Religious conservatives are wounded, but not beaten. Four decades of culture warriors will not easily be beaten back, especially if they believe they have their authority from God himself. A cornered animal is the most dangerous, so be wary of nutcases in the next few years; even if they can't amass wide political or social power as they are waning in support, they can try to form alliances and coalitions to maintain a small vestige of influence.

Two important things to remember about this Supreme Court ruling

1. It comes right after the Obamacare/ACA ruling (King v. Burwell, 6/25/2015) that basically has pushed the buttons of most conservatives, Tea Partiers, and the like into war mode. What can happen if conservative strategists choose to is to link the two decisions together as a pattern of "big government" intrusion on public matters.

Gay rights activists must begin planning contingencies ASAP to counter this possibility and point to the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush nominee, was instrumental in the Obamacare ruling, but was against the Same Sex Marriage ruling in the dissenting opinions on similar paradoxical grounds. My argument would be to point the fingers back at conservative factions to break any possibility of aligning both results into one overlapping issue that could be used in potential 2016 electoral strategies. No one reading this blog would want to see a rejuevenated Social Conservative faction in power.

2. A major issue is coming, "religious liberty" under the 1st amendment will be used to counter the availability of same sex marriage venues. As long as religious authority rejects the legitimacy of same sex marriage, its adherents may use their freedom to deny services, even as far as purposefully forcing undue strain on the same sex couples by forming cabals against them. Since most marriage professionals perform their services at religious venues, religious authorities have influence to make these professionals accede to their wishes to deny services as a term of service.

My counter to that is simple: debate the merits of religion in daily lives: when is religious practice itself a freedom and when is it an obstacle to normal continuation of activities. The highest freedoms of all are "life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. If a terrorist bombs an event for their religion, it is easy to see the devestation and its inherent encroachment on the freedoms of others for "personal faith". There is inherently no difference between an Islamic extremist bombing an event like the Boston Marathon versus a Christian extremist bombing an abortion clinic; so why is there a difference between the illegality of Islamic Sharia law and the legality of Judeo-Christian religious inspired denial of service.