I beg to differ. Rehearing en banc is an extraordinary procedure for a specific purpose of correcting a major error or conflict with the circuit's precedents. It's pretty difficult to have an obvious conflict in a case where the precedent in the circuit is thin. This is the first post Hollingsworth case of its kind. What precedent of the circuit would it conflict with?
I'll agree to disagree with you on the en banc possibility. I think this issue could bring about such a possibility, particularly if it's a 2-1 decision overturning the lower court's ruling.
As for precedent and the possible circuit split (not including the Ninth Circuit and Prop 8), the Eighth Circuit upheld Nebraska's gay marriage ban in 2006 in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning. That decision made a point of denying the Equal Protection Clause argument. Either way, I think this case will reach SCOTUS. If the Tenth Circuit upholds Judge Shelby's ruling, I think it's a near certainty that the case reaches the Supreme Court. If it goes the other way, I have a hard time seeing the liberals on the Court willing to kick the can down the road several more years by denying cert.