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No they didn't, they ruled that the formula used to apply Section 5 was out of date.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

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No they didn't, they ruled that the formula used to apply Section 5 was out of date.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.

Of course, you would jump on a typo. 4 not 5* They did say it was unconstitutional, read the decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...12-96_6k47.pdf

[Bubblehead1980]

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the states, decision is correct in it takes feds out of marriage but the sweeping activist language is troubling.Court did not define homosexuals as a suspect class either.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the states, decision is correct in it takes feds out of marriage but the sweeping activist language is troubling.Court did not define homosexuals as a suspect class either.

Marriage is not a privilege granted by the states. They may withhold their official recognition of a marriage but they cannot stop someone from marrying.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the states.

Gotta disagree with you. Marriage is a civil contract between consenting parties. As such, it should not be the realm of the state to decide who can or cannot consent to enter into a contractual understanding with another (or other) consenting person.

The idea that it is a "right" or a "privilege" are both part of what has caused the issue to even exist. The issue is not about what people do in their bedrooms - if it were you would have the "bible thumpers" demanding that sodomy laws be enforced. The issue is an attempt to redefine a traditional word that has its earliest significant references found in religious texts. For example, both Christianity and Islam claim Adam and Eve as the "origins" of humanity. While neither text states clearly that they were married, they both show a picture of a married couple. Their son, Cain is the first specific mention of marriage in religious texts. There are no known non-religious texts or records that would predate the religious claims.

There are truly 2 different issues here - one is an intentional attack on a religious commitment in an attempt to redefine in and thus modify the religious acceptance of homosexuality. That is simply a wrong action attempted by proponents of "gay marriage". The second is the reality that a civil union between two (or more) consenting adults is not the business of anyone else - be it the church, the state, or the neighbors down the street. As such, society (including churches and states) should back the heck out of what people do in their own bedrooms provided it is between consenting adults.