Am I alone in thinking that the opponents of same sex marriage are probably busy planning their own suite of federal suits? so it makes sense for supporters of same sex marriage to build a strong federal case asap?

I mean, the opposers have only successfully drafted legislation barring gay marriage in somethin like 30 states is all, while ssm supporters have like 6 or 7!! Who cares if they're a whole hell of a lot closer to a two thirds state majority that could define marriage at the federal level? Everybody knows public opinion on gays has changed, and that has way more clout than any high court ruling.

Oh wait... it doesn't.

Thinking like the enemy for a second: if YOU were desperate to get your increasingly unpopular moral opinions encoded into law, and you were galvanized by a spat of surprise wins in the high courts... what would YOUR next move be? Would it be to sit and wait while public opinion moves even further from your moral views? Or would it be to get as many constitutions amended as possible, as quickly as possible... including the Big One?

Your logic is correct. I don't think that people for same-sex marriage are sitting on their thumbs either. And they won't forget to use the Supreme Court rulings and votes in some states to their advantage. However, they do need to find a way of refuting the idea that allowing equal marriage rights won't change anything but their rights. Fear does not need to be a part of this issue. Religion doesn't need to be a part of this issue -- no one is asking all religious insitutions to perform marriage ceremonies. No one is asking for same-sex marriage to be taught in schools or any of the other "fear factors". These aren't issues, they are part of a fear campaign, period.

Just what rock have you been hiding under?

“However, they do need to find a way of refuting the idea that allowing equal marriage rights won't change anything but their rights.”
Catholic Charities in Massachusetts had to choose between placing children for adoption or following their deeply held beliefs, in order to comply with that state's anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit adoption agencies from excluding same-sex couples from consideration during the selection of adoptive parents.

There have already been people sued, and fined for standing up for their religious beliefs i.e. a photographer in NM who would not photograph a gay wedding.

Donna Holman, a 72 year-old grandmother, was charged with harassment in Iowa City. Donna was arrested during a normal day of sidewalk counseling near the Planned Parenthood in Iowa City.

Video footage of the "incident" shows that Donna was not guilty of any harassment. Yet the judge did not see it this way. The alleged victim of harassment was subpoenaed to the court but did not show up. The judge, then, took the hearsay testimony of the Planned Parenthood employees, and ignored the video footage of the altercation.

Mrs. Holman was given a 30 day suspended sentence pending completion of a year's probation and getting a psychiatric evaluation and recommended medications. Judge Egerton insists that Mrs. Holman have a psychiatric exam by a psychiatrist licensed in Iowa, and is further ordered to take psychotic drugs if they are prescribed. Donna Holman is refusing to comply with the psychiatric exam and possible medication. A revocation hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. October 23, 2007 but was later postponed till January 15, 2008.

”Fear does not need to be a part of this issue.”
When the Department of Homeland Security issues report claiming that traditional marriage proponents, second amendment advocates and even our veterans as people who might become terrorists.

AND THIS ONE......
”No one is asking for same-sex marriage to be taught in schools or any of the other "fear factors".

A former librarian at Ohio State University-Mansfield who was publicly accused by the faculty of sexual harassment – just for recommending students read the best-selling book "The Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian

An art student in Tomah Area School District was recently banned from displaying his artwork. The student turned in an art project with a cross, "John 3:16," and "A Sign of Love" written on it. The teacher told him that they would not grade his work because of the religious symbols. The student has filed a lawsuit against the school district with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). The school has allowed art work depicting demons, Buddha, and Hindu references to be displayed. The ADF believes that this is a blatant bias against Christianity.

Already, in California, there is a state law that bans teaching anything in public schools but "positive" information on alternative sexual lifestyles.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO POST AT LEAST KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Chinpudding, I think you make an important point. Eskridge and Spedale assume we have the luxury of waiting to pick our right moment. In reality, it may be forced on us. To a lot of people, including the plaintiffs in this upcoming lawsuit (along with all gay people suffering discrimination in its myriad forms), the moment has already been forced on us.