A small part of me is worried about the backlash. 5-4 isn't exactly a sweeping victory
I would have preferred this had happened at the individual state level, instead of the federal level. Even if it had taken longer, it would have been more secure.
This feels shaky, like it's likely the ruling will be legislated around, or out of existence..
No, it's on solid and firm ground. The SCOTUS didn't just say same-sex marriage is legal they actually pretty much said it's
Constitutional! That the government cannot treat one group of people differently from another, you cannot make special rules for these people here because you don't agree with them.
So the "only way around" same-sex marriages at the government level is to not give *any* marriages and I'm not entirely sure how legal even that is.
The only way to undo this, to change it, or whatever is to actually re-write The Constitutional which can only be done with an Amendment which has only been done 17 times (one of those times being to repeal and earlier one (alcohol prohibition) in the last 239 years. That's because passing a new Amendment is a MONUMENTAL undertaking and cannot be "just done." It requires 2/3s majority votes in both the House and the Senate and to be ratified 3/4s of the states (38.) And since we already know a majority of the states had already approved of same-sex marriages, it's unlikely their Governors or their legislatures would go along with any proposal to amend The Constitution that'd take away same-sex marriages.
It's done. Signed, sealed, and delivered. Those Red-State Governors who're holding back right now are doing nothing but stamping their feet and holding their breath. This cannot be circumvented or undone. It's the law. Same-sex marriages are CONSTITUTIONAL. It didn't need to be legalized because it was a right people already had and some states were taking that right away. Which is what I've been saying and wondering all a long. How can a state take a select group of people, a minority, and say "the rules are different for you?" They can't. Simple as that.
Now, the next battle is civil rights for homosexuals. Because this SCOTUS action only helps homosexuals where government is concerned and not with private entities. It's still legal in many states for a person to be fired or denied service due to their sexual orientation. So we need a civil rights act, or an amendment/addition to the Civil Rights Act of 1963 (and other Civil Rights Acts) to add homosexuals to the list of people who need protection from agencies that serve the public.