He says (no link because you gain nothing from reading his site):
I think, though, that changes like this are better made through legislative than judicial means, and that this may well benefit the Republicans substantially in the coming elections, as people like my reader Steve White who worry about judicial activism are given a new reason to go to the polls and vote for anti-gay-marriage initiatives.
Let's just clarify something: this is weasel wording of a certain common and dangerous sort, much beloved by the evasive Reynolds. 'Changes like this' aren't changes in the law, they're clarifications whose effect is to reverse discriminatory practice - the theory is as it has been. That is to say: the court's ruling is a deduction, derived from the existing body of the law. 'Judicial activism' is only interpretation that conflicts with what a given group wants to believe, as is becoming understood, and in this case the decision expands rights in practice but does not damage the intent of the law. As an added bonus, the decision reflects a growing societal consensus that partner benefits should be available to all committed couples regardless of orientation.
All Reynolds can do is complain about 'flabbiness' and predict a GOP resurgence in response to the decision; his myopia is not unexpected but his cowardice continues to disappoint (he favours these partner benefits but doesn't want to alienate his audience, which after all handily supplements his academic salary). He begins his 'analysis', after all, by saying 'I agree with the result,' but he then spends the rest of his post backing off from that view. The above-quoted paragraph amounts to: 'This is a moral right, an obligation of our society, but I would prefer for this right to be denied in practice by deferring it to the securely "conservative" Congress.' Reynolds doesn't put 'judicial activism' in quotes because for his audience no quotes are necessary.
That he's capable of thinking and writing this way without irony speaks badly of him - as a scholar and as a moral actor.
