[californianmom]

It won’t go to the Supreme Court because no federal question is involved. Marriage is a matter of state law which the State Supreme Court interprets. And I don’t see how this ruling could violate the federal Constitution. The matter will only come before the Supreme Court when a gay married California couple doesn’t have the marriage recognized by another state. Then it will be a federal issue.

But be of good cheer, Republicans. Nothing will get evangelicals to the polls to vote Republican like this ruling. Remember 2004?

[bvw]

IMO, the basic definition of key terms in law is a national issue, and suitable for hearing by the US Supreme Court. Those terms would include marriage, life, death, person, man and woman.

[Enchante]

Depends upon what statutes and/or constitutional issues they are addressing - I haven't seen the opinion yet but this quotation suggests they are relying upon an interpretation of the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment (US Constitution), unless CA also has an equal protection clause that they are referring to??

"the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest."

[for-q-clinton]

It can still go to the US Supreme Court. All you need is one couple in California t move to another State and then sue for their marriage to be recognized by the other state. Assuming that state rules against them...it can eventually go to the US Supreme Court. But the same applies for other gay marriage states.

[AHerald]

But be of good cheer, Republicans. Nothing will get evangelicals to the polls to vote Republican like this ruling. Remember 2004?

You're right. The timing couldn't be worse for Obama and the Dems.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

I see this coming fairly quickly.

[The Pack Knight]

Not this time. However, if the initiative to amend the state constitution gets on the ballot and is passed, then expect a challenge on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. In light of this ruling, I’d expect that challenge to come in state court.

Since the equal protection clause in Art. I, Sec. 7 of the California constitution is of identical language to the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, I wouldn’t be surprised if the California Supreme Court applied it the same way. It would have to involve a serious (even willful) misapplication of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, but those holdings are commonly viewed too broadly.

If that happens, I’d expect it to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. With the current Court, I’d expect the California holding to be reversed, though there’s no telling what would happen if one or more seats turn over in the interim.

[DrewsMum]

“But be of good cheer, Republicans. Nothing will get evangelicals to the polls to vote Republican like this ruling. Remember 2004?”

Truer words have ne’er been spoken...