Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#191

Post by hackuser »

ionforce wrote: post #144
hackuser wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it definitely helps to have gay culture and gay icons just out there in the world, melded seamlessly with the rest of society. On one hand I agree, but it's never been sufficient. There have been gay icons for a long time (probably forever); Oscar Wilde springs to mind, and Alan Turing (though I don't know if he was well-known to the public). And even with their status, they were still persecuted and ruined.

But it's another thing to be on Fox (the television channel) and on top of mind for young people. Gay is just an adjective to them, not this twisted idea with hateful baggage. Oh, she has red hair and he's gay. Moving on. It's not really the gay icons as much as it is the gay banality. Having gay just exist in plain sight.

I'm not sure what to think. Oscar Wilde was, as I understand it, exceptionally well known, the superstar of his day. He might not have had TV to broadcast him, but celebrity existed before TV. Also, there long were celebrities who were black, especially in music and sports (e.g., back in the 1930s, Louis Amrstrong, Duke Ellington, and Joe Louis), and yet racism persisted. Also, everyone knows gay people.

On the other hand, I recently saw a survey of Americans that tried to determine how their personal relationships with gay people affected their views of gay marriage. IIRC, around 30% responded they didn't know anyone who is gay. That said it all! (EDIT: I should be clear: My point is that there is no way 30% don't know a gay person; I doubt that's true of 1%. They are just in denial.)

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#193

Post by Tagbert »

anti-shill wrote: post #35

good...now maybe the so-called "leftists" can put this issue aside and concentrate on issues that matter to more than about 1% of the population...I refer to these really "silly" issues like wages, single-payer healthcare (obamacare is a mess), trade, flooding of the labor supply, the drug war, worker rights and benefits, more time off and vacation, monopolies, regulatory capture, NIMBYized zoning/regs (aka affordabl…

What makes you think that people have not been and do not continue to fight for those issues at the same time as they have been fighting for this issue? There is not one "leftist" who can only address one issue at a time and there are lots of other people besides that "leftist" who are pushing for progressive change.

I wonder why this bothers you so much and why you seem so dismissive of the issue.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#194

Post by gherkin0 »

pstuart wrote: post #94
birdman3131 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I read it is not a states right argument but an argument that the supreme court is supposed to interpert the laws not make them. Some quotes: "Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary stepof ordering every State to license and recognize same-sexmarriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, t…

The SCOTUS didn't make any law here, they simply said the laws being passed were unconstitutional. Isn't that what they're supposed to do?

I think the "making law" thing is reference to creating novel kinds of unconstitutionality that often contradict older notions.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#195

Post by Al-Khwarizmi »

malkia wrote: post #112

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their…

Does this formally mean that gay marriage has been legal in the US since the 18th century, but no one noticed until recently? (half-serious question)

Congratulations to Americans and to gays worldwide for this great step forward.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#196

Post by [deleted] »

ceejayoz wrote: post #80
taytus wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dave Chappelle is a comedian, they say stuff like that all the time, it's part of their job. If you are going to quote somebody (specially on these issues), I'd recommend not to quote a comedian.

And, in fairness, sex - gay or straight - is fundamentally pretty gross. Fun, but gross.

[deleted]

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#197

Post by samch »

enlightenedfool wrote: post #79
plg wrote: post #45

Can we finally stop calling it "gay marriage" and "traditional marriage" and just call it "marriage" now? good job USA I'm glad you are finally catching up to the rest of the developed world.

Yeah, you should start leading again by cross-species marriage too. It may sound bizarre now but that's how same sex marriage was a 100 years back. Marrying your pets should be legal too.

One of these days, I'll earn the right to downvote a hateful comment. Seriously, any analogy of gay marriage and marrying animals is outright hateful.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#198

Post by caseysoftware »

balls187 wrote: post #128
aedocw wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoting a comedian as a means of reflecting what's popular or at least socially acceptable is an appropriate and accurate way to say "at one point in recent history, it was socially acceptable to say demeaning things about gay people." Michael Richards is a comedian, and made anti-Semitic remarks that resulted in a significant backlash. Again, looking back this is a good indication of someone saying something that wa…

OT: It wasn't anti Semitic remarks that got Michael Richards in trouble. Michael Richards went on a massive tirade saying the N-word repeatedly after he felt that a black patron was being disrespectful.

I think the difference is that many people laughed with and applauded Dave Chappelle at the time while few (if anyone?) applauded Michael Richards.

Chappelle was commenting on a widely held belief. Richards, not so much.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#199

Post by mason240 »

plg wrote: post #45

Can we finally stop calling it "gay marriage" and "traditional marriage" and just call it "marriage" now? good job USA I'm glad you are finally catching up to the rest of the developed world.

The US has been (literally) years ahead of the EU in legalizing same sex marriage.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#200

Post by quizotic »

mkr-hn wrote: post #17

For me and a lot of friends and family, marriage equality. Yay. "It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality . . . Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this…

I'm glad that my LBG friends can now marry anywhere. But damn, Scalia's counter opinion (and Roberts' opinion) strike me as well-considered and well-argued in the 2nd half of http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf . In brief, their view was that resolving this issue in the courts erodes the democratic process.

Can anybody counter Scalia, and say why the issue of gay marriage couldn't wait to be resolved by the states? Why is this class of license inequity different than other classes, where the states' right to license something is not resolved by SCOTUS?

Post reply on HN