DOMA
The Supreme Court's ruling on DOMA was on typical partisan lines, with the four liberal justices- Sotomayer, Hagan, Ginsburg and Breyer- ruling with the majority to strike down DOMA, the four conservative justices- Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito- voting to uphold DOMA, and the usual deciding vote, libertarian leaning Anthony Kennedy, siding with the majority to strike down DOMA. This ruling was predictable, given the partisan divide of the Supreme Court and Justice Kennedy's past of supporting gay rights. The ruling effectively requires the Federal Government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the United States as well as abroad. The ruling, however, does not legalize same-sex marriages across the entire country, nor does it require states which have no legal recognition of same-sex marriage to do so. I personally am not that upset over that portion of the ruling. It allows the democratic process to work its will and I believe with younger voters consistently replacing older voters, same-sex marriage will eventually succeed in this process.
Proposition 8
The Supreme Court effectively punted on Proposition 8, ruling that the defendants of the law had no legal standing to do so because California Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to do so, and ordinary citizens did not have such legal standing under the California Constitution. It also stated the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the case was also invalid, which effectively left the previous Federal Court's ruling to overturn Proposition 8 in tact. The ruling allowed for same-sex marriages to resume in California after Proposition 8 had banned it five years ago in the 2008 General Election. This ruling only allowed for legal same-sex marriage to resume in California, and like the DOMA ruling, did nothing to affect the marriage laws of other states. For me, this ruling was bittersweet. While I support marriage equality for gay and straight people alike, I'm also a believer in the democratic process in which Proposition 8 was passed by a narrow margin of voters (52%-48%). At the time, Proposition 8 was the closest a same-sex marriage ballot initiative had come to being defeated (Arizona in 2006 narrowly defeated a ballot initiative that would have banned both marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples 52%-48%, but in 2008 voted comfortably for a ballot initiative to ban only same-sex marriage by a fairly wide margin, 56%-44%). At the time, I voted against Proposition 8 and while I expected a close result in the ballot box, I expected it to fail and for marriage equality to remain legal. Don't get me wrong I think the Supreme Court's decision on Proposition 8 was the right thing to do, but given how American attitudes on same-sex marriage are progressing towards more favorable attitudes and the fact that younger voters like myself who overwhelmingly favor it are replacing older voters opposed to it keep dying off, I fully believe that such a proposition would have been defeated in California today or been overturned if it was given the chance. I'm not sure what same-sex marriage opponents in California can do, rather they can put another proposition on the ballot to try to reinstate Proposition 8, or pass an amendment to give citizens legal standing to challenge the case in the Supreme Court, but if they can I'll gladly welcome it. The reason is that I'm confident now that California voters would easily defeat it.
Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court's ruling on the Voting Rights Act was a huge disappointment. The court ruled Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act- which determined which states with a history of racism to pass preclearance in Section 5- was unconstitutional and was "based on a 40 year old formula which has no relevance today." The ruling again fell along predictable partisan lines, with the libertarian leaning Justice Kennedy joining the four conservative justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia in overturning the Voting Rights Act while the four liberal justices, Sotomayer, Hagan, Ginsburg and Breyer dissenting on the ruling. The Supreme Court's flimsy argument that it holds no validity in today's setting is ridiculous considering many Republican leaning states (including the new swing state Virginia) are trying to pass Voter ID laws which overwhelmingly hurt ethnic minorities and younger people. Not surprisingly, many of these states which were required to pass preclearance, such as Texas, immediately resumed their Voter ID laws. Conservatives always complain about "judicial activism" but ignore judicial activism such as this case when it benefits them. It is really unprecedented to see the Supreme Court overturn a law that was voted unanimously in the Senate (98-0) and by an overwhelming margin in the House (390-33) as recently as 2006. Those are veto proof margins. Such a ruling was disgraceful.
