WI: Obergefell v. Hodges went in favor of Hodges?

Let's say that Anthony Kennedy becomes more socially conservative following Obama's 2012 victory, and when Obergefell v. Hodges is being decided Kennedy votes in favor of Hodges. What happens next?
 
The problem with this is that Kennedy's Supreme Court record on gay rights, unlike some other social issues like abortion, seems to have been pretty consistent. As an article written before *Obergefell* noted, "Kennedy has written all of the Supreme Court’s most important decisions on gay rights: protecting the civil rights of homosexuals in Romer v. Evans (1996), abolishing anti-gay sodomy laws in Lawrence (2003) and ruling in United States v. Windsor two years ago that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages." https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...8e513e-eaa5-11e4-9a6a-c1ab95a0600b_story.html

In particular, the opinion in *Windsor*--with its emphasis on "animus"--pretty clearly indicated how he would eventually rule on the constitutionality of state laws banning SSM--as Scalia noted in his dissent.
 
The most plausible way to swing Obergefell v. Hodges in favor of Hodges would be if a Republican was elected president in 2012 and had a Republican majority in the Senate. Sometime in 2013 or 2014, Anthony Kennedy decides to retire from the Supreme Court, and the Republican POTUS appoints a conservative judge to take his place. It doesn't have to be a hardliner like William Pryor. Just someone who wouldn't rule in favor of same-sex marriage in Obergefell for whatever reason. Senate Democrats would probably try to filibuster the nomination of a judge more conservative than Kennedy, but as in OTL with Neil Gorsuch, Senate Republicans would probably invoke the nuclear option and eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

With a firm conservative majority, the Supreme Court rules against same-sex marriage in Obergefell in 2015. The majority opinion may resemble John Roberts' dissent in OTL:
Wikipedia said:

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Roberts accepted substantive due process, by which fundamental rights are protected through the Due Process Clause, but warned it has been misused over time to expand perceived fundamental rights, particularly in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Lochner v. New York.[129] Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[130] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[131] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage.[132]

More generally, Roberts stated that marriage, which he proposed had always had a "universal definition" as "the union of a man and a woman", arose to ensure successful childrearing.[133] Roberts criticized the majority opinion for relying on moral convictions rather than a constitutional basis, and for expanding fundamental rights without caution or regard for history.[134] He also suggested the majority opinion could be used to expand marriage to include legalized polygamy.[135] Roberts chided the majority for overriding the democratic process and for using the judiciary in a way that was not originally intended.[136] According to Roberts, supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win "true acceptance" for their side because the debate has now been closed.[137] Roberts also suggested the majority's opinion will ultimately lead to consequences for religious liberty, and he found the Court's language unfairly attacks opponents of same-sex marriage.[138]

In the aftermath of a ruling against SSM, I imagine that LGBT activists would be in a massive uproar. I'm not sure what their next strategy would be to legalize same-sex marriage at the national level. Perhaps congressional legislation or even a constitutional amendment, but the former would have no chance without a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, and the latter would be unlikely unless Democrats had 2/3 majorities in both houses of Congress plus control of 3/4 of state legislatures. Of course, over time more Republicans would come out in favor of OTL, though probably at a slower pace than in OTL because the same-sex marriage issue would not have been resolved yet.
 
Top