Where's judicial activism when you need it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20918642

I disagree with the courts logic in this instance. By any reasonable modern definition there was an absence of consent here, the woman was raped. The law was even set to state that this was rape.

Only by modern standards whereby people live different standards than then does this loophole exist. The word 200 years ago may have said spouse but the court should have understood that to mean nowadays unmarried couples too in this instance.

This guy is a rapist. The woman is a victim. Justice was not served by this ruling by merely sticking to an archaic and overly literal reading of the words.

Sucks that attempting to adhere to the spirit of the law can be seen as "judicial activism" by some people :(