Newt Gingrich may take flak for this 'Let the people speak' stance on gay marriage, as reported by Politico:
I think at least they're doing it the right way [state referenda], which is going through voters, giving them a chance to vote and not having a handful of judges arbitrarily impose their will. I don't agree with it, I would vote no if it were on a referendum where I was but at least they're doing it the right way.
That is mostly my view, although I go further - I think it's fine if popularly elected legislatures rewrite the law.
My view on the judicial cram-down approach has evolved as well. I still think it's coming, but it won't be as bad as the permanently divisive Roe v. Wade - experience will tell whether gay marriage strengthens, weakens or has no effect on marriage; experience with abortion hasn't, and won't, tell us whether life begins at conception.
Finally, everyone on the left talks about the Loving v. Virginia precedent but few seem to realize that the 1967 ruling was an example of judicial restraint. The Supremes ducked test cases through the 50's; by 1967 a dozen states had repealed their anti-miscegenation laws and Congress had passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.
If Chief Justice Roberts and the current Supremes are guided by that history they will want to see a repeal of DOMA and the legalization of gay marriage in a number of states before they impose it on the hold-outs. At that time, the current 'states rights' arguments offered by gay-rights advocates will become inoperative, but whatev.