i am not a legal expert but this is where it might stand so far:

1. The decision looks a lot like Windsor in that it is based not on heightened scrutiny per se, but on the Constitution’s airtight respect for the dignity of all persons, gays included.

2. The holding is based on the Fourteenth Amendment, the clause that guarantees that the states treat all citizens equally and with due process of law, but it does not choose due process over equal protection. It chooses both, and links them together, as Justice Kennedy’s Windsor‘s decision tried to do, as well.

3. It’s not the sex discrimination inherent in gay marriage bans that sealed their fate. Rather, it was the Constitution’s guarantee of equal dignity to all persons.

4. The decision is framed around the link among three “evolutions”: the evolving history of marriage, the evolving acceptance of homosexuality, and the evolving scope of the rights protected by the Constitution. Bringing all of this together, through a decidedly progressive narrative, is remarkable rhetorical and substantive feat that vindicates the doctrines of the marriage equality movement.

5. Justice Kennedy argues that the entire narrative of the Court’s jurisprudence on marriage has brought us here, thus suggesting that extending the right to marry to gay persons is really no big deal. Considering where we were on this issue 10 years ago, that, too, is tremendous.

6. The majority opinion reminds us that this case is about “marriage” not about “gay marriage.” In that sense, this case was decided decades ago, when the Court recognized an already well established principles: marriage is a fundamental right that is essential for society and social order.

7. This decision is not premature, the Court says, because individuals should not have to wait for ballot after ballot and law after law to assert their fundamental rights. This conclusion again vindicates a key element of the marriage equality movement.