Megan Cardle's take seems to be quite limited, historically, and reminds me of arguments about so-called 'activist judges.' What they all forget (or intentionally push aside) is that U.S. law is based in large part on case law and precedent. That is part of the checks and balances system as much as the legislatures, and in fact insures that we don't have to legislate for every eventuality, because many will be clarified by the fourts. For persecuted minorities the courts have always provided a way to basic rights (of which marriage is one) - basic rights that wouldn't be achievable through the majority-system nessecary for legislation.

Then again, it's all cover-up for people who think that the majority opinion equals The Right Thing, even when horning in on other people's private lives.