Again, I have no problem with Gay marriage
What I have a problem with is that our government was designed in such a way, right or wrong, to legislate in a certain way. I won't disagree that there are are always interpretations about the definitions of the laws or enforcement of the laws. Fundamentally, change comes through legislation, not a judge.
In this case, the judge is using the "Due Process" clause and "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th amendments.
The "due process" clause was originally intended to protect citizens from illegal search and siezures without "due process". Later in the late 1800's and early 1900's judgest started using the "due process" clause as a means to validate legislative laws that effect liberty, not just property. In dealing with laws and liberty, judges must first decide if the law is restricting a fundamental or enumerated right. In this case, marriage is neither. This is where a Judge can however, under close scrutiny, decide if a particular law is denying such a liberty. The fundamental problem with "strict" scrutiny is that in most cases, since the right in question is not defined as enumerated or fundamental, is interpretive and factless based. This means that Judges can make case law which defines rights for the people without requiring legislative process.
Instead of a judge defining these rights, these rights should be defined by the constitution or federal statutes. While this would require an amendment, it would pass in the current climate.