There were two rulings in two separate cases.
The first essentially held that laws regarding marriage are a state matter, and that the federal government cannot get involved, nor can it "discriminate" by giving federal benefits to some legally married couples but not others. In other words, DOMA is unconstitutional because it denied federal benefits to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ couples who are legally "married" under certain state laws. The opinion said nothing on whether or not states that do not permit ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ "marriage" may continue to do so. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion, and was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
The second dealt with California's ban on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage. A lower court had ruled the ban unconstitutional. At that point, the California government decided to stop defending the law in court. A group in favor of the ban took the state government's place in defending the law. The Supreme Court held that the group had no standing to defend the law in court, and that only the state government can do that. The opinion said nothing on whether or not other states that do not permit ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ "marriage" may continue to do so, but by denying standing to the group, it left the lower court ruling intact, which stuck down the California ban. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion, and was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan.
Bottom line, DOMA is unconstitutional, but the Court did not rule on whether or not individual states may continue to forbid ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ "marriage." So, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ couples who were "married" in certain states will begin to receive federal benefits, and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs will begin to get "married" in California, but nowhere else (for now...
)