Scalia himself stated, as a result of striking down sodomy laws, that if the case ever makes it in front of the court they will have to legalize gay marriage. The State must show a compelling state interest in banning a contract between two individuals - the right to contract is a common law right that goes back to the Magna Carta. If sodomy is not illegal, what "compelling interest" does the state have in banning gay marriage? There is none. Even a conservative court would have a hard time coming up with one that would stick. The precedents are in Utah polygamy cases from back in the 1880's. The state of Utah was able to ban polygamy because it claimed a compelling state interest in preventing a man from siring dozens of children that he would not be able to support, meaning the tax payers would get stuck with the bill, and a compelling interest in preventing a woman from marrying multiple men because history has shown this only leads to violence as men tend to kill each other over women quite frequently, meaning that it was a threat to the public order and a disturbance of the peace. In the case of men and women marrying first-degree relatives, The State has a compelling interest to prevent the spread of genetic defects that again the taxpayers would have to pick up the tab for in warehousing the offspring, and now gay marriage opponents, it's your turn - what exactly is the compelling state interest in banning gay marriage? I have asked that question over and over to conservatives and have yet to get one answer that would stand a test against the Equal Protection Clause. Come on, just one reason. So far, the compelling reason is the one that motivates voters to vote in elections to deny other people's rights: rank, grotesque prejudice.