That's not really the case if you read the ruling.  It confirmed that States do have wide breath in regulating marriage but NOT that such power is absolute.

What set it over the limit was

"  DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. "

"The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."

So a federal law making all same sex legal would not have the same tipping point, and would presumibly be ruled consitutional by the same 5-4 majority.

States rights is really just underplaying how big a loss this was for some people.  Afterall if DOMA specficially degreades and demeans a married couple, what about laws that prevent gay couples from adopting?   Same precedent right?   Civil unions instead of  Marriages?  Same thing with a demeaning name.

All of this stuff could lead to a LOT of cases that could deliver big blows.  Ironically to the "middle progressive states" that are halfway on the issue.  It shouldn't effect states with no civil unions/marriages.

Yup, gonna be 3 years next month, I recall that day very clearly

About Prop 8, I'm not from the US so clarfiy me something. Prop 8 stated that marriage would only be recognized between a man and a woman, and all that bullshit. If it's deemed unconstitutional, wouldn't that mean too that states with that same provision in their constitution (I recall Texas, but I'm sure there's more) violate the Constitution too? Wouldn't those be overturned too? Or do they have to overturn each state's provision, one by one?

Anyway, a small step, but a great one nonetheless. Why don't you just vote a nationwide law legalizing gay marriage and be done with it?

In today's environment I fully expect a mountain of challenges in regards to this. I know that overturning this Clinton era law was a major symbolic victory, however I still hold the position this won't bring about any major changes to how different states threat Gay Marriage and (a result of to which I support) reducing the ability of the federal government o create a one size fits all law in the same manner DOMA was.

This issues should be left to the states and allow citizens to foot with their feet if they don't like it. However, Right and Left wants to use the strong arm of the federal government to push their agendas while we're caught in the middle.

The thing is, the supreme court didn't rule it unconsittuional, just that they couldn't rule on it.

Generally there are 3 levels of precident.

State Precedent, "District" Precedent and Federal Precedent.

Supreme Court Precendet applies to everyone.

District Precedent applies to all the courts of a specific district which can include more then one state. 

State Precedent is just that... the state.

Well actually it's WAY more complciated then that with State and Federal courts each having seperate paralel courts who have jursidiction vs each other in various cases.... but long story short Prop 8 only effects California.   Had they affirmed the lower courts decision it would of been country wide.

Thanks, that's pretty clear

Seems like a waste of a great opportunity...but oh well, better than nothing I guess

I think "civil union" is a much more practical term as it relates to the government. Marriage aka "holy matrimony" seems like it should be something that is more between a couple and their religious institution regardless of sexual orientation. I don't personally see any reason why un-related people who want to enter into a civil contract of joint ownership should be prevented from doing so. I mean straight (and sometime religious) couples get divorced all the time, and in such cases I think the legitimacy of a "Holy Matrimony" might be more questionable than same sex marriages. I think the conservative right sees this as an issue mainly due to vernacular rather than wanting to prevent a person from doing something they don't personally agree. Furthermore, I don't see why as a straight male I couldn't enter into the same civil contract with another straight male for financial or other reasons. As part of that "50% ignorant bronze age judeo-something-or-rather" I don't have a problem with gay marriages and have/had gay friends. While I may not agree with a person's choices doesn't mean I have to be a jerk about it or think any less of them. Also as a hetero sexual married man I don't have any problem letting same sex couples in on the misery... :p
(its not miserable I love my wife she's awesome, but still every relationship has its issues and marriage can intensify such issues)

Go Argentina!  The USA needs to play catch up to you in this regard.

Prop 8 was a ballot initiative that took away an existing right – the right of a same sex couple to have their marriage sanctioned by the state and they get the same civil rights that come from the state as a married couple.

Prop 8 was declared in violation of the US Constitution twice, but was held up in the courts so that no legal same sex marriages were taking place.  The court could have ruled that all such bans were illegal, but instead, chose to rule in another way. They ruled that specifically the people pushing Prop 8 into the High Court had no right to do so, as they were not gay, and could not show how allowing Same Sex Couples to get legal marriages would hurt them in any way.

So yes, it could have done that.  But I think they were to scared.  We have some really wacky angry people in the USA (including Justice Scalia).  So the ruling only effects California.

But, by getting rid of Section 3 of DOMA, they have also opened the door for other couples to get marriage in a legal state, and sue their home state for not recognizing their marriage as that violates the Full faith and Credit Claus of the US Constitution.  

So yes, it looks like the USA will have full same sex marriage soon, but will take a few more court cases over probably a few years for that happen. 

Also, we do not vote on national laws like that.

That is and excellent question and one I wonder about my self.  The best answer I can come up with usually refers to something about a struggle within themselves, or hating it in someone else.

Examples:

Famous anti-gay Anita Bryan's husband was gay.  She hated that he was gay and throught was ruining her family.  Said she would rather have her kids dead than be gay.

Michael Knight - author of a gay marriage ban called 'The Knight Initiative' had a gay son who told him 'Dad, I am going to get married someday.'  Dad through a fit, and sponsored legislation to ban his son from getting married.

Dr. Laura - used to support gay people and couples, until people started teasing her that her 9 year old son who loves to play chess and collect antiques looked like a future homosexual.

I find it usually stems from something painful and personal.

Yeah it pretty much was it... though it was the correct call.   Proposition 8 was ruled unconsitiutional specifically because of precedents set in state law by the Californian Consitution.   Essentially that 

A) Marriage was a fundamental right.  

B)  Laws involving sexual orientation face strict scrutiny.  Which means to pass a law in California you pretty much HAVE to prove there is a good reason for pasing such a law... and to accomplish that goal your using as narrow a policy as possible.

The first one exists already nationally, but the second doesn't.   So really, if they wanted to, the Supreme Court could of ruled very narrowly and applied it only to California, but my guess is something actually the opposite.

I think that Kennedy probably wants to rule on the case broadly, granting gay people equal marriage rights... BUT just doesn't want to do it THIS early.   With public opinion changing  so rapidly he probably dreads the "desegregation" style enforcement tactics that may need to currently be put in place.

He's probably hoping more for the tide to swing so much in 2-3 years that at that point they can rule more broadly and the holdout states will accept it as an eventuality coming to pass.   Much like for example, repulicans in Illnois who were voting for and pushing for gay rights legislation just to get it out of the way so it stopped being an issue.

Wos Seth!  That was fast - do you mind asking next for me to win a multi million dollar lottery?  Your wishes seem to be granted so fast!

Medical Cannabis Legalized in New Hampshire  -http://thejointblog.com/medical-cannabis-legalized-in-new-hampshire/