“(T)he existence of a federal court judgment obligating states to grant and recognize same-sex marriages does not automatically dictate the outcome of a case like this one, which raises a related but different constitutional question involving municipal employee benefits,” the plaintiffs wrote in the argument they submitted to the court last week.

Opponents of same-sex marriage are becoming an increasingly marginalized political and cultural minority. While a number of GOP candidates for president sought to emphasize opposition to gay marriage and pledged to reverse the Supreme Court decision, the issue has been conspicuously absent from the general election campaign.

Donald Trump, the GOP nominee, has said he is against gay marriage, but has barely mentioned the issue on the campaign trail, and past statements he has made in support of LGBT rights suggest he is not interested in pursuing the issue if he wins next week.

In addition, benefits for same-sex couples, whether married or in otherwise committed relationships, were already becoming commonplace before the Supreme Court decision. Major corporations, in particular, saw same-sex benefits as an essential recruitment tool, as well as beneficial for the company’s reputation.

However, as the legal challenges over the Affordable Care Act contraception mandate displayed, there will always be a small percentage of employers that will seek to fight what the rest of the business community responds to with a shrug.

And in Texas, the group of voters who still care deeply about rejecting same-sex marriage represent a very important constituency to the nine members of the state Supreme Court, all of whom are Republican and all of whom are elected.

A judge who rules in favor of LGBT rights is in danger of getting unseated by a challenger in the Republican primary, which will be dominated by socially conservative voters.