CA state courts could rule that the amendment violates the U.S. constitution because of any of the reasons that courts have used, or using Kennedy’s stupid new standard, or merely by saying that a federal court has declared it unconstititional. And once a CA appellate court has so ruled, Section 3.5 of the CA Constitution no longer would block administrative agencies from declaring Prop 8 unenforceable (not that I’m holding my breath on CA agencies following Section 3.5.
As for SCOTUS punting on ruling on laws that limiting marriage to one man and one woman, it certainly is doing that: it denied review today to a couple of cases dealing with state marriage laws: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/voting-marriage-rulings-impact-spreads/#more-166332
to punt, they need 5 to keep it away from kennedy as I cannot believe he would deny review .. unless he is foxier than that, wants to avoid a backlash.
Could it be Breyer? One of the 5 liberals see the backlash problem otherwise they would plow ahead. They are using the incremental approach.
gay marriage will be nationalized unless there is a serious shift to the right nationally and conservatives get the Ginsburg seat. Although, I cannot imagine she will stay on past ‘16. The other 4 libs are under age 80 and can survive until 2025. We are cooked.
Ginsburg might resign this summer or next.