Lyle Denniston,Scotus Blog: "The Supreme Court on Monday morning put on hold a federal judge's decision striking down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage, thus stopping a wave of such marriages across the state. ... The ruling can be interpreted as an indication that the court wants to have further exploration in lower courts of the basic constitutional question of state power to limit marriage to a man and a woman. Had it refused the state's request for delay, that would have left at least the impression that the court was comfortable allowing same-sex marriages to go forward in the 33 states where they are still not permitted by state law. The order, however, cannot be interpreted as a dependable indication of how the court will rule on the issue when it finally decides to do so directly."

John Aravosis,America Blog: "Utah, which is in cahoots with the Mormons, claimed that they were looking out for the best interest of gay people who would suffer if they got married now only to have their marriages undone later. Of course, there's an easy way for the Mormons/GOP complex in Utah not to harm gay people by undoing their marriages — drop the appeal and stop asking the court to undo gay people's marriages. At this point, the damage is done. The marriages have already happened. So the Mormons, and the Republican Party, once again find themselves on the side of trying to un-marry gay couples."

Rick Hasen,Election Law Blog: "Recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is a big deal, which requires thought, consideration and preparation in the public if this is going to happen through the courts. In Utah, one of the most conservative states in the union, we went all of a sudden overnight from no gay marriage to gay marriage. ... Now there are reliance interests of those people who did get married, and the messy question of how to handle those marriages in the interim. But I think they are casualties (of) the Supreme Court, which wants to go slower than this abrupt change."

Ed Kilgore,Washington Monthly: "The (justices) were never likely to let an individual district court judge proclaim a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, striking down constitutional and statutory bans in 33 states. ... While predictable, The action is certainly bad and tragic news for the couples in Utah that took advantage of the lower court decision, and are now in a legal limbo."

Jacob Gershman,The Wall Street Journal: "What becomes of the licenses already granted? It's a question that very likely will have to be litigated. The marriages may be valid now but still face legal uncertainty. The confusion could be cleared up if higher courts uphold U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby's December ruling, or if courts — or the state itself — specify that the marriages that have already taken place are still legal."

Jon Terbush,The Week: "Last year, the Supreme Court issued two landmark rulings in favor of same-sex marriage, but sidestepped the larger question about whether bans on marriage equality were inherently unconstitutional. ... If lower courts offer conflicting or murky opinions on the matter, the Supreme Court will have an impetus to step in and clear things up a bit. The justices wouldn't necessarily have to take up such a case, but there are probably enough members of the court who would want to take a crack at the issue that it will indeed come up for further review."