SCOTUS Good and bad

Hello Everyone:

Wow what a banner day in the United States of America.  The Supreme Court of The United States overturned the Defense of Marriage Act.  Hurray.  This means that all people will have their marriages recognized.  I'm so happy for my LGBT friends who have been denied for so long.  This sort of makes up for the incredibly stupid decision to essentially overturn the Voting Rights Act, which mean that certain states-i.e. Southern States- will no longer have to get federal approval before changing their election practices.  More on that in a moment.  Right now, I'd like to raise a glass of champagne to everyone of you out there in blogger land who now have the legal right to have your marriages recognized.  As I've said before, my definition of a marriage is two people consensually entering a monogamous relationship based on mutual affection, sanction by the state and religious authorities.  Unfortunately those who oppose same gender marriage for whatever reason don't see what those of us who do support it see.  Us supporters see two people who have chosen to live together in a state of matrimony.  Even though my religion regards homosexuality as an abomination, I don't look it that way.  The LGBT people that I've had the pleasure of making friends with are some of the most truly cool people on this planet.  Their sexual preference is not even an issue for me.  No government or religious institution has the right to decide what a person can/can't do with private life.

Now on to the bad decision by SCOTUS.  Overturning the federal approval provision in the Voter Act was a really bad decision.  This allows mostly Southern states to immediately implement changes to their election laws without federal approval.  This sets a very bad precedent because the Southern states are hard-core conservative Republicans.  This opens the door for potentially disenfranchising racial and ethnic minorities who more likely to vote Democrat through redistricting and voter-identification laws.  The attorneys arguing in favor of overturning the provision stated that it was federal government overreach and no longer necessary.  Yet, in the last two presidential election cycles, we've seen instances of attempts by local and state election officials to discount the votes in certain districts or challenge the eligibility of voters in certain districts based on absolute nonsense.  Personally speaking, I have no issue with presenting my identification when I go to vote.  As far as the necessity of pre-clearance in certain Southern states, I think the actions and words speak for themselves.