The Supremes are ready to jolt society (IMO) by accepting the first of two social issues.

[CK_John]

The first issue is gay marriage and the second is Colorado pot law.

Looking at the time alloted and questions to be discussed, I believe that they will rule that the state can enact same sex marriage but is not required to. Also, states that do not allow same sex marriage are not required to recognize any marriage from other states.

This could reduce gay marriage from 38 states to a handful and be an issue in 2016 elections.

Time and Questions:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

A total of ninety minutes is allotted for oral argument on Question 1. A total of one hour is allotted for oral argument on Question 2.

[hollysmom]

1. With Scalia on the court, laws and the constitution don't seem to matter.

[MohRokTah]

2. Such a ruling would invalidate thousands of marriages.

States that have not enacted marriage equality but had rulings that their bans were unconstitutional would immediately invalidate any same sex marriages since the ruling.

Also, the biggest reason I seriously doubt a ruling would go that way is both Kennedy and Roberts had the opportunity to grant stays after the rulings in the 4th and 10th Circuits and the court could have granted cert. Instead, cert was not granted and same sex marriages proceeded in multiple states with gay marriage bans.

So both Roberts and Kennedy have signaled that it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. Only one of the two is needed to strike down the bans nationwide.

[hifiguy]

4. Roberts and Kennedy will be in a 6-3 majority.

Make book on it. Roberts doesn't want to be seen as being on the wrong side of an inevitable historical tide as a Chief Justice with a legacy to consider and Kennedy doesn't really need to shift at all.

The dissents from Soapy Sam. Fat Tony and Uncle Ruckus will be comedy gold. Scalia and Ruckus may even be egotistical enough to (poorly) try to take on the irrefutable logic of Judge Posner's iron-clad Seventh Circuit opinion. They will fail. Humorously and totally.

[MohRokTah]

5. You are most likely right since cert was never granted.

Had even a minority of 4 justices wanted a ruling allowing saae sex marriage bans, cert could have been granted.

[hifiguy]

6. You read exactly the same tea leaves I did.

The vote to grant cert on these cases surely included Roberts and Kennedy and they are extraordinarily unlikely to uphold the bans given the otherwise unanimous rulings of the Courts of Appeal.

[CK_John]

7. Maybe Roberts wants to be VP or maybe the Koch brothers offered him a 10 mil a yr job.

[MohRokTah]

8. .

[markpkessinger]

3. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution (a/k/a the "full faith and credit clause") states:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

Seems to me that should cover it.