SCOTUS

Ok, since it seems like I'm all about being controversial these days...

In case you've been living under a rock, there were 2 important decisions from the Supreme Court this past week.  One was actually their refusal to hear a case: they upheld a lower courts ruling that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.  They also ruled that DOMA (the defense of marriage act) was unconstitutional, and that same sex couples should be granted the same federal benefits that heterosexual couples get.

I think everyone knows what the LDS church's stance on this is. (If not you can read their response at mormon.org or lds.org.)  I am not going to tell you what I think, because that's not the point I want to make and I don't want people to be distracted by whether they agree or disagree with me...though if you look at my Facebook activity, and can put two and two together, you might be able to figure it out.

Speaking of Facebook, I've been really disappointed with people on Facebook**.  Some of the responses have been closed minded and, well, mean.  I understand this is an emotionally charged topic, and I understand why.  That is all the more reason that we be careful in how we conduct our discussions.  First of all, have your opinion.  If it's different than mine, fine.  But make sure you know why.  Don't decide before you carefully consider all the possibilities, and their implications for everyone.  Also, rather than straw man arguments and personal attacks, we should be approaching each other from a place of compassion, and genuinely try to put ourselves in "the other's" shoes.  In the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I got to say about that.
**If you are one of the people who still actually reads my blog, this probably doesn't apply to you; I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I needed to get this off my chest.

While we're talking about the Supreme Court.  Did you know that last week, SCOTUS also shot down part of the Voter Rights Act?

Basically one section of the VRA mandated that certain states (mostly south of the Mason-Dixon line) have to have federal approval before they can change their voting laws, including qualifications for voting, lines for voting districts, and ID requirements.  It was this provision that killed Jim Crow laws that discriminated against Black voters.  The argument is that this kind of racism doesn't exist any more.  The supreme court says that the law is antiquated and that the metrics used to measure racism need to be updated.  BUT.  It is up to a deeply contentions congress to decide what the new metrics will be.  In the mean time, states can do whatever they want.

Some people might agree with the Court, that systemic racism isn't a problem like it was 50 years ago.  However, the reason this case was brought to the Supreme Court at all is because the Texas state legislature tried to shamelessly gerrymander certain key districts in such a way that  a) Mexican-Americans would have a hard time even getting to their polling places and b) minorities would never be elected to public office.  Other states have tried to pass requirements that would disenfranchise minorities, inner-city dwellers, those from low SES, and elderly people.  The reason systemic racism isn't a problem is because it has been fixed by this provision of the VRA!  The Court has been able to keep states in line.  Don't get me wrong; I am all for states' rights.  But when those states threaten Constitutionally guaranteed rights, someone has to step in.  The right to vote is the foundation of our system.  We should be making it easier for people to participate in the political process, not harder.

Anyway, it just felt like time to stir the pot, and I'm behind on my quota :)