[The Old Hoosier]

If precedent prevails, why did the SC take this case in the first place?

They took it becase at least four justices voted to take it, no other reason. Many members of the court (Ginsberg, Souder, Stevens, Breyer) have no regard for precedent, law or tradition whatsoever, but are really just activists who got on the court to advance their un-American agenda.

I've read here that they took this case specifically because the Texas statute excludes heterosexuals.

That is likely. But a 14th amendment decision like that, that adds sexual preference as a new protected class, would be a very unwise decision. Like I said before, that decision will lead to the striking of all anti-gay-marriage laws and amendments to state constitutions, as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act. It is only a matter of time before some future liberal in a lower court uses that precedent to force states to grant marriage licenses to gays.

[Torie]

I made the same point, but the 4 would not take it if they didn't think they had a very good shot at a 5th vote. Actually, I suspect the Texas law will be dumped with more than 5 votes. The interesting thing to see will be how broad the decision is, assuming there is a decision with 5 votes (which would constitute precedent), as opposed to merely 5 votes for an outcome (which would limit the precedent by and large to the facts of the case).