"...whether you like it or not."

Congratulations go to all, because this is a victory for America and for freedom.

Is this the end of the issue or are the bigots going to try to revoke these marriages again?

How is this news for MV? The selection of national topics suggests this paper is biased toward covering issues promoting a political agenda.

Yes, the political agenda of equality for all. It would seem those bent out of shape may have their own political agenda...the opposite of the one you seem to disagree with.

"equality for all" or equality for LGBT? "all" means more than "LGBT," at least to those of us who can think without letting our passions get in the way.

This has nothing to do with equality, this has to do with money. Bottom line. This way they don't have to file separate taxes, they can file jointly thereby saving money. Wooopy, i'm so happy!!

What policital agenda? This is a US Supremem Court ruling that the Federal Gov't cannot deny Federal benefits such as social security benefit for those who are legally married in certain states, namely the states that allow same-sex marriage. It is very much news worthy.

Think harder Resident and don't get caught up in semantics or your passions. The message was perfectly clear, but I guess if someone HAS to argue, semantics is one of the last options, along with grammar checking. Its a great day for freedom in America. A great day for Americans who believe in American values of equality.
Its a terrible day for angry bigots though (in general, not pointing fingers)

The bigots can have their say, but not their way. This is a long overdue civil right. The gay community never gave up the fight. Someone pointed out in another post that this will go too far and lead to similar rights for multiple spouses, animals and more. Not likely, but if it is to be, then let those leaders do what the gay community did--take 40+ years to bring it all the way to the US Supreme Court. They did a great job. It is indeed a day to celebrate. I only wish that socially liberal California would have been the leader in this movement. We should have been the first state to legalize gay marriage.

@harvardmom,, agree with everything you say, except the part "if it is to be". No animal should be subject to a human's desire to marry them. Consenting adults, fine, but leave the dog, cat, guinea pig out of it. Thanks!

@harvardmom: Are you really so indifferent to people marrying their pets? I love my wife, and I love my cats, and I think that they all love me, but...it's different. Draw the line where you want for humans--although we see the issue differently, I can respect your view--but pets??? My goodness.

The reason gov't gave special benefits to married couples is because they can procreate and create more tax paying citizens!!

This is not about equality or discrimination, it's about Money, not having to pay the tax man.

Sodom and Gomorrah? But I thought that's what God was doing to Oklahoma and the other hate states in tornado alley? It was God's will that DOMA was defeated.

Besides, I like these part of the Bible better:
- Judge not others lest ye be judged.
- Love others as I have loved you.
- Peace be with you

Yes, money is involved. For some, it is much more than money. For example, a soldier died in Afghanistan. Her surviving same-sex spouse cannot get the flag that covered the casket.

This is not, and never has been, about civil rights. It is about silencing. If you do not know what I mean, that is because I, too, have been silenced. Had I been allowed to speak, you would all be familiar with the argument that I make that this is all about silencing:

"REDEFINING MARRIAGE SILENCES CORE RELIGIOUS IDEAS"

"QUEERS JUST WANT TO SILENCE INCONVENIENT IDEAS"

When I finally manage to tell the story of my silencing over the two and one half years that passed between the judge's ruling that started this issue on its way to the Supreme Court, you will see that there is no legitimacy whatsoever in today's ruling.

The argument, in brief, is that changing the meaning of the word "marriage" silences what I call "the marriage norm", which is a cultural specification of the rights and duties of a mated male and female. People who do not conform to that norm are called "queers". Queers naturally want to silence that norm. Today, they have achieved a major victory. But it is a battle victory. It is not the end of the war.

The queer viewpoint cannot withstand vigorous open debate. It cannot withstand close, intelligent, respectful scrutiny. Today's result is not the product of vigorous debate. It is the product of a propoganda machine applied to a powerless, passive, and childlike population.

I challenge anyone to debate this point with me, here, on my web site (http://ideafarm.com), or anywhere else, either on the Internet or in person here in Mountain View.