The OP article says:

After United States v. Windsor, if you’re a same-sex couple married under state law, you’re married for federal program purposes too.

That you are quoting.

you didn't understand my post, so I don't know what else to say.

if you’re a same-sex couple married under state law, you’re married for federal program purposes too. The feds have even said that if you move to a State that does not recognize your marriage but were legally married in a place that does, the Feds will honor that.

I don't know what your problem is, so I don't know what else to say.

Also understood how what you posted, which is what I posted, is broader than the language from the OP that I quoted.

Have fun in your own little world.

go home to your state which does NOT recognize SSM, then (you are saying) you will not (for example) be eligible for social security survivor benefits if your spouse dies?

I think that's incorrect.

Sorry, I was parenting a thread in LBN that I started and posting this there by mistake. (People were nice enough to ignore it, and I just noticed. Anyway, here is my reply.

Probably, but I cannot say for certain. I will elaborate:

In the Windsor case, the couple first got married in Canada. They re-married in NY, and IIRC, NY is where the decedent died and where estate was being administered. If they hadn't remarried there, I don't know how the case would have come out. Ditto if the estate were being administered in Oklahoma. (A large estate, I might add. The case was about estate taxes.) Full faith and credit would probably apply, but I don't think the SCOTUS has decided the ffc issue yet, as it relates to marriage. Some homophobic states are refusing to grant divorces to same gender couples married in other states.

Given that the marriage was in NY and the estate was being administered in NY, I don't know for sure how the case would have come out under different scenarios. The holding of a case is usually strictly limited to the facts of the case. As I said, though, Kennedy seemed to me to have given making his wording as broad as possible his best shot.

that case a few months ago. (I hope my recollection is correct about New York and New York.) I was interested and wanted to see for myself. Reading it was no picnic, but wading through the FCC internet neutrality was a bear.

More great news!

Or are wishing that it is not happening.

But hey! They are not going to rain on our parade.

Look what happened in Colorado yesterday and ST. LOUIS, Mo this morning. Not to mention what happened yesterday Or the past 11 months!

The march for equality is going strong.

Then again, I didn't why you felt compelled to be snotty.

Windsor case, which applied only if a state already allows gay marriage.

Kennedy's broad language in the Windsor case, which I mentioned upthread, probably helped. However, if the Windsor case had been broad enough to say that state laws prohibiting gay marriage are unconstitutional, we would not be seeing dominoes fall one or a few at a time. They would have all fallen last year.

So many states have either reversed course or are covered under these rulings, that I can't keep up, lol.