Not at all. Here’s why from a legal standpoint (and this is important for both sides to understand in order to effectively argue their points):
Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with gay marriage, the refusal to recognize out of state marriages is unconstitutional as established in the equal faith and credit clause by the founding fathers. This is why the more intelligent lawyers on the cultural right wing demanded a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman nearly ten years ago(!), long before the nation was in the situation in which it now finds itself.
“Article IV, Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
The last sentence merely gives Congress the power to decide what paperwork or proof of a marriage is required, not determine the criteria of those state decisions because that would be an imposition on state sovereignty. Even if one state allows marriage at 16 years old and another at 18, the latter must recognize any lawful marriages of 16 year old people performed in its sister state. To refuse to recognize the 16 year old’s marriage is an infringement upon the sovereign right of another state.
In regards to the Boise and Olson case, they are making an extraordinarily brilliant tactical argument that is a very convincing: They are posturing that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection clause because it prohibits marriage based solely on the GENDER of one party - not sexual orientation (i.e., a woman is prohibited from marrying a woman BECAUSE she is a woman). That is why, frankly, they are considered the two most brilliant lawyers on the left and right, respectively. When the question is framed that away, a ruling in favor of gay marriage wouldn’t open the door to polygamy as some fear. Given that gender discrimination is firmly established in constitutional law, this is a breathtakingly simple argument that could be the silver bullet.
My professional circle of friends includes both right wing (think Brownback from Kansas) Republicans and left wing (think Nancy Pelosi) professionals and even the traditional marriage side around here is in awe of the argument. Regardless of whether I agree, it makes me respect Olson’s mind even more.
I’m not really a betting man, but if I had to lay odds, I think they’ll win. It will take a few years to work out, but unless a constitutional amendment is passed at the Federal level, gay marriage is inevitable, especially when you factor in my generation (heck, I’m from a *firmly* established republican family, who owns a whole lot of businesses in the Midwest and are about as conservative as you get and because I’m in my mid-twenties, I just don’t get the whole gay thing; isn’t abortion a much bigger concern? It seems to be to all of my friends. At family reunions, the grandparents are baffled by our social views but the feeling is mutual.)