Thank you Supreme Court...

[Bubblehead1980]

The US Supreme Court ruled Section 5 of the so called "Voting Rights Act" unconstitutional as it violated state's rights requiring Federal approval for their election plans etc, but not all states, just a few cherry picked by Congress 48 years ago. This section was misused(especially under Obama/Holder) by the feds to block combating voter fraud by the states, now they can no longer legally do this.Faith in the court has been shaken recently with obamacare ruling etc but they got this one correct, even if by one vote, bravo.

[CaptainHaplo]

It is an interesting ruling, but its impact will be minimal given that the Court recently ruled that states cannot require ID over and above that required by federal law.

They didn't overturn the provision, they overturned its CURRENT implementation - meaning that it can be reinstated should Congress update the formulas.

The funniest thing is, here Democrats have kept "at large" elections rather than district elections since they would not win as many seats that way. Wonder how the local boys are gonna deal with Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent.....

The US Supreme Court ruled Section 5 of the so called "Voting Rights Act" unconstitutional

No they didn't, they ruled that the formula used to apply Section 5 was out of date.
So they issue no ruling on section 5 but ruled that section 4(b) was unconstitutional unless it is updated.

[Tchocky]

Here come the Prop 8 and DOMA decisions

[Tchocky]

DOMA unconstitutional under equal protection
Opinion here http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-307_g2bh.pdf

Well that's good news

[Tchocky]

Prop 8 case dismissed on standing

[CaptainHaplo]

These two rulings are quite interesting. Prop 8 was dismissed on a standing issue because it was a state matter - not a federal one. DOMA as written was unconstitutional - regardless of your views on gay marriage.

The SC simply punted. I find that funny.

[AVGWarhawk]

Skirting the issue. The federal way!

[CaptainHaplo]

What will happen now is some states will allow gay marriage, others wont.

The States have been determined to be able to decide - at this point - the issue on their own - but only if upheld by state judicial proceedings.

So basically no "state" decision - once ruled on by the State Supreme Court - can be challenged at the federal level.

However - what WILL be the next step for the pro-gay side will be to sue (through a couple that was married in a state recognizing such unions) a state that does not allow recognition of same sex marriage - using the full faith and credit Federal law.

That the SC's will have a hard time punting on.

[soopaman2]

States rights...

I know we had a past beef with negro slavery and states rights, but this is almost the same.

Maybe we are due for another war with the the Christian Sharia states, who for some reason wish to intrude in people lives, and legislate what they do with their private parts.

Thou shalt only stick thy penis into government approved holes.

Anti gays are silly, and have no argument outside of Bible quotes

[soopaman2]

For real, wtf is happening to our freedoms, when who someone loves is legislated?

Freaking nothing better to do, no other important domestic issues, what about the FED, or unfair trade gaps between China and America?

We gotta worry about gay marriage?

Really?

Glass Steagall act was repealed, yet you all care about who sticks what into who...

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

We gotta worry about gay marriage?

No, the current administration does. Promises made and upcoming election that will feature Hillary Clinton as the next runner.

[CaptainHaplo]

I don't know of any legislation that says you can only love certain people. If there is any, show it to me.

It isn't about love - its about an intentional decision by a small minority to redefine a subject (and word) using the power of government to make the rest of society accept their view - when in reality it shouldn't be a governmental issue to start with.

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I don't know of any legislation that says you can only love certain people. If there is any, show it to me.

It isn't about love - its about an intentional decision by a small minority to redefine a subject (and word) using the power of government to make the rest of society accept their view - when in reality it shouldn't be a governmental issue to start with.

This ^

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

when in reality it shouldn't be a governmental issue to start with.

No it shouldn't, but you have to get permission from the governent to marry, which makes it a governmental issue. Therefore, who the licenses are issued to is a matter for the government, at least under current law, so the definitions are made by the government. Therefore the government is indeed discriminating against certain people as long as gays aren't allowed to marry.

Remove the government from the marriage business and gays will marry anyway. I don't see what the problem is.