there would come a point where even you would disregard human law for your own notions of morality.)
Sure. Although I would never vote for a politician who thought that what went on in your bedroom was any of his business. This decision probably sets bad precedent for other unrelated cases, but I'm not going to cry over the fact that people in TX aren't going to be prosecuted for activities between two consenting adults. It's none of my business.
So because you like the outcome of Lawrence, you aren't going to get that upset about it? How is that consistent with your position?