and dump it back on a lower court.

They knew the argument on "standing" when they accepted the case on the docket.
They want to make a ruling and make it now.

I think it'll be a narrow ruling allowing state's rights to decide and they'll overturn DOMA.

I wish it would be a sweeping change but I don't hold out much hope for that.

that with all the privilages given to heterosexual married couples, it would be discrimination to deny gay couples the same rights.

don't deserve equality.

Because I don't think "legal" vs. "illegal" is at issue here. The first case is about whether Prop 8 was consistent with the US Constitution. I'd expect them to rule solely on that issue and not issue a blanket "gay marriage is (il)legal everywhere" edict. Could go either way.

I do expect them to strike down DOMA. I would bet Scalia joins that majority. Regulating marriage is not the purview of the federal government.

but I am not confident. If they do vote it's legal, I think it'll be close.

Part of me thinks that the Court will narrowly rule and strike down Prop 8, but decline to nationalize the right for whatever reason; but part of me also thinks that the Court will find no justifiable reason to deny marriage equality and, in light of the polling data showing growing momentum, rule that same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected.

I think the deciding factor will be based on how each Justice views the role of the Supreme Court and the Judiciary in our political system. If a majority/plurality think that the Court should affirmatively protect minority rights, I can go ahead and clear out my summer schedule because I'll have a gay wedding to attend every weekend!

I wish I could be more hopeful, but I saw what this country did to the ERA in the 70s.

They don't seem prepared to make a ruling about the constitutionality of denying marriage to gay and lesbian citizens at all. At worst, they are hinting there's no standing and will throw case out. At best, .... ??
But of course, the SCOTUS watchers have been wrong before. There's never any telling what they're thinking.

But right now, it's not looking very good.

That's what happened when we got 2x Bush.

fuck.

WASHINGTON —The Supreme Court justices sounded closely split on gay marriage Tuesday, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested the court should strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage without ruling broadly on the issue.

Twice during the oral argument, Kennedy questioned why the court had voted to hear the California case. “I wonder if this case was properly granted,” Kennedy said at one point.

His comments suggested that the court’s four most conservative justices voted to hear the California case. Had the justices turned down the appeal, as Kennedy suggested, Proposition 8 would have been struck down on the grounds of a narrow ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kennedy is likely to have the support of the court’s four liberal justices when they meet later this week to decide the California case. They could decide to write an opinion that strikes down the California ballot measure on the grounds that it denies same-sex couples a right to marry. Or they could vote to dismiss the appeal, which also would have the effect of voiding Prop. 8.

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-gay-marriage-ruling-20130326,0,1511924.story

I pick that by 5-4 they will say Federal courts are not competent to adjudicate the question, even the applicability of the full faith and credit clause, and that it will be a weird 5-4 (one where Scalia doesn't agree with Thomas or Alito). Basically, Scalia will sacrifice his social views on gay marriage to further his larger goal of weakening the Federal courts' authority.