Dr. Luke Jensen, Director of the Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Equity, speaks during an event on Wednesday night. Jaclyn Borowski/The Diamondback

Correction: Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this feature read “our most populous state will not have marriage equality” in regards to overturning Proposition 8. Such a decision would ensure California does in fact have marriage equality. This feature has been changed to reflect this correction.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two issues related to marriage equality, or the recognition by the government of marriages between two people of the same sex. No matter how much I wish the conversation about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people focused on other things, today’s news regarding marriage equality has taken up all the oxygen for such a conversation.

The talking heads on TV lead me to believe the Supreme Court will find an excuse not to make a decision for the case regarding California’s Proposition 8. That means the lower court’s ruling will stand and our most populous state will have marriage equality, but there will be no federal right established by that decision.

They also argue that DOMA — the so-called Defense of Marriage Act that bars the federal government from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples — will be declared unconstitutional, and same-sex couples residing in places like this state will finally have their legal marriages recognized by the federal government. This simply means they will be treated like any other married couple.

If marriage is a basic right, as the Supreme Court has stated previously, it should include same-sex couples. But I am fine in clarifying that right at a later date, as long as Californians now get back the same-sex marriage right they had prior to Proposition 8.

As for DOMA, it is ironic that many who consistently argue for states’ rights are now arguing for this encroachment on states’ rights. Indeed, all other laws regarding the recognition of marriage are at the state — not federal — level. There are many reasons to strike down DOMA as unconstitutional. The encroachment of federalism is only one of them, and the one most likely to be used by the Supreme Court.

So perhaps the court will not rule in a way that includes same-sex marriage in the equal protection clause articulated in the 14th Amendment, and perhaps they will not rule that any real discrimination occurred; but we will likely get a result that moves in a positive direction for marriage equality.

Basic rights should not be determined by popular opinion, but recent polling is striking and worthy of comment.

According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, 58 percent of adult Americans (and 80 percent of adults under the age of 30) think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and have their marriages recognized by the government. That is a huge shift in public opinion from as recently as 10 years ago. I think this is due to two factors. First, the more people actually know and interact with LGBTQ people, the more they support marriage equality. The second is once people hear the arguments both for and against, they understand the merits in favor of marriage equality and recognize the speciousness of the arguments against it.

So, if the decisions go as the talking heads argue, three cheers. Perhaps then we can focus on why a bill that protects transgender people is stuck in the General Assembly, and why university employees now receiving domestic partner benefits could feel forced to marry just to keep what they currently have. I anxiously await the Supreme Court’s decision so greater attention can be given to other issues of concern to LGBTQ people.

Luke Jensen is the director of the university’s LGBT Equity Center. He can be reached at ljensen@umd.edu.