Nope.
Every state has a law on the books that, essentially, states that “Marriages in other states are valid here as long as they’re otherwise compatible with our laws on marriage.” They don’t have to do that; they’ve just chosen as a matter of policy to do so.
The same holds for drivers’ licenses, gun permits (reciprocal recognition of gun permits is not as universal as the other two, of course, but when it happens it works via the same basic mechanism).
There is no way that this wasn’t going to have to go to the Supreme Court (and probably sooner than they wanted it). I mean, I suppose the Tenth Circuit could reverse the two district court decisions and then there’s no circuit split (since the 8th already decided the issue). But there’s going to be continued litigation and it’s only a matter of time before someone pulls a supportive CoA panel.
I think that the pro-SSM crowd assumes success after Windsor, but I’m not sure that’s right. The 9th Circuit completely rewrote the issue in Perry (to make it California specific) in order to deter expansive review. But look at the SCOTUS lineup in Perry. Kennedy dissents. He’s, apparently, willing to take on the merits of the case. I have to assume that since the “liberals” are in the majority and the conservatives are in the dissent suggests that Kennedy was not proposing to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. (Since Sotomayor is just a Papist puppet, it’s easy to explain why she’s in dissent. But what’s Scalia doing in the majority? Presumably, neither Alito nor Thomas nor Scalia are inclined to invalidate the marriage bans, so maybe Scalia just really cares about standing? Roberts was almost guaranteed to be in the majority, whatever it was, in order to assign himself the opinion).
But either way, the standing dodge was never going to work for very long. Most states are going to defend their laws.
I can vaguely see a world in which Scalia joins with a pro-SSM majority just to ensure a workable standard is established and “rational basis with bite” is dumped. Of course, since Scalia’s vote has prevented intermediate scrutiny from being adopted as that workable standard, he probably won’t.
I think you misjudge Kennedy, though. For all we know, he may have wanted to find standing specifically to fix his own stupid rule.
I think Scalia would love a workable standard, but I don’t see him placing sexual orientation in a protected class category (for a number of reasons), so the workable standrd becomes actual rational basis and he’d lose a liberal majority. Sure, as senior Associate Justice, Scalia could join the majority and assign himself the opinion to try to control it, but I have trouble seeing that (although, obviously, Roberts does that sort of thing, but he seems to have different concerns than Scalia).
My thinking on Kennedy presupposes that the other justices know how he would have voted on the merits (if that’s wrong, then disregard). Disregard Sotomayor’s popery for a moment. If we assume that Alito and Thomas would not find a right to SSM, then their presence in the dissent (i.e. wanting to address the case on the merits) suggests that Kennedy was not prepared to find a right to SSM. Further, the presence of the liberal Jews in the majority (i.e., not deciding the issue) suggests that Kennedy might have even rejected the California-specific solution proposed by Reinhardt. I have no trouble seeing Roberts pushing the standing argument as a form of institutional protection (regardless of how he feels on the merits). What I don’t know is why Scalia winds up in the majority to dodge the question.
It’s always possible that none of them have made up their minds and will address the matter on the basis of the arguments when it comes up. 
Of course. I would never suggest otherwise. 
But the merits were argued, so I assume they developed opinions.
Part of my theory, admittedly, is that I agree with the dissent on the standing issue. Especially, in perspective of Windsor, which was a much shakier standing argument.
Whose standing are you talking about in Windsor? I thought the Court did find standing for the BLAG; were there any other parties?
They did find standing in Windsor. I agree with Alito (who would have found standing in both) that the Intervenors standing was a stronger argument than BLAG standing. I think both probably have standing, but the ability of the state to forceclose judicial review by refusing to defend an initative severely undermines the initiative process (which exists, one assumes, in part to allow the populace to enact laws that may not be popular with the incumbent government). I find Windsor a closer call because the BLAG only represented the House (if I recally correctly).
Yeah, but the ability of the state to foreclosure judicial review is not a matter of concern for the federal courts. That’s a wholly internal squabble.
(This is a tangent from the SSM thing, I suppose, although it’s more interesting than the highly predictable development of a thread on SSM.)
So, if the federal court simply adopted the state law rules on intervener status (like the 9th circuit did), then I would agree with you. But they didn’t. They said, not withstanding the fact that state law does have a way to deal with these state initiatives, we reject the standing as a matter of federal law. And sure, it is a question of federal law. But it’s appropriate to use the state law. Arizonans for Official English (and the cases it cites) clearly look at state law for standing to defend state statutes (for example, “We have recognized that state legislators have standing to contest a decision holding a state statute unconstitutional if state law authorizes legislators to represent the State’s interests.”). They express doubts about the AOE because “we are aware of no Arizona lawappointing initiative sponsors as agents of the people of Arizona to defend” initiatives. In Perry, according to the California Supreme Court, California law does so authorize the proponents.
Beyond that, and this is going to be the sort of results-based legal analysis that annoys me so much in other contexts, it can’t be right that an incumbent administration can invalidate a popularly enacted imitative simply by concocting a federal lawsuit (whatever its merits) and then refusing to defend the law. Either they have to defend the law or there has to be a mechanism to permit someone else to do it.
There is: as I read Karcher and Hollingsworth, any member of the CA legislature could have intervened.