I meant in favor of equal protection, not in favor of the plaintiffs. Sorry.
The plaintiffs are the challengers; that is, the ones asserting the equal protection argument.
Regarding “evolution of opinion”… David Axelrod just admitted that President Obama lied in 2008 when he claimed to oppose SSM, which means he also lied in 2012 when he claimed his opinion “evolved” in 2012 when he supported it. There’s a Post article (behind a paywall, I think) that notes 14 major Democrats in Congress having the same “evolution” within a 22-day period.
My only point is that there’s a lot more reason for elected officials to have such “evolutions” than for life-term justices. I’ve seen very little evolution of thought among those 9. I think that if any of them appear to change votes, it will be because some of the lower court decisions were so solidly grounded and written that they can’t find a wedge to argue against them.
Can one’s opinion evolve if one doesn’t believe in evolution? 
Sure. God can wave his hand and make it so.
Well, I’ve got my doubts about them being intelligently designed, that’s for sure.
It can only micro-evolve.
Texas just had their first same sex marriage!
A judge issued and order to a county clerk to perform it. The order was limited to the one clerk for one couple only so it may be a while until the next one.
In other news, the predicted pandemonium and confusion has not seemed to happen in the Lone Star State much to everyone’s relief.
And stay within the same baramin.
The Alabama Supreme Court has stepped in and issued an order which requires all state probate courts to disobey the federal district court order and refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Could be some interesting fireworks here.
If by interesting fireworks, you mean Roy Moore is trying to get himself removed from the bench again, then I agree with you.
It’s the whole court this time. All Republicans.
Shaw dissented.
Well, this should be fun.
Longtime NYT SCOTUS correspondent Linda Greenhouse spoke recently at the City Club of Cleveland, and predicted the court will make SSM a Federal right this year:
Also an interesting development in Puerto Rico. The territorial government had a response brief due in the First Circuit, and abandoned their defense of the statute banning gay marriage, and asked the First Circuit to rule against them. Doesn’t happen that often.
Still, with the Supreme Court hearing the Sixth Circuit cases next month and presumably a definitive decision to follow by the end of term, there’s just not all that much more to say.
Meanwhile, in Texas (and Arkansas, Nebraska, and Louisiana) there is a challenge to the Department of Labor’s proposed rule change that would bring the definition of “spouse” under the FMLA in line with Windsor. The Northern District of Texas has granted a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the proposed rule.
And as long as we’re bumping this, the territory of Guam denied a lesbian couple a marriage license, and they sued. The attorney general of Guam stated that the territory should allow same sex marriage. Then the governor of Guam overruled her.
Since Guam is in the 9th Circuit where the legal status of SSM is perfectly clear, this shouldn’t take long - but the local district court might just sit on it until the Supreme Court rules.
At this point it really does seem best for everyone to hold their breaths until SCOTUS rules.