In respect of the decision by the justices of the Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage, let us associate ourselves with the dissent of Judges Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin, who wrote, “If such a profound change is to occur, the People and their representatives, who represent the public conscience, should have the right, and the responsibility, to control the pace of that change through the democratic process.” If there is to be gay marriage, in other words, let it be voted by the legislatures rather than ordered by courts striking down laws passed by the legislatures.

That dissent in California underscores the wisdom of our own Court of Appeals here in New York, where the judges ruled precisely that this is a matter for the legislature to decide. If California, home of West Hollywood and San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood, can’t get gay marriage through its legislature, then maybe the state that is so famously liberal on social issues isn’t ready for it.

Not to mention the Congress of the United States, which, in the 1990s, passed the Defense of Marriage Act — by a vote of 85 to 14, the nay votes including California’s two senators. It was signed by President Clinton and is the law of the land. “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” If the presidential candidates dissent from that law, the general election will be a good time to start talking about it.