>I haven't had a chance to read the opinions yet but from what I gather the Supremes ruled DOMA unconstitutional based upon violation of the equal protection clause, and decided that prop 8 is not in their juristiction and that the plantiff's did not have standing, thus leaving the 9th circuit's striking down of the law in place. There are a number of dissents, including a sharply worded on by Scalia.
>
>My initial take :
>
>1) I agree with the equal protection violation. This seemed the most straightforward to me.
>
>2) I'm not sure about the lack of juristiction and standing. It's an odd situation because California decided not to pursue the case which overturned an initiative passed by her citizens. The group of citizens who proposed the initiative pursued, yet they don't have standing? If I'm interpreting correctly, citizens are not allowed to pursue the legal case for initiatives they voted for if the attorney general decides not to? Seems like an awful weakening of the initiative process to me.
>
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324520904578553500028771488.html?mod=WSJ_Home_largeHeadline

It was a huge day for gay rights. But there are still going to be battles in individual states. Illinois is one of them.