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

201–210 of 1001 posts

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

#201

Post by mason240 »

masklinn wrote: post #113
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm glad you are finally catching up to the rest of the developed world. What fraction of the developed world had gay marriage, at what time, such that this statement makes sense? I mean, Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in, what, 2003?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Timeline 2001 — Netherlands 2001 — Belgium 2005 — Spain, Canada 2006 — South Africa 2009 — Norway, Sweden 2010 — Portugal, Iceland, Argentina 2012 — Denmark 2013 — France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand 2014 — England and Wales 2015 — Luxembourg, Ireland, United States of America 2017 — Finland (the law is voted and signed but not yet in effect) > I mean, Massachusetts le…

And a proportion of population, same sex marriage has been available to more people in the US than in the EU.

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

#202

Post by ctdonath »

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…

So what happens to clergy who refuse to perform such "weddings" on religious grounds? All major religions have at least a majority, if not uniform, disapproval of "marrying" any other than man & woman. We already have cases of punishing & re-educating bakers for adhering to their religious views on the subject, how much more so those who may face compulsion to perform a union they cannot religiously condone?

ETA: to wit, how to reconcile the court's ruling with the court's claim none will be compelled to facilitate such unions against their faith?

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

#203

Post by krig »

masklinn wrote: post #113
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm glad you are finally catching up to the rest of the developed world. What fraction of the developed world had gay marriage, at what time, such that this statement makes sense? I mean, Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in, what, 2003?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Timeline 2001 — Netherlands 2001 — Belgium 2005 — Spain, Canada 2006 — South Africa 2009 — Norway, Sweden 2010 — Portugal, Iceland, Argentina 2012 — Denmark 2013 — France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand 2014 — England and Wales 2015 — Luxembourg, Ireland, United States of America 2017 — Finland (the law is voted and signed but not yet in effect) > I mean, Massachusetts le…

Note that those dates are somewhat oversimplifying things. For example, in Sweden there was something called "same-sex partnerships" from 1995 which legally was equivalent to marriage.

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

#204

Post by baddox »

dennisbest wrote: post #187
hackuser wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> opinion also reasserted that people who are really mad about this can continue to be mad and vocal about it, as guaranteed by the First Amendment Was this a question? I don't think I've heard anyone ever say otherwise. I'll add though, that people long have cloaked oppression in religion. People justified (and still justify) slavery, segregation, and oppression of women under the guise of religion, for example. Som…

Kennedy is addressing the idea (myth) that churches would be compelled to perform same-sex marriages or somehow face legal consequences for speaking on the issue.

The closest thing I have seen is that Denmark apparently forces all church buildings to be available for gay weddings. No priest is forced to officiate, but the local bishop must arrange a willing replacement if necessary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/931...

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

#205

Post by mason240 »

slayed0 wrote: post #16

Great news. Glad this won't be an issue going into the next presidential election. There's been so much time wasted on this issue when, at the end of the day, any 2 consenting adults should have all of the same rights as any other 2 consenting adults (barring felony conviction, poor mental health eval, etc).

>Glad this won't be an issue going into the next presidential election.

Has this been an issue presidential elections? I don't remember it being discussed at all.

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

#206

Post by gibsonje »

quizotic wrote: post #200
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 re…

This is a case of states violating the constitution of the united states. It's a pretty clear violation of equal protection. It's not up to the states to decide this.

Rights of a minority should not be left to the democratic process.

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

#207

Post by Lawtonfogle »

venomsnake wrote: post #159
samatman wrote: post #121

While this is excellent news for my gay and lesbian friends, I see no progress on polygamy. Which, unlike same-sex marriage, is an institution with deep roots both in America (the Mormons were forced to give up this sacrament as a condition of statehood) and in the majority of world cultures, where it ranges from condoned to celebrated. Without getting unduly personal, let's say that I have a stake in that question b…

>Without getting unduly personal, let's say that I have a stake in that question being resolved. I know several triples living quietly among us; they face the same kind of problems (child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance rights) as same-sex couples faced prior to this decision. I made that argument to a couple of friends - that they were not fighting for equality (which will be fairly easy to set up) but for…

>One of the problems with polygamy/andry is that we could hollow out the lower social classes of mating opportunities

And this doesn't already happen? M/Dating does not require marriage.

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

#208

Post by crough »

mc32 wrote: post #183
sarciszewski wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that just presumptuous? "All black people trace their immediate ancestry (past 400 or so years) from Africa." Nevermind that black people also come from: Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Thailand, etc.

But when say the victims of a violent crime are all white, the news don't typically say things like 'all five white victims were....' They just say all five victims were...' and whatever dependent clause.

I mean, Charleston was about race though. He was targeting black people. I don't think it applies, there.

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

#209

Post by repsilat »

baddox wrote: post #157
jscheel wrote: post #142

I've never really given credence to the people that suggested a ruling would be a slippery slope. However, after reading the opinion for myself, I can see how the court's stance on marriage (opposite-sex and same-sex) can now be extended to polygamy and incest. I understand the need to define it as a fundamental right within the context of this ruling, but it seems that some of the wording opens the way for other mar…

> However, after reading the opinion for myself, I can see how the court's stance on marriage (opposite-sex and same-sex) can now be extended to polygamy and incest. Good. If only they (or society) would decide that no consenting people need permission from anyone else to call themselves "married."

> no consenting people need permission from anyone else to call themselves "married."

I agree, but nobody did needed permission to call themselves married before today. If we haven't been referring to gay couples as "married" before today, it has been for political reasons, not legal reasons. To wit,

- Gay couples refused to call themselves "married" because doing so would have detracted from impetus to change the legal situation (which actually does change their real rights), and

- People opposed to gay marriage refused to call gay couples "married" because doing so would confer legitimacy on gay relationships.

The real issue here is about the rights and responsibilities that are associated with marriage, and while I'd like people's legal ability to voluntarily enter into those arrangements expanded, I'm not sure they should be expanded without bound.

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

#210

Post by gherkin0 »

sigzero wrote: post #86
rayiner wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, I'm still slightly pissed they basically waited until the majority was clear before they'd rule on the matter. Its another clear sign our Judiciary is really just as political as the politicians are, even if no one says so openly. I'm a strong supporter of gay marriage, but I'm glad the Court waited until the consensus was clear. At bottom, this isn't a right flowing from the dictates of the Constitution. Nob…

The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to decide if it is legal or not. If it is not, send it back to Congress to fix. While I agree with the ruling, this court has been doing things clearly outside its purview.

> The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to decide if it is legal or not.

This is a really bad idea, you're basically describing an oligarchy. The Supreme Court is really a consensus-enforcing machine, for the most part.

Post reply on HN