When California’s Supreme Court decision nixed a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage the question immediately raised by some talk show radio hosts was: will this be back now as a big campaign 2008 wedge issue?

The likely answer: back…yes…….but not quite..because voters have a few teenie-weenie other things on their minds this year. The Associated Press has come to the same conclusion:

[NOTE: An earlier version of this story had this link attributed to the New York Times. That was an error, due to a reference from a Times story on the ruling that was cut in favor of using the more recent AP piece. We regret the error.]

Yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision striking down a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage reintroduces a hot-button social issue into the presidential campaign.

Republicans used same-sex marriage to great political effect in 2004, putting proposed bans on the ballot in Ohio and other states to get conservatives to the polls. But now it will have to compete for attention with the economy, the Iraq war, and other issues.

Indeed, there were already rumblings yesterday reflected in some news reports and on some talk shows of some thinking of trying to put a new measure on the ballot and of a court challenge to the California ruling.

But the dynamics are different this year:

And impact of the gay marriage issue could be muted, not just because neither the Democratic front-runner, Barack Obama, nor the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, support gay marriage, but because McCain’s opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage - on federalist grounds - makes it more difficult for the right to get a lot of traction out of it.

Still, the issue is likely to come up in some races (or be raised by the so-called “independent” groups that make commercials to support or negatively define candidates). And you can already see how even this clear-cut California court ruling can be spun.

“California Court Strips Children of Right to Mother and Father,” declares the headline of Cybercast News Service’s hot-button-pushing article which declares “the court does not recognize that children have any right whatsoever to a mother and a father. In the decision, the California court sees children primarily through the eyes of same-sex couples who want to secure custody and control of children. The court makes emphatically clear that it deems this to be a right of same-sex couples that is equal to–and identical to–the right of married mothers and fathers to adopt or conceive and raise their own children.”

Spin is spin is spin…

So will it become another wedge issue used against the Democrats as hot buttons are pushed and voters cast their votes on this issue?

Joan Walsh, writing in Salon, doesn’t think so:’

Right on cue, some people are saying this gay marriage decision will doom the Democrats again, and I had two quick reactions: I honestly don’t think so, and if it does, that’s just the way it is. Six of seven Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican governors, and three of them joined the 4-3 ruling (written by Republican Ronald George, who was appointed to the municipal bench by Ronald Reagan in 1972) that said, in fairly conservative language, that marriage is too important to society to exclude gay Californians. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he’ll uphold the ruling and will fight an effort to amend the state’s constitution to overturn the ruling. Let John McCain try to ride this issue to a victory in California. I don’t see it.

And there are no signs McCain plans to do so. Yet (after all: Karl Rove is “unofficially advising him but now now Rove must also see the angry voter-written graffiti on the wal ).

The bottom line is that it’s a matter of practicality.

The issue is unlikely to be of prime importance to those who are losing their homes, or are fearful of losing their homes, or who don’t have jobs, or who have heard that their management or lower level jobs could be cut, or whose stocks greatly lost their value, or who have to walk or cutback on travel due to soaring gas prices as they read about record oil corporation profits, or who get letters from their kids serving in Iraq and pray for their kids safe return each night, or for parents whose military kids are sent back to Iraq for the umpteenth time.

They might have a few other things on their mind that preoccupy — and greatly anger — them. And polls show just that.

It’s different this year.

Obama isn’t Kerry (despite what some Republicans say) and McCain isn’t Bush (despite what some Democrats say).

In 2008 it isn’t just a matter of “live and let live” but “how can we change things ASAP because it’s getting harder to live.”

UPDATE: Ann Althouse has another view. She thinks McCain can raise it indirectly to the GOP’s benefit:

McCain only needs to stimulate feelings that things are changing too fast, that courts are taking over too aggressively, and that unknown, worrisome things might happen— unless stable, restrained judges are put in place. McCain is, in fact, already doing that. This strong example of judicial activism resonates with what he has already said about judges.

I think the fear of rapid change will affect voters in the presidential election, especially since we expect the Democrats will control both houses of Congress. Do we really want a Democratic President too? Do we want, in addition to free-flowing legislative change, a President whose judicial appointments will be rubber-stamped in the Senate?

Now, Obama’s message has been change. He’s committed to that message, and it can be turned against him — a feat that becomes easier in the aftermath of the California decision.