James, there is a constitutional and democratic system in place in California, as there is in all states and at the federal level, which generally provides that if the elected branches–i.e., both the legislature and the executive branch–it becomes law. If the two elected branches in California want to legalize gay marriage, I don’t think it’s the court’s job to stop them. Conversely, I don’t think it’s the court’s job to leap in and legalize gay marriage when there has been no consensus from elected policy makers.

There is a clear distinction between legal conservatism and social conservatism. As a strong proponent of the former, I generally think that on controversial cultural matters it is invariably better to avoid court-imposed “solutions.” If the good people of California, either by a statute passed successfully through the legislature and signed by the executive or by constitutional initiative, want to pass a gay marriage bill, you will hear no complaint from me. But stop and think: the result of this decision–a court-imposed decision backed by no popular consensus–may well be a constitutional gay marriage ban. The last thing,  in other words, that supporters of the decision want.