This is one of the first big steps (I know I'm simplifying here!) for homosexual rights, and it's at the "Is it or isn't it constitutional?" phase. Reviewing DoMA and Prop 8 should be complex in terms of emotions and feelings, but not necessarily in legality.

The other case appears to have been improperly researched - 7 of the justices agreed that the UoT admissions policy wasn't properly scrutinized. They focused the ruling towards tightening the reins on what is allowed in admissions, not on whether Affirmative Action is constitutional. Maybe this is also oversimplification, but it looks like they kicked the ball down the road.

There seems to be a fair degree of separation between the two topics, if you're looking at what is specifically being assessed.