Gay Marriage Fight Isn't Over Pundits applaud decision, point out its limitations By Kevin Spak, Newser Staff Posted Jun 26, 2013 1:30 PM CDT 25 comments Comments Gay rights advocate Vin Testa waves a rainbow flag in front of the Supreme Court at sun up in Washington, Wednesday, June 26, 2013. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) (Newser) – The Supreme Court's gay marriage rulings have pretty much everyone talking and typing. Many liberals are overjoyed, but others urge caution, while conservatives look for silver linings. Here's what people are saying: "This may be remembered as the day when the nation stopped regarding gay people as second class citizens," writes Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post, but there's still much more to be done. The Prop 8 ruling "leaves things basically the way they stood before—not after—the landmark 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling that struck down laws against interracial marriage." Adam Winkler at the Daily Beast complains that "to hear the reasoning of the court, it sounds like procedure is more important than people." Even the comparatively bold DOMA decision leans on process and states' "traditional authority," which "may have sent a signal to lower courts that limiting marriage to one man and one woman remains constitutionally permissible." Winkler also points out that the court rejected the Obama administration's arguments that laws discriminating against LGBTQ people should be subject to more rigorous judicial review, on par with race or gender. "The court’s refusal may be read by lower courts to mean that LGBT discrimination may still be constitutional, especially when it’s consistent with tradition rather than contrary to it." "This happened the right way—from the ground up, with argument, with lawsuits, with cultural change, with individual courage," writes Andrew Sullivan at The Dish. "So to those who are often tempted to write off America's ability to perfect its union still further … let me just say: I believe." June Thomas at Slate feels like she just won an Oscar. "As the decision was announced, I finally allowed myself to experience a feeling a belonging," she writes. "Perhaps the world really is changing." Meanwhile over at the conservative blog RedState, Dana Loesch looks on the bright side, arguing that this is "a loss for big government, not for marriage." After all, power was just removed from the federal government and returned to the states. "If big government is needed to define marriage then the people who make up the church" have failed to "live and evangelize their faith." For more conservative reactions, click here.