Legislating from the Bench

This week the top courts in New York and Georgia ruled that laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman are constitional under their states' Constitutions. I've linked the stories:
N.Y. Top Court Rules Against Gay Marriage & Ga. Top Court Reinstates Gay Marriage Ban

I've commented on this issue extensively in published editorials ("Homosexual marriage goes against natural law", "Same-sex marriage forces society to approve of homosexuality", and "Opposing same-sex unions isn't bigotry") and in responding to particular questions so I will just respond to the dissenting judge's comments in the NY court:

In a dissent, Chief Judge Judith Kaye said the court failed to uphold its responsibility to correct inequalities when it decided to simply leave the issue to lawmakers.

Kaye noted that a number of bills allowing same-sex marriage have been introduced in the Legislature over the past several years, but none has ever made it out of committee.

"It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation," she wrote. "The court's duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy. I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep."

The purpose of the judiciary is not to fix society. It is not to "correct inequalities." That's the role of the legislature, the elected representatives who pass laws. The purpose of the judiciary is to render judgment based upon the Constitution they took an oath to uphold. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The judge reveals that she neither respects her oath or the Constitution of the State of New York.