However, there is one significant right of marriage same-sex couples should NOT enjoy - though the decision specifically says they do:
"Enjoy the presumption of parentage as to a child born of either partner"
First, I believe that the court is in error - I know of no state where a married woman enjoys the presumption of parentage to any child of her husband. If the child is born by a woman other than the wife it is clearly a child to whom the wife should not have parental obligation (leaving aside a possible argument on the use of surrogate mothers). But, in pre-DNA days when natural fatherhood could be difficult to ascertain, there was and still is a presumption that the husband is the father of a child born to his wife.
This becomes ridiculous on it's face in a same sex marriage - it is biologically impossible that a same sex spouse has a natural parental relationship with a child born to their partner.
Therefore, same-sex couples should be denied the presumption of parentage (except in cases of adoption) - and this marks the difference in law between a domestic-partnership and a marriage.
In all or most states, children born of married parents are presumed by law to be the biological offspring of the husband, unless he chooses to challenge paternity.