Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by mason240 » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #103

jmilloy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they summarise their arguments themselves. For example "Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture t…

Considering there are plenty of examples of "gay" marriage from thousands of years ago, calling strait marriage traditional seems factually incorrect. Edit: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1367/gay_marriagenot...

>Considering there are plenty of examples of "gay" marriage from thousands of years ago

That is not true. There are examples in Western Civilization of the acceptance of some homosexual behavior, but not of same sex marriage.

Not even Roman Emperor Hadrian was able to marry his lover.

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

#212

Post by hackuser » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #46

fweespeech wrote: post #12

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. > As late as October, the justices ducked the issue, refusing to hear appeals from rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states. That decision delivered a tacit victory for gay r…

> 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…

I generally agree, but ...

> At bottom, this isn't a right flowing from the dictates of the Constitution. Nobody in 1789 would have said that gay marriage is a fundamental right. We acknowledge the right today for the same reason we acknowledge many other rights we did not acknowledge then--society as a whole has agreed to recognize the right

Looking at just the legal aspects, in 1789 (and 1776) we did recognize that 'all men are created equal' and equal protection (and due process might apply too). From those rights flows the idea that a right conferred to some, such as marraige, should not be denied to others.

> It is important that the Court not act ahead of society.

I wonder how much of this is due to the Court being unable to act far ahead of society. The Court has no real power of enforcement; for example, when the Supreme Court ruled for Indians whose land was siezed in Georgia, President Andrew Jackson (now on your $20 bill) famously said "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

If they rule and are ignored, they lose credibility and influence and gain nothing. I wonder how often judges take than into consideration (especially judges in lower courts, such as municipal courts).

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

#213

Post by thisisdave » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #126

> Lawyers for the four states said their bans were justified by > tradition and the distinctive characteristics of opposite-sex > unions. Reads like they dusted off the old arguments in favour of slavery and/or segregation and remixed the recipe for marriage. Take a dollop of “tradition says it should be so,” and sprinkle on “distinctive characteristics” to taste.

"distinctive characteristics" reminds me of "The peculiar institution of the South---that, on the maintenance of which the very existence of the slaveholding States depends"

http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/340/calhoun2.html

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

#214

Post by lisper » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

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…

> Can anybody counter Scalia, and say why the issue of gay marriage couldn't wait to be resolved by the states?

For the same reason that slavery couldn't be resolved by the states. For the same reason that racism can't be resolved by the states. Because these things haven't gotten resolved by states. The United States of America, sadly, has a significant minority of people who Just Don't Get It, and there are enough of them that if (when) they congregate they can form majorities in a number of states. And so the federal government needs to step in and dope-slap these people from time to time.

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

#215

Post by npinguy » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:24 PM UTC

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…

The same reason that the Civil Rights act had to be passed in the courts and the first students in integrated schools in the south had to be marched in with armed guard.

"Democracy" is frequently used interchangeably with freedom, but never underestimate the power of a close-minded majority to rule with tyranny and impose their will and discrimination on a minority - racial, sexually-orientatated, or otherwise.

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

#216

Post by ionforce » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:24 PM UTC

hackuser wrote: post #191

ionforce wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think a large part about "tolerance" is actually knowing someone in [whatever minority group].

I've been thinking of having contrived mechanisms exist, basically "meet a gay person" info booths.

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

#217

Post by clavalle » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:24 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #202

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…

Luckily their participation is not necessary.

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

#218

Post by asanagi » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:24 PM UTC

edko wrote: post #168

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…

I would bet the biggest opposer to polygamy will be the INS ... imagine the Green Card businesses that would enable!

Seems like you don't have any idea how marriage-based immigration works. It's not as easy as "ok, you have a marriage license? Welp, you're in!"

There are multiple interviews where they pick through every piece of evidence of a bona-fide relationship to establish that you haven't married for convenience. This continues even after you get your green card. If at any time they decide you attempted to defraud an immigrations official for any reason, they can come by and party van you.

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

#219

Post by tych0 » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:25 PM UTC

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…

What happens when a member of a gay couple gets sick in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriages? What do gay couples do when they file their federal taxes?

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

#220

Post by ZanyProgrammer » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:25 PM UTC

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…

Saying it has deep roots in America is disingenuous, because Mormonism is the only religion, in a well defined geographical area to do so. There's a lot more to American religious (and demographic) history than Mormons. EDIT: And hasn't been a part of Ashkenazi Judaism for a millenium at least.