For the past several years, I've had my opinion on homosexuality and gay marriage and whatnot. Basically, my view is if you are gay, then be gay, just don't make a big deal out of it. And if you want to get married, then go get married. Of course, my view seems to be the minority view out there.
So imagine my surprise when I read about the lastest activist decision regarding gay marriage. Apparently, the Maryland Supreme Court granted the petition and heard the plaintiff's case for the right to marry. Their conclusions were little short of an activist decision/judiciary legislation from the bench, which those on the right disdain with such ferocity.
The court actually wrote that plaintiffs "point to several Maryland precedents that, if viewed literally, appear to support the proposition that a statute receives strict scrutiny analysis under Article 46 if sex is at all a factor in determining whether certain individuals are entitled to the benefits provided by the particular legislative enactment under review." (quote was pointed out on The Debate Link article hyperlinked above - David Schraub is a brilliant undergrad) The Court then stated that reading such precedents literally is "beguiling."
Let's edit that to make it a little easier to understand. The Court says that by reading what the courts have said in the past regarding Maryland's Equal Protection Act literally, then it looks like the government would have to prove that banning gay marriage is necessary to further a compelling government interest, and that no less restrictive alternative means are available. The law is presumptively invalid. However, applying such a "literal" interpretation of what has been said before is misleading, or delusional. And therefore, it cannot be right, so it's perfectly legitimate to craft a decision WE (the Court) want to have - namely, a ban on gay marriage.
Rather than try to explain the many things that are wrong with this decision, I would point you to The Debate Link and David Schraub, who has done an outstanding job writing on the topic.