Yesterday was of course an absolutely historic day in this country---now, for the first time, same-sex couples can be married in some states, and have their marriage be completely equivalent to the marriages of opposite-sex couples, including, thanks to the ruling against DOMA, full recognition of their marriages by the federal government.
But what struck me in the coverage is just how much of a difference federal recognition of marriage will make for same-sex couples; I didn't realize how much was at stake. There was of course estate taxes; the Windsor case concerned a $363,000 estate tax bill. But there are other important rights and benefits that married couples have under federal law: A married person does not have to pay taxes on domestic partner health coverage. A married couple who sell their house may exclude $500,000 in profits from the sale from their taxes, but a same-sex couple who are not married may only exclude the $250,000 allowed by single persons. An American who is married to a foreign national can petition to have their spouse stay in this country permanently. And a married couple can be buried next to each other in a national cemetery. (The Human Rights Campaign has a rundown of these rights.)
I and many of my friends are in a celebratory mood, naturally, but of course there is still a lot of work ahead of us towards full equality. Yesterday's court rulings only effect California and those states where same-sex marriages are already legal. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Indiana, where I live, and I reckon it will be a long time before Indiana legalizes it, if it were up to this state. Most likely, it will take another court ruling to legalize same-sex marriage in Indiana and all the other states. We are therefore in a situation similar to the status of interracial marriage before the Loving v. Virginia case, which led to its legalization in all states in 1967. Morally and legally, this is intolerable, and the forceful language of Justice Kennedy in his decision in the Windsor case point towards an eventual legalization of same-sex marriage in all jurisdictions.
One important aspect of yesterday's victories is what they represent in terms of the control of religion over society in the country. This is reflected in the language of conservative opponents of same-sex marriage, who claim that it threatens religious freedom (apparently by forcing florists and photographers to work same-sex marriages, or forcing charities to hire or give benefits to spouses of same-sex married couples). But the real story is the denial of freedom for all Americans by laws based on religion. The ruling against DOMA is only the latest victory against this denial of freedom: It wasn't until 1965 that the Supreme Court ruled in the Griswold v. Connecticut case that married couples have a legal right to use contraceptives. In the present day, it becomes more and more clear that the opposition against acceptance of gay people and their relationships is nothing more than prejudice based on religion. I was struck yesterday by how plain that was in the rhetoric of same-sex marriage opponents, who often used explicitly religious language in stating their determination to keep fighting marriage equality. And even a relatively measured conservative commentary against same-sex marriage is apt to be followed by ugly comments by readers claiming that gay men are promiscuous, a threat to children, or that the nation is doomed to destruction by its acceptance of gay people and gay marriage.
Added on edit (2013-06-27): I was curious to see what religious opposition was present to ending the Connecticut law on contraceptives. Google turned up an article by two contemporary writers who still argue that the law was good as well as constitutional: The Bad Decision That Started It All, by Robert George and David Tubbs. (The link is to the website catholiceducation.org but the article originally appeared in National Review in July of 2005.)