[Sherman Logan]

No. But that won’t keep the Courts from sooner or later finding such a requirement.

[Billthedrill]

Yep. I feel a penumbra coming on...

[Cboldt]

I believe that a majority of the federal courts of appeal that have taken up the question, have found that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right. Once circuit court found otherwise. I bet that really irked SCOTUS, because the split made it difficult for them to ignore the issue. I figure they'll do similar to what they did with Roe and Casey - finding some basis in the constitution that restricts states from restricting marriage to couples of the opposite sex.

The old polygamy cases (Reynolds comes to mind) roughly stand for the proposition that its up to the government to decide what forms of marriage are acceptable to society (that is, religious tenets to the contrary have to yield to the government); and it seems the Courts have asserted themselves as the deciders of social acceptability. They clothe their opinion in the form of finding a constitutional right to homosexual marriage of a couple, and for the time being, that's as far as the constitutional right extends. Who know what the arbiters of social justice will decide 10 or 20 years from now - but it must be a relief to not be tethered to the principle of consistency.