Worse case scenario: an NOT unlikely outcome, the court will declare that based on zero constitutional basis marriage can only be between a man an woman and even domestic partnerships and against the constitution and can't be recognize . Keep in mind there is zero basis in the US Constitution for that to happen but that doesn't seem to stop this court.

Enjoy that weed gang. You're gonna need it

Kennedy is really good on gay rights, and really horrible on treating women like human beings. Remember, Kennedy wrote about the need to "protect women" who might regret their abortions in upholding the federal ban on partial birth abortions, and was part of O'Connor's joint opinionwith the unworkable "undue burden" test in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. On the other hand, Kennedy wrote the opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, and was on the side of good with the anti-DOMA decision. So I'm optimistic about any gay marriage cases before the SCOTUS, but not on any women's rights stuff.

@2 So, basically what you're saying is that Kennedy is a misogynist.

What if they refuse and let the ruling stand?

My money is on "cert denied."

you'll get a libertarian-leaning religious-fucking-nutjob Supreme Court.

kind of like Ron Paul, but with actual power.

I would guess if they take the case it will end up 5-4 against Utah. Kennedy has already vaguely indicated he leans in favor of the equal protection argument.

The religious nutjob Supreme Court only shows up when the religious nutjob position conveniently also serves the interests of big business. If it cuts one way or another, gay marriage is good for business, so don't sweat it.

@3
That's what he just said.

So who's been doing the public records requests to see how much taxpayer money all these appeals are costing?

@4, that is a very real possibility.

From everything I've read—and I've read a lot—the Supreme Court may not chose to rule on it. So far, since the Windsor case, every federal judge has ruled in favor of marriage equality, including the appeals court. So, at least in theory, there is no legal dispute that requires the Supreme Court's ruling. The lower federal courts have been in complete unanimity. The Supreme Court may not chose to weigh in unless a different appeals court ruled against marriage equality. Only then would there be a legal conflict that would require the Supreme Court to settle.

At least that's one legal premise that supports your idea.

See, if it was Corporations wanting to marry, that SCOTUS might care about.

It isn't a crapshoot. Kennedy is clearly pro-gay marriage. If it goes to SCOTUS, based on the wording of the Windsor decision, anti-gay marriage amendments will fall.

@11 Also, letting it stand would rile up right wing voters who want the senate. That would prevent a Dem president from getting another liberal.

@7 If some other Court had decided Windsor, they might have some wiggle room to "clarify" the language and return marriage to "states rights." Being as it was this Court, they're pretty much over a barrel if they don't want to embarrass themselves.

If they take the case, they'd pretty much be stuck legalizing marriage equality for the entire country. If they avoid the case, it will only happen Circuit by Circuit. I'm betting the conservatives will do that rather than allow the Court to "force gay marriage" on the entire country at once.

Another thing arguing in favor of likely denial of cert is that doing so creates no binding precedent; the ruling of the lower court applies only within its circuit. Therefore they do not accelerate the process beyond what is already happening.

But we have to wait until the new term ("First Monday in October"), right? And at what point during the term are petitions for cert decided?

Things are moving in the right direction, but the opponents are felling every possible tree into the path just to be obnoxious.

I believe the court doesn't want another Roe vs Wade for social issues, will decline to take the case, and let the decisions happen circuit by circuit.

New post above about Justice Alito (Alito?!) denying a PA county clerk's last-ditch attempts to stop same-sex marriage.

Santorum will weep.

SCOTUS will grant cert, probably to both the Utah case from the 10th Circuit and the imminent Virginia case from the 4th Circuit, and will combine them. Hearings will likely be scheduled for February with a ruling striking down DOMA laws across the nation in June 2015. Count on it. There has been a unanimous streak of 20+ rulings in our favor at all levels since Windsor. The odds of our losing at SCOTUS are quite remote.

@11: the problem with that argument is the stays that SCOTUS and the circuit courts have issued. The SCOTUS means to have the final word, so they can't permit this to be decided circuit by circuit. If they ever permit a circuit to allow ME then SCOTUS won't be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube if they decided to rule against us. The stays will force them to grant cert to the Utah request.

@19: That bet I made with a coworker that we would have full national marriage equality by January 1 2016 is looking PRETTY SMART right now (made it 6 months ago).

Worse case scenario: an NOT unlikely outcome, the court will declare that based on zero constitutional basis marriage can only be between a man an woman and even domestic partnerships and against the constitution and can't be recognize

I can't imagine why you think Kennedy would sign on for such a thing just a year or two after Windsor. Gay Rights is the one area where he's pretty clearly uninterested in joining in the culture war.