It is fair to say that this decision is a direct descendant of Loving v. Virginia, and that this outcome was one of those predicted by opponents of Loving at the time. As to polygamy, though not child molestation or bestiality, I honestly don't think it's such a stretch to say that in a couple of decades some walls might crack.

I support the result of this holding as you know, but dismissing anyone who argues the slippery slope as a mouthbreather is a bit unfair, not that Ms. Malkin's site doesn't draw its share of those characters.

"We need not decide in this case whether the name “marriage” is invariably a core element of the state constitutional right to marry so that the state would violate a couple’s constitutional right even if — perhaps in order to emphasize and clarify that this civil institution is distinct from the religious institution of marriage — the state were to assign a name other than marriage as the official designation of the formal family relationship for all couples."

The analysis is so plain. If you want to differentiate between straight and gay marriage, be our guest, but keep the state out of it.

To the state, family status will be Unionized, Non-Union, or single.

QED

It appears to be the first, which means, for the many federalists who read this site, that the holding is almost certainly not subject to reversal by the United States Supreme Court, as the California court is the final interpreter of the state's constitution, barring amendment. Of course I'm still not sure what the opinion actually says.

For the time being, however, this is not an appropriate place to discuss one's feelings about Antonin Scalia.