When asked: “Should the government marry same-sex couples?,”I usually respond: “No, the government shouldn’t marry anyone.” The government should recognize civil unions—regardless of the gender/sexual preference of the partners—as legal contracts with important ramifications for property rights. But because marriage carries a host of religious connotations and sects disagree—often strongly—on precisely what these connotations are, I would prefer to keep government out of the marriage business. I am assuming this is close to Jason’s position, given his posting.
This is clearly a minority position. Most people want to keep the government in the marriage business and this leads to an ongoing conflict of values.
Rather than engaging the merits of the California decision—I will leave that to our resident attorney, Marcus Cole—I wonder what its implications will be for the fate of the GOP come November (and beyond).
Background: there has been a long-term tension within the conservative movement between libertarians and traditionalists (or more recently, social conservatives). There have been creative attempts at fusionism (most notably, by Frank Meyer). But from the 1960s through the 1980s, fusionism seemed, at best, to be a temporary peace treaty deemed expedient given the existential threat posed by the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the USSR, the next two decades witnessed a reemergence of tensions between libertarians and social conservatives, with additional complications introduced by the neoconservatives.
The Bush presidency held little appeal for libertarians, who rejected the expansion of entitlements, the disrespect for civil liberties, and the Wilsonian embrace of foreign policy adventurism. Clearly, social conservatives and Neocons assumed a central role in informing policy decisions. But the difficulties exhibited in the final years of the Bush presidency diminished their political influence. Subsequently, the political response to the financial crisis and the state expansion promoted by Obama-Pelosi-Reid et al, arguably raised the profile of libertarians (or, perhaps more accurately, populists who shared many of the aspirations of libertarians).
Today: the GOP has benefitted from the wave of opposition to government expansion and the expanding debt. Although the Tea Partiers are a diverse bunch, there seems to be a unifying message: government is too big, it has extended its tentacles into things beyond its constitutional warrant, and it is endangering the long-term fiscal health of the nation. To the extent that the GOP can embrace a populist-libertarian message, it may win the House in the fall (the Senate seems less likely).
But many in the GOP seem politically tone deaf. The most recent examples: opposition to extent unemployment benefits while supporting an extension of the Bush tax cuts for upper-income households (This is not to say that there is not a principled case to be made, simply that efforts to make this case in a deep recession seems suicidal).
The Future: The California decision could open the door for a reemergence of social conservatism and a resurrection of the “culture wars” argument of the 1990s. To the extent that this occurs, it may repel many of the Tea Party populists who appear to be far more libertarian in their political orientations. If the tensions intrinsic to conservatism rise to the surface once again, it may limit the magnitude of the GOP victories in the fall and beyond.
PILEUS 
I might be wrong, but I bet an overwhelming majority of Tea Partiers are not happy with the Walker decision.
Of course, I am not suggesting that a majority of TPs are unhappy with the Walker decision. Indeed, I would guess that a fair percentage are unhappy with it.
I am suggesting that to the extent that the GOP embraces this as an issue, it opens the door to social conservatives who will divert attention from the fiscal conservative-libertarian-populist themes that have gained traction in the past year. This may be sufficient to limit the attraction of the GOP to a significant faction of the TP crowd.
Yeah, that makes some sense. Winning elections is about appealing to independents, who are probably more persuadable by economic rather than social issues.
On the other hand, there are a lot of independents who have voted against gay marriage (gay marriage has failed in blue states and anti-gay marriage initiatives have passed in red and purple states by overwhelming majorities).
If the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage (as it is likely to do after this case makes its way through), social conservatives will be enraged. But, more than that, I think a lot of independents (even those who are somewhat on the fence on the issue) are going to resent the heavy hand of the Federal government. If this ultimate decision comes out in time for the 2012 election, I think it will be electoral Armageddon for the Democrats, at least in the short run.