One day, this case will be seen as an extremely simple, straightforward case (no pun intended).
The Supreme Court’s decision can be based on almost any constitutional rationale, not the least of which are due process of law or equal protection of the laws. This is the basis that almost all of the Courts of Appeal have used before this case landed in the Supreme Court of the United States.
What will be a difficult case? When the lines get more blurred and the preferences are not as clear. And apparently the science and culture show this is happening:
But new research shows this is changing, especially among young adults who tell us self-identify outside of these three so-called “traditional” categories.
This is the type of cultural development that now requires the SCOTUS to think outside the box in the practice of religion cases. That is because more than 10 years ago Congress tried to slap their hands and passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Congress recited its reasoning: “….to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).”
42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb (West).
So assume that prohibitions against same sex marriage are bound to be struck down, by the SCOTUS this summer, in this case. What will they do with the future case that requires them to write about sexual preference in a nuanced way, and to square that with the Constitution?
Might need a little push from the Congress here. Something like the Sexual Intercourse Act? Without definitions. Only one problem. That RFR Act? Constitutionally infirm:
the statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain.
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 537(1997).