First, The Supreme Court put a strong restrictions on Standing. That the people who filed this action had suffered NO direct harm, under the decision of the US Supreme Court, might mean they had no standing and thus the case may have to be dismissed. Read the actual decisions, they do NOT rule that Gay Marriages are constitutional, but in the one on California Proposition 8, that the people defending it had no standing to defend it. In the DOMA Case, that issues of Marriage is something that is reserved to the States to determine and any FEDERAL Law on Marriages is unconstitutional for what is Marriage is reserved to the States.
Second, at least four of the Justices were willing to rule that Marriage is up the State and that a state could permit gay marriages or ban gay marriages, either way, they would be no violation of the Federal Constitution. The five justices who voted to uphold the decision in California, upheld that decision on the narrow grounds that no one but the Governor of the state could defend a state statute from a Federal ruling that the State Statute was unconstitutional and thus when the Governor refused to file the appeal, no one else had standing to file that appeal.
In simple terms, this decision by this Federal District Judge will have to be revised. The big question is how much weight will he give to the dissent and they position that what a State does in regard to Marriage is reserved to the State alone.
Read the actual Decisions, the rationale used by the Majority in both cases are NOT good. The Environmentalists are in open revolt for they see themselves as the next victim of these decisions (i.e. they suffered no harm, and thus have no standing in any pollution case, and in any environmental case only the Federal Government or a State Government have standing to stop pollution).
Recent Supreme Court Cases:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx
US Supreme Court on California Proposition 8:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf
US Supreme Court on DOMA:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf
= new reply since forum marked as read