Douglas NeJaime has a very interesting Jurist column this week on the significance of this split in opposition to marriage, and what it means for the broader LGBT rights movement:
In this light, it will be interesting to see how the Governor responds to the forthcoming decision. He has said the issue is "for the courts or the people" to decide. If the court orders marriage equality, will the Governor endorse, oppose, or stay neutral on a referendum to overturn it? If the court upholds the marriage ban, will the Governor have lost his main reason for vetoing a marriage equality bill, or will he maintain that the matter can only be resolved by popular vote?
[T]o fully understand the state’s position, we must look to a shift in mainstream thought characterized by an increasingly institutionalized pro-gay perspective that hews to a gay centrist paradigm of coupling, parenting, and general respectability. What were once considered controversial, left/progressive positions, and what still constitute the dreaded “homosexual agenda” in social conservative circles, are now mainstream ideas held by those at the highest level of state government. And yet these same state decision-makers are charged with defending the state’s marriage restriction, itself a remnant of ideas that have been displaced by these new pro-gay principles. It is a difficult balancing act that the state’s advocates now attempt. Indeed, Mr. Krueger’s seeming discomfort at the podium as he defended the state’s marriage restriction perhaps best typifies the uneasy ground on which the state now stands. The fact that the Governor was represented by a separate attorney before the court, rather than Mr. Krueger, only underscores the fine lines being drawn within the state.