First, Digby has a good point about where this places the US, relative to the rest of the world. Isn't that often the US leads the rest of the world on a progressive issue.
As for how we got here, I was just reading (okay, skimming -- those justices carry on and on and on) some of Robert's dissent, and I do tend to agree with him that this is a change that should have been legislated, and do tend to think that this will rankle with social conservatives much more and for longer than if this change had come about democratically.
When decisions are reached through democratic means,some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate.
...
By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide.But I get the impression that he thinks, as other social conservatives always argue, that this should have been an issue for the states. That this should have continued to be argued state by state, with that map above slowly filling in one state at a time.
And there I'd have to fundamentally disagree. It's far too important for that. It's a question, wherever you may fall on the issue, of human rights, and inevitably any progress would have been much slower, and much harder fought in...ahem, certain states than others. And that map would have probably remained holed a good while longer, with all kinds of complications for those whose marriages would be allowed and recognised in some states and not others.
It really should have been decided legislatively, on the federal level, but maybe there was no chance of that happening with all the Tea Party-types in Congress. We'll likely never know now.
Roe v. Wade and the ongoing fight over abortion may provide some insight into what the fallout will look like, and how conservatives may fight this in the years to come. With that issue, despite what was taken as a decisive victory for abortion-rights, the conservatives have steadily chipped away over the years, such that it is now exceedingly expensive, impractical, time-consuming, and traumatic for women to obtain access to abortion-services in many states.
Then again, same-sex marriage isn't so emotive as abortion, and the divide is much more generational on this particular issue, with those opposed dwindling year by year. So perhaps they'll accept it eventually...after an electoral cycle or two.
