Just to add to the marriage equality discussion, here's Bmaz (a practicing lawyer) writing at Emptywheel on next steps, in particular, the pending California case of Perry v. Schwartzenegger (my emphasis):
Perry is now, and has been from the outset, the best vehicle for not only bringing marriage equality for all, but doing so in a transcendent and binding legal opinion, and likely with a finding and basis that it is mandated by the Constitutional edicts of Equal Protection and Due Process. That is the holy grail[.] ...There's a lot of if-then buried in that ellipsis above; please do read. But it sure looks promising. And an affirmation from the Supreme Court, given the current climate of acceptance, would put this permanently in the rear-view mirror.
[But] [b]etween last night’s marvelous happening in New York, the clear cut and admirable new policy by the Obama Administration, and the ever enlightened movement of society, I think the writing is on the wall for the California Supreme Court, and I think they will indeed find that the D-Is [Defendant-Intervenors] have the requisite standing, the 9th [Circuit Court] will roll with that and away we go to the United States Supreme Court. I truly believe the New York passage will leave such a marker that will carry all this through, and that is a beautiful thing.
As I am going out on a limb here, let me go one step further out. The Supremes will seal the deal. If you read Lawrence v. Texas, penned by Anthony Kennedy, and are a Kennedy watcher, it is extremely hard to see how he will not maintain consistency with his Lawrence decision and vote for marriage equality. I think that was the case from the start, and the action of New York, and, yes the Obama Administration, makes it almost certain. Justices do not want to look like asses in history, the way things are going, the margin may be even more favorable than 5-4 if we get to that point. Wouldn’t that be beautiful?
GP
