I think the term “judicial activism” is derived from the fact that many or most of these decisions are not arrived at by innocent mistake. Rather by the desire to achieve a certain result, combined with the judicial philosophy that under such circumstances the judge may “interpret” the law in a creative manner.
But let’s not argue semantics 
**Izzy wrote:
Of course you would. No one has any right to deprive you of something that you are legally entitled to. This applies to to stealing your car because you are gay, as well as depriving you of your vote because you are gay. The issue with jobs is that no one is legally entitled to have a job. So it is only a matter of discrimination, which depends on applicable laws.**
A point. I’m not asking to be legally entitled to a job, I’m asking for protection from discrimination if I have a job.
The point I was making regarding voting is this; it’s my understanding that the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act of the 1960s was necessary because of offical and unoffical discrimination at the polling place, especially in the south. A federal law would supersede the state laws regarding voting qualification. Since sexual orientation isn’t mentioned in those Acts, if I should face discrimination specifically because of my homosexuality, I would have no recourse, since sexual orientation isn’t covered by those Acts. At least, that’s the way I’m understanding it.
**Captain Amazing wrote:
I do understand your frustration, but so far 11 states have passed employment non discrimination laws, and each year, ENDA gets closer and closer to passage, so, keep on brushing and you probably will have all your teeth when it passes.**
And 34 states have passed their own equivilent of DOMA. And some 11 still make homosexual sodomy a crime.
The point I’m making is that the law applies equally to all citizens or the law is a farce. If I am a 2nd class citzen in this country, fine. I can deal with that. What gauls me is this attitude of We’re the United States, everyone is equal under the law yet this type of bullshit occurs.
Wait a minute, Freyr. There’s a difference between being equal under the law and having people dislike you. You are not a second class citizen just because the government hasn’t passed a law specifically protecting a class you belong to.
There is no law protecting blue-eyed people. But that is because blue eyed people aren’t discriminated against. But blue eyed people wouldn’t be second class citizens even if everyone hated blue eyes, unless the government treated them differently. The rich and the poor alike are forbidden from sleeping under bridges, etc etc.
Well, if it makes you feel better, I’ll tell you…you’re a second class citizen in this country. The law doesn’t recognize that your romantic relationship with someone of the same sex can ever be equal to someone else’s relationship with the opposite sex. If you are divorced and have custody of your children, they might be taken away from you and given to the non custodial parent, in some states, if the judge finds out you’re gay. You may be fired if somebody doesn’t like the fact that you’re gay. You can’t openly serve in the U.S. military. You and your partner, if you have one, can be denied the rental of an apartment. In the media, you will likely be portrayed as either a molestor of young children, or as an effeminent, asexual figure. Religious figures feel free to condemn you as evil and sinful, and those who do, instead of being condemned as bigots, are courted by politicians, quoted by the press, and are seen as respected members of society. That’s the situation, and I hope it made you feel better, because it depressed the hell out of me.
As Sua explained above, this is incorrect for two reasons. First, voting is a fundamental right that cannot be denied without a compelling governmental interest. The registrar of voters cannot deny you voting rights because of your sexual orientation, because there is no compelling governmental interest in denying the vote to homosexuals. Further, administering voting is a governmental function, not a private function. Denying you a vote on the basis of orientation would be unconstitutional. But a private organization like an employer is not under the same restrictions. In order to restrict the private employer, Congress needs to pass specific legislation under the Commerce clause, and they have not done so.
**Lemur866 wrote:
Wait a minute, Freyr. There’s a difference between being equal under the law and having people dislike you. You are not a second class citizen just because the government hasn’t passed a law specifically protecting a class you belong to.**
I’m not asking people to like me, I’m asking people to treat me as an equal citizen. When I’m fired from my job, denied public housing, etc. solely because of my sexual orientation, that is discrimination
I do think I’m treated as a 2nd class citizen. I can’t marry the person I love and enjoy the legal benefits of that such a union produces. To do so, I’d have to spend thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to draw up contracts to ensure equal treatment, especially if one of us dies. Even then, there’s no garauntee it would hold up in court, especially if contested by blood relatives.
If someone were fired from their job or denied public housing, etc because of their race, gender or religion, they’d have legal recourse. I would have none. I’m being denied due process of law. That sure shoulds like 2nd class citizenship to me.
**Captain Amazing wrote:
That’s the situation, and I hope it made you feel better, because it depressed the hell out of me.**
Now you know how I feel! 
**ENugent wrote:
As Sua explained above, this is incorrect for two reasons. First, voting is a fundamental right that cannot be denied without a compelling governmental interest. The registrar of voters cannot deny you voting rights because of your sexual orientation, because there is no compelling governmental interest in denying the vote to homosexuals.**
Unconstitutional? How so? I don’t recall voting qualifications being stated in the Constitution or its amendments. I thought it was set by statute as defined by Congress? Then again, for women to vote, an amendment was necessary.
I was trying to ask the question about voting if the logic shown by the judge in the OP was applied to a hypothetical case where sexual orientation wasn’t specifically mentioned; voting rights.
The right to vote and the right to employment are not comparable, Freyr “The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Under Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is mandated to guarantee in the states a “republican form of government”, so states may not bar homosexuals from voting. And since the states determine who may vote in both state and federal elections, homosexuals may not be barred from voting in federal elections, as well. (there’s a bit more nuance here, but I’m tired).
Barring women from voting was a historical anomaly, based on the custom of the time in which the Constitution was written. When issues not completely explained by the Constitution are addressed, it is common to refer back to the practices of the Founding Fathers to try to determine what they meant. Since the first elections under the Constitution barred women, it was determined that the FF’s did not intend the right to vote to apply to women. Thus, an amendment was needed.
No such historical custom applied to homosexuals - probably because the FFs tried to pretend homosexuality didn’t exist, but no matter.
Sua