So sorry, go see another branch of government

Here's an example of what isn't judicial activism but will be called it by marriage equality opponents:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - A Superior Court judge has refused to hear the divorce case of a lesbian couple, but questioned whether the law that barred the women from ending their marriage unconstitutionally denied them a right enjoyed by heterosexual Rhode Islanders.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court last year ruled that the state's family court could not grant a divorce to Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston, who wed in 2004 in Massachusetts

soon after same-sex marriage became legal in that state.

The justices said the state statute that created the family court recognized marriage as between only a man and a woman and the court, therefore, could not divorce a same-sex couple.

Chambers then sought a divorce in Superior Court. Judge Patricia Hurst denied the request on Wednesday, saying her court does not have jurisdiction to handle divorce.

But she also questioned the constitutionality of the statute relied on last year by the Supreme Court.

"It seems to me that this is a matter needing immediate attention and one that very plainly belongs in the hands of the legislature and the executive branch," Hurst said.

The judge's sin will be raising any flaw, real or imagined- in the definition of marriage.