Ironic the SC took away voting rights from minorities and gave marriage rights to Gays

[kimbutgar]

It's bittersweet for me. I live in San Francisco I am happy for my LGBT friends but so sad over the lost of the VRA. Now it appears the republican have a lockdown on our country electorally. So sad and so happy at the same time sigh

[BP2]

1. And other states

[MineralMan]

13. That map is WAY out of date!

There are better maps. Maybe you can find one to replace this.

[Junkdrawer]

2. The two decisions have a high potential for dividing progressives....

I don't believe that is an accident.

LET'S NOT LET IT SUCCEED.

[ecstatic]

8. This. nt

[paparush]

3. I was just thinking the same thing.

What a day for SCOTUS.

[LonePirate]

4. They gave marriage rights to CA while 37 other states still do not have it

Yes, this is a good day for CA and the 12 other states with marriage equality. However, these decisions are of no practical significance to those in the 37 states without marriage equality where nothing changes.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. Without DOMA

Won't other states be UNABLE to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage?

[jberryhill]

9. This ruling was on Section 3 of DOMA

The provision on recognition of other states' laws is Section 2.

The headlines "Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA" are misleading.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. *Snap*

Thanks for the clarification. I thought that the entire law had been brought down.

So, the fight goes on to elect a Congress to repeal the law in its entirety.

[JW2020]

5. Just more bread & circuses for the masses

More distractions from the fact that they are having a public utilities garage sale and continue to loot the Treasury.

[jberryhill]

7. It all depends on framing

The court didn't "give marriage rights to gays". The DOMA ruling says that if a state considers people to be married, then the federal government cannot determine that some class of lawful state marriages do not count for federal purposes:

"The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.

...

By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others,the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages."

One could just as easily say, in relation to the two rulings, that the Court decided not to interfere in how a state conducts its elections or its marriages. From that perspective, the two decisions are consistent.

[Skidmore]

10. I was thinking that when I heard the decision on the way

home from town. This is why we need strong coalitions and to stop the infighting. We need to get busy on seating a Congress in 2014 and we need to finish the work on rights for the LGBT community and get voter rights codified again.

[LeftInTX]

12. I share your feelings

The VRA is a punch in the gut. It's very depressing. I'm in Texas and see no end to the republicans. However I'm very very happy for LGBTers. Today's decision was the right decision. It is not going to grant same sex marriage to places like Texas. However, Texas is a huge military state and same sex marriage will be legal on the bases. (Hee Hee)

I think there is going to be gradual erosion of LGBT resistance in the red states.