Live data from Hacker News

Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

nytimes.com

221–230 of 1001 posts

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

#221
post #31

Is there a general summary of the arguments made by the dissenting 4?

Don't get the tl;dr summary of Scalia's dissent; actually read it. Scalia is obnoxious and mean-spirited (and in fine form this time), but he's a really good writer, the fun- to- read kind. IIRC, he wrote a book on writing with Brian Garner, of usage dictionary fame.

Ironically, Scalia's language in Windsor and Lawrence before that were what opened the door to federal courts nationwide overturning gay marriage bans:

"The real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by ‘bare … desire to harm’ couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status" (Windsor, J. Scalia, dissenting).

“[W]hat justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution’? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.” (Lawrence, J. Scalia, dissenting).

Roberts also argued Scalia's own logic back at him in this week's decision upholding the ACA, noting that in 2012 in the decision upholding the requirement to buy health insurance Scalia had stated in his dissent that without the subsidies (for low income insurance buyers), "the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended" because health insurance would be too expensive for low-income taxpayers.

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

#222

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…

One problem I have with Polygamy is that I have never seen a 1-woman, multi-husband community. Sure, I've seen a few relationships in which this was the case, but when you look at the historic aspects in the US, it seems a very rare thing. That makes me wonder if there is a severe power imbalance in the relationships and what is truly occurring. It's well known that in some modern US polygamy situations, there is a g…

That same concern already equally applies to traditional marriage, in which some % are abusive. If you have a problem with polygamy on that basis, then you've got a drastically larger problem with the already existing system of marriage, in which millions of instances of abuse occur annually.

The best solution is to bring polygamy out into the open, legalize it fully nationally.

The government has no business dictating who can get married, or what the structure of marriage looks like, so long as the people in question are of sound mind and adults.

If I want to form a ten person marriage, with five men and five women, whose business is it to control us and stop us? There are only bigoted 'answers' as to why that shouldn't be allowed.

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

#223
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not to mention how hard it is for gays to land a job in early years education. So backwards! The worst are these mothers. Once they see a male working in a Child Care Center there is going to be lawsuit, that's for sure. Gay male employee at Child Care Center? I hope there will be some progress too!

OK downvoters [EDIT: previously parent post had been grayed-out, now it appears this one is?], do you really not know that this is a thing? Lots of mommies and daddies don't want little Jenny and Billy looked after by a dude. I don't know what being gay has to do with it, except perhaps 'taki1 is telling us that gay dudes are more likely to want to work in child care than straight dudes are. Maybe that's true?

Because they have been predisposed by postmodern feminism to believe that all men are latent rapists and child molesters? They can go fuck themselves.

"Equal" means equal opportunity.

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

#224

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…

Polygamy is a Christian institution. It was pointedly prescribed in the old testament. Modern anti-polygamists will argue that the old testament prescription was a matter of necessity, and that new testament language (particularly Paul's) prescribes monogamy, but to my eyes the new testament's position is pretty casual, while the old testament's is quite strong.

> Polygamy is a Christian institution. It was pointedly prescribed in the old testament.

Correction: "Christian" refers to Jesus Christ, which does not appear in the old testament. Catholics, Ortodoxes and many protestant churches are against polygamy.

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

#225
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 le…

> The real issue here is about the rights and responsibilities that are associated with marriage.

Indeed, that's my point. Those rights and responsibilities should not be legally associated with marriage. I would prefer that one be able to live with whomever one pleases, arrange for hospital visitation and medical decision making with whomever one pleases, share bank accounts with whomever one pleases, et cetera.

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

#226
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…

I don't recall any bakers being punished for refusing to perform a gay marriage. When did that happen?

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

#227
I'm glad we'll have full gay marriage now.

But the idea that "the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage" is pretty laughable.

Does anyone really believe this right was in the Constitution for 250 years, only to be discovered recently? In reality public opinion and culture changed, and 5 justices decided to change the law.

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

#228
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.

> I'm glad you are finally catching up to the rest of the developed world.

Call us when one of you elects a black head of state.

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

#229
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't recall any bakers being punished for refusing to perform a gay marriage. When did that happen?

Bakers specializing in facilitating weddings have been punished for refusing to provide wedding cakes to events which they consider not weddings.

ETA: clergy have [citation needed] been prosecuted for refusing to perform weddings based on race.

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

#230
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 rest of the developed world. Some countries where gay marriage is illegal: Germany, Italy, Australia, Japan, Austria, Switzerland, Greece.

> gay marriage is illegal

Hah, this seems like a strange way to put it -- "get a gay marriage, go to jail". Maybe the word is used in that way, but I'd tend to say something more like "doesn't exist" or "isn't recognised".

Post reply on HN