From the end:
Q. Is this compromise at all driven by your personal opinions?
A. No. My preference would be that there would be gay marriage in the whole country, if I were voting on a ballot initiative. But the point of the legal analysis is, until we come to that conclusion, we have to figure out how to deal with all the people whose lives are affected by the legal regime in the meantime.
Q. Is it difficult, as someone who supports same-sex marriage, to develop a compromise that implies that the marriage in Obergefell should not be recognized in Ohio?
A. It’s the difficulty about writing in this area at all, that often the substance and the procedure don’t line up. But that’s the way it goes sometimes in law. If you’re doing legal scholarship well, sometimes you come to the conclusion that the law doesn’t do things that you wish it did. I actually hope that one consequence of this is to lead to more direct focus on the rights issues. If we want to have same-sex marriage, we should just do that. The kind of covert way of doing it, by having some states recognizing it, and stretching the normal federalism principles to let those states impose it everywhere, is probably worse. It privileges people who can afford to fly to Maryland on a private jet. It deprives a lot of the country of the chance to actually weigh in and eventually maybe come to the right view on the issue. It also has the risk of setting bad precedents for the future.
UPDATE: And (via Michelle Olsen on Twitter) here’s a story on how the Sixth Circuit appeal in Obergefell may be heard on an expedited schedule.