The fact that California previously granted same-sex marriage then rescinded it was not the constitutional problem (as states can rescind rights after they've been granted). The constitutional problem was the system Proposition 8 left in place. The voter referendum was merely the vehicle that brought the state that system. As the vehicle wasn't unconstitutional, but the system was, the same question can be asked of Nevada: Do they have a rational basis for giving same-sex couples all of the rights of married couples but without the name? Under Perry, the answer is still "no" regardless of the fact that Nevada hadn't recognized same-sex marriages previously or that the legislature enacted the separate-but-equal system.

"Accordingly, discrimination against a transgender individual because of her gender-nonconformity is sex discrimination, whether it’s described as being on the basis of sex or gender." (pg 9) And, "An individual cannot be punished because of his or her perceived gender-nonconformity. Because these protections are afforded to everyone, they cannot be denied to a transgender individual. The nature of the discrimination is the same; it may differ in degree but not in kind, and discrimination on this basis is a form of sex-based discrimination that is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Ever since the Supreme Court began to apply heightened scrutiny to sex-based classifications, its consistent purpose has been to eliminate discrimination on the basis of gender stereotypes." (pg 13)

For a list of some other cases, see discussion starting on pg 9 of the decision.

The same scenario may play out here. The Gov is popular, and if either decides not to press the suit, I don't think it will hurt either in the 2014 elections. Taxes and the budget are likely to be much more pressing issues.

But we'll see what happens.