1. Chief Justice Roberts writes an opinion on question one finding that a state is not required to allow gay couples to marry within that state. He convinces Kennedy that not enough time has passed to enshrine gay marriage into the pantheon of Constitutional rights, and we don’t want a repeat of Roe.
2. The Chief writes an opinion on question two finding that State X must recognize a gay marriage that was lawfully entered into in State Y. Here the Chief relies upon long-standing conflict of law rules.
“Splitting the difference” in this way can arguably be seen as preserving the Court’s legitimacy in the face of arguments that it is merely another partisan political branch of the government and not a real court. But what do I know?