NICE! That's even better than an Angry Birds cake.

Let's be a little more specific. He asked the DoJ to stop enforcing Section 3, which pertains to federal recognition of marriages in states that already permit them. It just means someone married in Masse... Massachus... Iowa can now file taxes jointly, get SS benefits, etc. He made no mention of Section 2, which allows to states to ignore other states' marriage laws.

It's a step in the right direction, but it's not what everyone is reporting it to be. It's a minor concession for people who are lucky enough to live in one of the few states that treat them as first-class citizens, and this isn't one of them. (Thanks, Oregon!)

Er, "enforcing" = "defending"

Except they're going to continue being party to the cases already in federal court, so I guess they're going to play Washington Generals there.

Section 2 is irrelevant though. It's either unconstitutional (in which case it will eventually be struck down by the courts); or it's constitutional (in which case it simply allows states to do what they would be doing anyway).

Section 3 is where it's at.