While gays and lesbians in the U.S. are jumping up and down in joy, and pop journalists on both sides of the fence are either gleefully announcing or disgustedly decrying that the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage today, nothing could be further from the truth. The Court decided two cases today – both by a 5 to 4 decision – which while both involved same-sex marriage neither specifically addressed the issue of the legality of that institution: the decisions handed down in both cases are limited in their scope and only address the narrow legal issues presented in each case.

Yes, those decisions can be considered a victory for same-sex proponents, but neither goes far enough to guarantee same-sex couples equal treatment under the law. Justice Scalia, in the concluding statement of his dissenting opinion in the DOMA case, sums up the Court’s actions today best when he writes that “the Court has cheated both sides of the debate over same-sex marriage, robbing the winners of an honest victory and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat.”

In deciding the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry etal., more commonly referred to as the Proposition 8 case, the Court let stand a lower court ruling by declaring that the Petitioners did not have standing to appeal the District Court’s ruling. In his written opinion, Chief Justice Roberts addressed that issue while remaining silent on the larger issue of the right for same-sex couples to marry. And rightly so.

This case was never about the legality of same-sex marriage but rather covered the legal issues involved in how Proposition 8 was enacted. Or more precisely for the case before the Supreme Court, the issue was whether or not the petitioners had the standing necessary to appeal the District Court’s ruling before the Ninth Circuit Court. The majority determined they did not and vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgement. Even Justice Kennedy in his dissenting opinion stuck to the issues of standing, though he wrote that California law does in fact provide the necessary standing.

This ruling clears the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California. And that’s a good thing. It does not, however, touch in anyway on the issue of whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal, or whether or not either State or Federal law may prohibit that institution. An attempt by the Court – if it so desired – to make a sweeping decision that would have addressed that issue under this case would have not been proper. Which is not true with United States v. Windsor (blah, blah, blah), the other case the Court addressed today.

That decision too is limited in its scope as it only pertains to the constitutionality of The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), though Justice Kennedy’s written opinion on behalf of the majority reads as though they would have liked to have gone further. At the legal heart of this case were two issues, Section 2 of DOMA which allowed States to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other States, and Section 3 which defined marriage as an institution entered into only by two parties of the opposite sex. The Court’s decision does not change State rights to enact legislation to allow or prohibit same-sex marriages.

In his opinion, Justice Kennedy addresses the issue of State’s rights under the guise of federalism, basically arguing that the federal government does not have the right to supercede State’s rights to enact laws governing marriage. He notes that while the Act does not prohibit States from enacting laws permitting same-sex marriages, or prohibiting them, its comprehensive definition of marriage does control over 1,000 federal laws in which spousal status is addressed. And there, at least at first, is the rub. In fact Justice Kennedy goes on to cite concern after concern in how DOMA treats same-sex spouses and the legal problems that arise therefrom. This would have been the perfect excuse for the Court to go further than it did. Instead, by only ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA as Fifth Amendment rights apply to it, the Court left open the vast number of issues Justice Kennedy raised. And more.

Nonetheless, and of obvious concern in the dissenting opinions – that would be of great concern – Justice Kennedy’s opinion takes no prisoners when it comes to DOMA’s treatment of same-sex marriages and the families they may raise. Using words such as demeaning and humiliating, he says the Act’s sole purpose was to do harm. Maliciously so. It is a resounding indictment against the Act and its proponents. And it would read as a strong argument against any legislation, state or federal, that treats same-sex marriage in this manner if not for his wishy-washy statement that this ruling does not in fact open the door to future decisions that would offer protections to the gay and lesbian community. Still, it is well worth your time to read, the strong language he uses sets the tone, if not the legal future, for that judicial debate.

Even more worthy of your time, unless you’ve already had your fill of bigotry by watching Fox News, are the dissenting opinions. There are three of them. Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissenting opinion, quickly lashes out at the majority’s decision and Justice Kennedy’s opinion that the primary purpose of DOMA was a bare desire to do harm to a specific group of citizens. Wherein Justice Kennedy’s opinion he specifically points out the very title of the Act – in and of itself – shows malice, Justice Roberts considers the Act’s title to be ‘banal” and says there is no convincing evidence that congress’ principal purpose was to codify malice and that hence it should not be tarred with the brush of bigotry. And then goes on to show why it should be. Though I suspect that is not his reading of his dissenting opinion.

But all is not lost. Chief Justice Roberts concludes that the majority’s decision is limited and does not prevent States from continuing to utilize “the traditional definition of marriage” Hint. Hint. There is little doubt left on how he views the issue of same-sex marriage, or on how he will vote on any cases that come before the Court in the future.

Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion is even worse. He starts off addressing the issue of standing by calling it in this case a friendly scrimmage based on the President’s decision to enforce the Act even though he believed it unconstitutional (which gave Windsor standing to sue since there was then injury suffered). But that’s about how the law works and not about the issue of same-sex marriage and Fifth Amendment rights. He delves into that matter in a manner that would make the most obnoxious message board pundit proud.

Referring to the majority’s opinion, Justice Scalia writes, “some might conclude that this loaf could have used a while longer in the oven. But that is wrong; it is already overcooked. The most expert care in preparation cannot redeem a bad recipe.” In discounting what he calls the Court’s nonspecific hand-waving in concluding that the Act is motivated to harm couples in same-sex marriages he states that the Constitution “neither requires or forbids our society to approve of same-sex marriage in the same manner in which it neither requires of forbids polygamy or the consumption of alcohol.” Because those issues, of course, are of the same importance as equal treatment under the law of same-sex spouses.

He then goes on to write that “even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex)” there are rational and even boring reasons for the legislation giving lie to the Court’s assertion that only those with hateful hearts could have voted in favor of the Act. Though he fails to note what those compelling, but boring, rationales may have been. While barring his soul on how he views the disgusting things those homosexuals get up to.

In his defense of DOMA, however, Justice Scalia does bring to light the inherent problems with this limited decision. Specifically he addresses the question of how a same-sex coupled legally married in one state, who then decide to reside in a state that does not recognize their marriage should be treated in filing their federal tax return; as a legally married couple or not?

Still, his dissenting opinion, though I’m sure it was not its intended purposes, exemplifies the heart of a bigot. He argues that the majority’s opinion that the Act’s purpose was to maliciously disparage and injure same-sex couples are untrue accusations because the desire to defend ‘traditional marriage’ is not meant to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements. Uh, even though it does. That’s like claiming those who opposed the Civil Rights Act were only defending a tradition and not trying to promote bigotry and racism.

Nor is it enough, in Justice Scalia’s opinion, to defend the right to be a bigot. He also felt it necessary to sound the warning of what the future now holds. He argues that this decision opens the door to a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage – even though the majority’s opinion expressly says otherwise – much in the same way that when the “Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy” that ruling paved the way to federal recognition of same-sex marriage. He then goes on to state this same logic will eventually be applied to State laws that prohibit same-sex marriage, rasing the level of fear among his fellow bigots that while no one argues that each State has the right to determine that issue, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide that any Sate that prohibits same-sex marriage is acting maliciously to harm same-sex couples. Or as he warns: the other shoe will soon drop.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito begins with objecting to the Court’s ruling on the issue of standing. It’s interesting that all the dissenting opinions take this tact, but then go on to argue the merits of the case anyway. He then echoes Justice Scalia’s thoughts that the Constitution does not specifically speak to the issue of same-sex marriage, nor does it guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. He objects to the majority’s opinion that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberties protected by the Fifth Amendment arguing due process protects only those fundamental rights and liberties deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. Kinda like the right to own slaves was. Not that a bigot defending his bigotry would let that issue slide by, of course, as he noted “the presence of two members of the opposite sex is as rationally related to marriage as white skin is to voting.” A rather telling statement considering yesterday’s ruling by the Court in regard to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

So raise a glass to the legalization of same-sex marriage. ‘Cuz some day it may become a reality in the United States. But that day is not today. The Court’s decisions are a small step forward, but leave ample room for even larger steps backwards depending on the Court’s makeup in the future. As for the “over 1,000 federal laws” that Justice Kennedy brought up again and again, don’t expect the Court’s ruling on DOMA to necessarily impact them in the way you’d hope for or imagined. Those too will have to be decided through the courts now. Today’s decisions did not open the door to your bringing your BS back to the U.S. as your lawfully wedded spouse. Even if you are lucky enough to not live in one of the 38 states that have still not seen fit to extend the right to marry to all of its citizens. ‘Cuz you are still a second-class citizen in the U.S. and it is still perfectly legal to discriminate against you.

(You can view the decisions and the opinions of the Court at its website.

Hollingsworth v. Perry – the Prop 8 case – is here.

United States v. Windsor – the DOMA case – is here.

Both are in PDF form.)