>I personally don't care who marries what, but I don't see how the tax preferences and other benefits that go to married couples make sense any more, if they ever did.
>

I think it is just contract law and involves a partnership (limited to 2 partners) The state just removes a restriction that should not matter for the partnership as far as the state is concerned.

>>>voting rights act is nullified - especially in regard to racial preferences in admissions.
>There are two different issues.. voting rights and preferences in admissions. I believe that they whacked the voting rights but sustained the admission preferences.
>

Yeah I think they kept some of the using race as one factor but implied there would be increased scrutiny. Personally it seems that really sends the wrong message as any inequalit of oppopportunity can better be addressed another way.

The voting rights stuff treated some states differently from others and required federal oversight etc and I think the feeling there is just that history has moved on (and based on the makeup of state legislatures, city mayor postions etc that may very well be the case. At least the original problem - white political machines deliberately disenfranchising minorities - seems to be much less the issue and now we are back to the old story of wealth, class and general political chicanery.

>
>
>
>
>
>>>I haven't had a chance to read the opinions yet but from what I gather the Supremes ruled DOMA unconstitutional based upon violation of the equal protection clause, and decided that prop 8 is not in their juristiction and that the plantiff's did not have standing, thus leaving the 9th circuit's striking down of the law in place. There are a number of dissents, including a sharply worded on by Scalia.
>>>
>>>My initial take :
>>>
>>>1) I agree with the equal protection violation. This seemed the most straightforward to me.
>>>
>>>2) I'm not sure about the lack of juristiction and standing. It's an odd situation because California decided not to pursue the case which overturned an initiative passed by her citizens. The group of citizens who proposed the initiative pursued, yet they don't have standing? If I'm interpreting correctly, citizens are not allowed to pursue the legal case for initiatives they voted for if the attorney general decides not to? Seems like an awful weakening of the initiative process to me.
>>>
>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324520904578553500028771488.html?mod=WSJ_Home_largeHeadline
>>
>>Of course I'm glad they ruled as they did on DOMA since it would seem there is no state interest in putting this kind of restriction on free-association and contract.
>>
>>But I am also a little confused about the reasoning, both in favor and in dissent. I can't see where striking down DOMA could be considered "activism" in any way, as the the courts correct role is to rule on laws that violate constitutional principles, and I think DOMA clearly does. But it also seems that what the upshot is only that there is now no Federal impediment ( other states besides Calif prop 8 have DOMA at the state level - Ohio for one.) so this only means that states who have explicitly allowed full marriage equality have a right to do so. I just wonder what case-law will result under full-faith and credit now for MA marriages in Utah or Ohio. Undoubtedly this is only the beginning and now we'll see challenges to DOM laws. OH will be a good place to start as I think Kasich will come out well on this as he knows it would be good for the state.
>>
>>For the same reasons I won't feel bad if a lot of the voting rights act is nullified - especially in regard to racial preferences in admissions. I think the equality and diversity that is the stated goal is better achieved using economic, cultural and class factors instead and the outcome will be much easier to justify.