I think this case won't be nearly as useful as Goodridge was in channeling backlash in 2004. For one thing, the legislature passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage twice, and it was vetoed by Schwarzenegger specifically on the ground that they should wait until the Supreme Court had ruled—upon which the legislation would either be redundant or impossible. (And Arnold says he won't support the proposition on the ballot this fall.) Moreover, all but one of the Supreme Court justices are Republican appointees, and California judges, unlike judges in Massachusetts, are elected.

The out-of-state impact is also likely to be muted, since it seems that the only state in which there might be a ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage is California itself, again in stark contrast to 2004. (The latest show that Californians are evenly split over it.) And neither Obama (who opposes same-sex marriage) nor McCain (who opposed FMA) are really poised to exploit the issue. Hence the McCain campaign's essentially no-comment comment on the decision.