“Not the way I was talking about. Get married in Cali then move to idaho...then sue in Idaho for your marriage to be recognized since they recognize marriages in cali of man and woman.”
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Idaho already recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. Are you saying a heterosexual couple could sue Idaho for recognizing their marriage? That does not make sense to me unless it was intended as humor. But if you mean homosexuals becoming legally married in California then moving to Idaho to sue, this ruling will make it far easier for this situation to arise.
What I think you are describing would have been possible before this ruling because homosexual couples who “married” in Boston could have moved to another state and done what you are saying.
What is different here is that no one has to move. Two homosexuals cohabitating in Idaho could take a vacation to California, get “married”, then return to their current home and demand for their marriage to be recognized.
People often marry in states and even in foreign countries where they do not reside. Boston requires couples to abide by the laws of the state in which they reside, so Boston does not “marry” homosexual couples that do not reside there. California does not require this to the best of my knowledge.
So it is much more likely for this to occur because it does not require moving.
What I’m describing is that a gay married couple can move to idaho and sue. Yes they can do this in boston too, but California has more people and has the 9th circuit so they will be more willing to try that over there. Also with more and more states recognizing gay marriage at some point they’ll feel more confident with their case to the supremes.