A reader writes:
One thing that I think is lost in the discussion about the California decision is the implicit rejection by the court (by primarily invoking Loving) that sexual orientation is by and large a choice. For some, it can be (like exploring bi-sexuality). But, by and large, sexual orientation is a culmination of the nature of our beings. Is there a nurture (environmental) element in our decisions related to our sexual orientation? Sure. I'm heterosexual but I also recognize that some of my preferences and lifestyle are/were driven by my experiences as a young adult. Distinguishing between a sexual culture and orientation might be useful in discussing this. That doesn't change the fact that my orientation is hetero. I've never spent a moment contemplating the idea that it was a choice, why should homosexuals be painted with the same brush?
The California decision reduces the concept of gay marriage to two things. First, as in Loving, there is a fundamental right in our society (at least California's) to marry. Second, sexual orientation, at its basic level, is not a choice. The decision by California to reject the ban on gay marriage, in spite of the strict scrutiny applied, affirms both of these principles.
Now its just a matter of the rest of the US waking up to these truths.
And the only advantage that I have in all this is that I know this to be true - more surely than I know almost anything.