I thing Loving is distinquishable from the same sex marriage cases.  At issue in Loving was 1) an actual ban, and 2) a marriage recognized by the state.  That isn't the case in states that don't recognize same sex marriage.  Indeed, if it weren't for Virginia recognizing the Loving's marriage as a marriage that case would have been very different if it were a case at all.

Secondly, I don't agree that marriage is a "fundamental right."  I've seen no argument to support this assertion by the Court (granted: this isn't their first time asserting that), and it's an odd duck when it comes to rights if it is one.  I can't think of any other right- fundamental or not- to have the state regulate the rightholder.  Can you?

From what I've seen of the opinion (just snippets so far), it's a broad, not-to-specific declaration that the Fourteenth Amendment mandates the states recognize same sex marriage.  Unless Kennedy surprises me, I doubt there's language that limits this Grand Right of Marriage to two people or is easily (or at least honestly) dismissive of would-be incestuous couples.  Kennedy doesn't touch on this at all in his opinion, at least if my search function is any guide. 

As for putting people's rights up to a vote:  it happens all the time, whonew.  The states and the Feds impose restrictions and regulations on rights all the time.  From abortion to guns to speech and including, yes, marriage, there are laws and regulations galore which impact people's rights. 

Again, I am very happy for those who can now marry who couldn't before this ruling.  That I disagree with the means by which it happens doesn't diminish my belief that it should be the law.