When you say that SCOTUS overturned nothing, are you referring to ONLY the STATES who have already legislated gay marriage are affected?
No, I was referring only to California and the Prop. 8 referendum, with the point being that there are apparently conservatives living there that voted for and passed Prop. 8. SCOTUS made no finding or "overturning" of anything, but simply ruled the defendants had no legal standing (at least, I think they were the defendants - but whoever was "defending" Prop. 8, which was in effect before the ruling) to bring/defend the case that was brought by the gay/lesbian couple.
That's what seems so problematical to me...because the California State Government is completely controlled (all branches) by Democrats, the State refused to argue the case for Prop. 8, even though it was a duly passed California law. Personally, I don't know why the SCOTUS ruled apparently that the only entity with "standing" to argue the case was the State...talk about the consequences of elections!!! Just like that, the law's overturned by vacating all previous decisions except the original lowest court judge's ruling.
So, maybe the end result is the same for now, but that doesn't mean there's no other way around the issue. The Supremes only ruled on the standing of one of the parties, and NOT on the actual Constitutionality of the law.
What's so peculiar too, is that the DOMA ruling went the opposite way, in a way...the States that enacted right-to-gay-marriage laws were upheld, in opposition to the Federal law...so, why are those States' voters' decisions at the ballot box more "sacrosanct" than the California voters'??
In the DOMA ruling, it was a very narrow issue, and while the Obama Administration refused to argue for the Federal law (they like this trick apparently!), Boehner and the House did. Despite that SCOTUS decision, again they didn't rule on the merits so much as uphold the rights of states vs. the rights of the Feds. And that would be the rights of all the states, including those like Ohio that define marriage as between one man and one woman. So gay couples will have different rights and entitlements here than they would in California.
I think that's an important distinction to note...there was no sweeping decision on the Constitutionality of gay-marriage "rights" vs. "traditional marriage" rights in either case. So I would expect to see more action, especially from the gay-marriage activitists targeting traditional-marriage states. Fortunately, the 2010 mid-term elections put in a lot of State Republicans, and even some conservatives (lol!) that would defend traditional marriage laws...HOWEVER, we certainly need a repeat election success in 2014, so consider that a "call to action"!
BTW, I do like the "overpass" idea...it certainly couldn't hurt, and might just start something bigger - way to go, FReepers!! ;)