About friggin’ time! I’m proud to belong to a church that rallied for the right to gay marriage years ago, before MA became the first state in the Union to pass a law protecting it. As Unitarian Universalists, we believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person and I know we’ll be celebrating this Sunday!

I’m very happy with this decision. As a gay man, It is my hope to marry at some time and want the same guaranteed protections that a heterosexual couple has on life, life insurance, property inheritance…etc.
From what I see, most of the ‘protect marriage’ farce is based on peoples religious beliefs. So, why in this country, should one religious belief be give the say over all people in this country…it shouldn’t.
Some will argue that gays can not have children, which is crazy as they can reproduce but with the attraction to someone of the same sex, they will either adopt or already come with children from a previous marriage. To use the argument that marriage is for the purpose of having and raising a family is shallow and untrue. If, as so many conservative religious individuals want to claim, having a family is the sole purpose of being married, then what do they do with those heterosexual couples who choose not to have a family or can not have a family. If by their rules, this straight couple shouldn’t be allowed to be married but that won’t happen because they’re straight. HYPOCRITES! Take one step further, since we all grow old, there is no reason to allow older couples the right to be married as they’re no longer producing children.
The logic and reason of conservative religious reasons are full of holes and have no substance other than the basic belief of “they don’t like it and it goes against how they ‘interpret’ they’re religious books”
Religious beliefs have no place in the laws of this land. Our laws are based upon reason and should not be based on ANY ONES religious beliefs. Because, should the religious majority change at some future date, all laws can be changed to fit those of the majority and I can hear conservative Christians wailing now.
The law is about equality and protection. The sheer number of homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples will always be in the minority so I serious doubt that there will ever be a lack of children in this country.
Hopefully, this will be the first of many substantial pillars to come tumbling down and then as Americans we can all honestly say, “with liberty and justice for all” rather than some tongue-in-cheek statement that is a lie.

“I presume the Obama Justice Department will appeal, but imagine if it didn’t…”
I’m imagining it already and I don’t foresee any catastrophic results.
Care to finish the ‘thought’ that ended with “. . .”?
Or would you prefer to just try to scare people into ‘imagining’ all kinds of horrendous things happeninng to American society?
Meanwhile, there IS that pesky Equal Protections Clause. (Not to mention the Full Faith & Credit Clause – care to explain why you believe LGBT Americans shouldn’t be fully protected by the Constitution?)
What’s a “Christian” to do, eh?
“Plaintiffs sued for federal marriage-based benefits, and a federal judge says they’re entitled to them.”
Again, care to explain why legally married couples SHOULDN’T get “marriage-based benefits” just because you don’t happen to like them?

“Care to finish the ‘thought’ that ended with “. . .”?
. . .
Thought not. You and Dreher make a perfect pair.
What is it with the scare-mongering ‘right’, anyway? Didn’t Jesus tell us to “Fear not”?

Jeez, Grumpy. The way that thought would have finished was, “…wouldn’t that be cool.” On second thought, it would undoubtedly open a can of worms or two–ones that both of us might regret having been opened. But still…

I’m shocked – though, I admit, somewhat pleasantly – that you seem now to be in favor of same-sex marriage (in that it would be “cool” if the DOJ didn’t appeal this ruling).
I’m somewhat new here. Is this a change on your part? (‘Cuz if it is, it shure doesn’t come across in most of your posts.)

Grumps, it’s not a change on my part. A person can favor same-sex marriage while having doubts about a court decision in its behalf. The end doesn’t always justify the means.

Sorry Mr. Silk, but what you write is very confusing. Now you sort of say you “favor same-sex marriage” and at the same time you disagree with the decision.
‘Splain me why you disagree with it, ‘cuz it shure is not explained in either your original post nor in you subsequent comments.
Is a puzzlement, to be sure.

And, while you’re at it, could you please try and unify the terms you “File under”?
This piece is “filed under” Defense of Marriage Act, while “DOMA should survive” is filed under DOMA. Neither of them come up if you search for either “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage”, but the two articles about ‘graduating in a church’ DO come up when you use those terms!?!?!
And how about using the tag “gay”? Or better yet, “equal rights”?