Wither it will be beneficial for all states will recognize same sex marriages depends on one's political standards. But to answer your question best I can, all this case will do will determine if a state can forbid gay marriage in it's constitution. So it would be a fairly narrow scope.

I'm happy about the decision, but I'll be far happier when marriages of two people who aren't one man and one woman can be performed again in California.

Message!

There are a few reasons the Supreme Court might not take it. First, they are asked to hear 7000+ cases every year. They take about 100 of those cases. As a general rule, they take the cases where there is a "split"among the Circuits -- that is, where different federal courts of appeals (or state supreme courts dealing with a federal issue) are reaching differing conclusions on the same legal issues. They tend to like to let cases "percolate" through the lower courts and only take the ones where they truly need to settle the issue.

If I recall correctly, there is one decision (from the 8th Circuit) saying that state laws confining marriage to male-female couples do not violate the US Constitution, and now this decision from the 9th Circuit saying that California's law does violate the Constitution. They may wait to let more lower courts consider and weigh in to see if a consensus develops.

Also, as I understand it, the California case is fact-based. The holding there was that those defending the California law (which was not the Governor or state Attorney General, which is a whole different issue) did not offer sufficient evidence to justify the law. (Laws that discriminate must have some reasonable justification, with the level of justification required depending on the kind of discrimination.) That theoretically, at least, means that elsewhere, sufficient evidence could be shown. So it wouldn't necessarily have the effect you suggest of establishing a national standard.

Beyond that, as Vito says, whether it is "beneficial" would be a matter of opinion. There is a well-established school of federalist thought (which isn't necessarily opposed to same-sex marriages) that would say marriage has always been a matter of state law and that it should remain a decision for the states, not the federal government or federal Constitutional law. Right now, marriage laws vary widely from state to state in terms of age, prohibited degree of kinships, whether common law marriages can be formed, who can officiate, etc. Some would say this falls into that same category -- something that each state should decide for itself. Others, of course, would take a different view and say this is a matter of equal protection of the laws. But that's one of the places where the debate is.

A more libertarian solution?
 

I was talking to someone who wants things with Gay marriage to be *exactly* what they are with Cousin Marriage. This means the following

*No Lawsuits to get gay marrage or overturn propositions.
*Marriages in one state are recognized in *all*.
*Each state gets to decide whether to perform marriages within that state. (or even wierder like yes to two women, no to two men)
*No Lawsuits against people who refuse to provide flowers, cake or venues to gay couples.

To be fair, the Cousin Marriage Cake Lobby is a known force.

Yup. They insist on putting "Happy Anniversary Grandma and Grandpa" on every wedding cake they produce.

That is why I was thinking that SCOTUS wouldn't take the case, since the decision was leaning towards being CA-specific (even though people are saying the decision was written in a way to influence Justice Kennedy).

Meanwhile, in Texas, she is following the law...so what's the problem?

I am a very strong supporter of marriage equality, and I think that this is not right. This is, in my mind, similar to pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control or taxi drivers refusing to transport alcohol. If you are licensed by the government to do a job, you should not be able to refuse to do that job.

That is not the same thing. Judges may perform marriages. They dont have to.

As the article says, her choice is consistent with the law.

People would be surprised to know that most "Court House Marriages" are performed by clergy who on call for that particular day or a notary. Very few Judges actually perform marriage ceremonies.

I am indeed surprised to learn that. Can all notaries perform weddings?

My marriage was performed by a magistrate, on a golf course, and I'd have had it no other way. He's a family friend. But to the above, judges are over-scheduled without throwing in weddings. I can't imagine they have too many hours of the day available for weddings. If ministers of a variety of stripes are willing to do it then great. I wonder if they even mention it to the people getting married. I've never heard that notaries can perform weddings.

It varies from state to state who can preside at marriages. Where I live, neither notaries nor judges can preside at weddings. Magistrates can, though.

She's not "licensed" by the state to do a job. It's quite different from a pharmacist or taxi driver.

She is a judge, an official of the state who acts on behalf of the state. She only has the authority that the state has given her. If the state does not recognize same-sex marriages, then she has no judicial authority to preside at a same-sex ceremony. Were she to do so, it would by definition have to be in her private capacity, not in her capacity as a judge, which presumably is the capacity that allows her to preside over weddings to begin with.