Quite correct. State laws, DOMA, all are on the table now.

But on the California side, it's another round of the yo-yo for gay marriage advocates.

Scalia, as a strict constructionist, would absolutely agree with you.  But, the question is:  are you speaking from a strict constructionist view?

Chuckles. It won't be the first time someone has said that about me. Of course it will be an "issue" for some for a very long time, and some will never get used to the idea.

But I sense the winds of change are blowing . . . . .

Eight federal courts have now ruled DOMA unconstitutional. Nine states have legalized same-sex marriages. If the USSC had wanted to leave things as they were, they could have simply not taken the cases. Outlawing same sex marriage OTOH would be difficult (if not impossible) given the current climate and the USC.

I think the court finally feels the time is right to put this issue to bed once and for all and fully expect a landmark decision. I don't expect that religious fundies will be at all happy with that decision.

// meanders back to his delusional happy place //

I am speaking from a "this is how the law works" point of view...

Ah, but there is the rub....

There is no such thing as "how the law works" in Constitutional matters.  There are vastly different approaches to how to read the Constitution and apply it to the case at hand.  Scalia (whether one loves him or hates him, it is clear he, along with the other SCOTUS justices are quite brilliant) has one widely held view (which he interestingly denies is "strict constructionism"). Other justices have other views that are equally widely held (including tendencies toward "broad constructionism").  Therefore, your statement (to the post I first responded to) is really too simplistic as the tension is in the method of interpretation.