Not that they wouldn't in a heartbeat if they could.

In fact, they want to kill it altogether.

I applaud the Obama Administration for their rapid implementation of the various ramifications of the DOMA decision. Good job!

as to which legally recognized marriages qualify.

The case, unfortunately, defies explanation under any standard analysis. Standard analysis would have gone:

1. Was the marriage valid when and where it was entered into?
2. (The second step was only necessary after DOMA - and I still believe is unconstitutional) Did the couple reside, at that moment, in a state which recognized same gender marriages.

The answer to those two questions were yes, and no. So the Supreme Court changed the second question to was it valid at the time the the couple/marriage interacted with the law (and despite NPR and NY Times assertions to the contrary, no later general change in laws has ever been able to change marital status for purposes of the federal taxation law.)

They did not, unfortunately, explain why the different viewpoint - so it impossible to determine how the decision will play out for others similarly situated at the time of their marriages.

If residence at the time of interaction is crucial - does that mean if Edie Windsor (or anyone else) moved from a place where their marriage was - at some point - recognized, does their marriage lose recognition if they lived outside of New York at the time of death? What if they were just traveling? Does that mean a couple can move from one state to another to gain social security benefits (and lose them if they later move back?) Can I irrevocably gain federal recognition of my marriage if I interact with one of the federal laws regarding marriage while I am vacationing somewhere which recognizes my marriage, or does that recognition vanish again the moment I return home.

One gigundo mess - it will be interesting to see who the guidelines recognize.

Common-law marriage has no ceremony or legal forms at all. Yet that form of marriage has always been recognized for all the same benefits, IRS filings, insurance family plan coverage and divorce, family court legal claims. Same sex couples can claim they are married and under the law, they are.

Common law marriages are recognized state by state, and the federal government (and other states) recognizes those marriages only if they were recognized as marriages when they were created.

For example, until around 1991 Ohio recognized common law marriages. All you had to do (going from memory here - but it is close) was (1) be eligible for a statutory marriage, (2) to live together as married, (3) hold yourselves out as married, and (4) agree that you were married. The first criteria knocks out same gender couples, siblings, and groups of more than two for example. States which do not recognize ceremonial marriages between same gender couples will not recognize common law marriages. (And most states do not permit new common law marriages to be created anymore - these are the only states which permit new common law marriages to be created: Alabama, Colorado, District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas,
Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah (I have not verified this list beyond verifying that it correctly categorized Ohio)

On the magic date in 1991 when common law marriages were no longer recognized, no new common law marriages could be created. So when it came tax time, I always had to ask couples who said they were a common law couple when their marriage was created - if they said 2000 (for example) they were not married or state or federal purposes. Same general inquiry if their "common law" marriage was created in another state - we had to review what the rules were for that state and see if they qualified.

Common law marriage can be recognized either because case law recognized it - or because (ironically) a statute provided for its existence.

need I say more about tolerance and diversity in a southern town.

All 8 St. Pete city council members sign pride proclamation...

http://www.watermarkonline.com/2013/06/14/all-8-st-pete-city-council-members-sign-pride-proclamation/

It does seem as though we may need a major rewrite of some marriage related laws, such as divorce laws, to be gender-neutral and allow for same-sex couples who might have different issues and such than heterosexual couples.

hard for me I have come to accept gay people and their lawful union.

It sounds like you still don't accept gays

Marriage in every state, ENDA, etc?

Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Or likely don't. At least, not because anyone actually WANTS to invite you.

They do it because, even though it's hard for them, you are a partner to someone who actually IS fun.

The SCOTUS decision + several states + the US military + the Social Security Administration = a spreading sphere of influence that makes it inevitable that ALL states will soon have to accept marriage equality under the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution.

There has always been a soft spot for right-wingers to exploit: gay people could not fully leverage certain benefits, and so were alienated from them. This helps build the grand coalition of forces supporting such benefits.

same-sex marriage? Along with issues like the ability to file jointly as a married couple in the states that allow same-sex marriage, thus giving those tax advantages and a distinct tax disadvantage to those who have to file as singles (higher tax rate), I'd think there would be clear financial discrimination claims.