I must have poorly phrased that sentence. I meant to say that yes, there is indeed popular support for gay marriage, which is great. But if the people clear support a policy change, then that policy change should be enacted at the legislative level according to our constitution. Policy-making shouldn't happen through the judiciary in a healthy democracy. Unfortunately, in my eyes, and in that of many conservative lawmakers (I suspect), this decision sets a precedent which legitimizing future judicial law-making. The majority opinion sounded great but, to my reading, was not grounded in a sound interpretation of the constitution. My concern is that the same pattern of reasoning employed by this majority could be used by a future majority to do something you and I would both find disturbing.