A Landmark Day for Gay Marriage The Supreme Court, perhaps trying to blot the stain of its decision on Tuesday to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965, struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday (nytimes.com, June 26). Now, with the court's historic decision, I believe that many more states will follow suit and pass legislation making it legal for gays and lesbians to marry. While this is a tremendous victory for gay rights, it is all the more curious that the same court did not apply 21st-century logic to the rights of African-Americans, Latinos and other minorities with respect to their right to vote. In the decision that brought DOMA down, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was the swing vote, as he was on Tuesday. And the grim gang of four - Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas - once again sat on the same side, this time in dissent. We are a divided country, with a divided Congress and a divided Supreme Court, but at least for today, the good guys won! The Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 take their places in the dustbin of bad policies. As a country, we are at our best when we are inclusive and equitable. We must continue to move forward until equality is reached on a broad level. Barack Obama, in his second Inaugural Address, brought together voting rights, gay rights and the legacy of Lyndon B. Johnson. When Mr. Obama said that "the most evident of truths - that all of us are created equal - is the star that guides us still, just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall," he embraced the rhetoric of the gay rights movement as no other president had. Forty-eight years earlier, L.B.J. did same for the civil rights movement when he declared, in introducing the Voting Rights Act: "It is not just Negroes but really it is all of us who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court extracted the teeth from the Voting Rights Act, and on Wednesday, it proclaimed that gay Americans are equal to their fellow citizens in the eyes of the law. The writer is a playwright whose "Great Society," about Lyndon B. Johnson, opens in New York in August. Over the last two days, the Supreme Court has handed down decisions that will affect the social structure of American society for years to come. And they are decisions on opposite sides of the political spectrum. In what is perceived as a victory for the right, the court gutted the Voting Rights Act, and undid the hallmark accomplishment of the civil rights movement. And in a clear victory for the left, the court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, signaling the opening of a new era for gay rights. But the truth is that the court did not hand down these decisions; Justice Anthony M. Kennedy did. In this court, on any case with political implications, there is a guaranteed 4-to-4 split between what one might call the Roberts group and the Ginsburg group. Mediating between them like Solomon sits Justice Kennedy, holding in his single vote unprecedented power to shape society. It seems to me entirely unacceptable that the Supreme Court has become so politically polarized that every important decision is effectively in the hands of one justice. It's interesting to see that the Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday regarding the Voting Rights Act "deeply disappointed" President Obama, but the court's decision on Wednesday striking down the Defense of Marriage Act won his praise. A perplexing court indeed. Morally speaking, the justices were wrong in regard to Dred Scott (slavery), Roe v. Wade (abortion) and now DOMA (gay marriage). The writer is a Catholic columnist for RenewAmerica.com. Now that same-sex married couples are guaranteed the same federal benefits as opposite-sex couples, could we please consider equal treatment for unmarried people? Under Social Security and Medicare rules, married and unmarried people make identical contributions if they have identical incomes. But they don't get identical benefits. Unless we can offer unmarried people benefits on a par with the spousal benefits that married people get, then perhaps it's time to reduce the Social Security and Medicare taxes the unmarried are required to pay. Private-sector benefit plans don't require unmarried people to subsidize married couples in this way. The writer is a former benefits lawyer.