There is Mutual consent it is the Supremes who ultimadly will decide on Gay Marriage

                                                                                     

The Supreme Court opened its 2014 term on Oct. 6 with a surprise announcement: It would not accept cases from any of five states whose same-sex marriage bans had been struck down by federal appeals courts.

Then on Thursday, precisely one month later, a different federal appeals court ruled that gay marriage bans in four states -- Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee -- were constitutional and could remain in force.

The Supreme Court won't be able to duck the issue this time.

Within weeks if not days, same-sex couples from those four states will appeal Thursday's dramatic ruling by Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. That will set in motion a timetable which could get the issue of gay marriage back on the Supreme Court's docket next spring, with a decision expected by June.

And that would please both sides.

"We want a case to go to the United States Supreme Court as quickly as possible. We want it to happen this term," said Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry. "We strongly believe that the country is ready for a national resolution."

"I want this to get before the Supreme Court as soon as possible," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes gay and lesbian marriage. "Every day that goes by is a travesty."

Until Thursday's ruling came down, every federal appeals court to rule had struck down same-sex marriage bans -- in Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, Nevada and Idaho. Those rulings in turn affected neighboring states, bringing to 32 the number of states where gays and lesbians can marry. That number soon will reach 35.

But the winning streak that gay marriage proponents had enjoyed -- ever since the Supreme Court last year struck down a federal law denying benefits to same-sex couples -- ended in September, when a federal judge in Louisiana upheld that state's ban. Last month, a federal judge in Puerto Rico did likewise. And the 2-1 ruling by the 6th Circuit now has turned what looked like a rout into a rematch.

With the appeals courts split, nearly all experts on both sides expect the justices to enter the fray -- most likely by considering one or more of the 6th Circuit cases. The Michigan case, which went through a two-week trial last winter, looms as a particular favorite.

But to date, most predictions about what the nine justices would do have proven wrong. Nearly everyone involved thought they would agree last month to hear one or more of the other cases from the 4th, 7th or 10th Circuits. And the court surprised most health care experts Friday by agreeing to hear a challenge to Obamacare, even without a circuit split.

Proponents of same-sex marriage, however, are willing to predict how the high court will decide any case it considers. They expect Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, to come down on the side of gays and lesbians, just as he did in 1996, 2003 and 2013 in cases involving anti-gay discrimination, sodomy laws and marriage rights.

"Justice Kennedy does understand and will understand that these bans to marriage are fundamentally unfair and deny same-sex couples a basic human dignity that they are entitled to," said Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

If the court finds a constitutional right to gay marriage, that would bring on board the remaining 15 states where bans remain in effect. Those are: Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota.

If the court upholds the bans -- an outcome considered unlikely, but not out of the question -- same-sex marriage would remain illegal in those 15 states. Then it could get complicated.

States that approved gay marriage legislatively would not be affected. Marriages that already took place in states where lower court judges made the call would remain in effect. But new lawsuits likely would be filed by opponents in those states, charging that any new Supreme Court precedent should apply going forward.

“It would cast the future into doubt," said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, "and open the door for states that wish to go back and try to undo history."

 Richard Wolf, USA TODAY