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

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

#241

Post by masklinn » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:32 PM UTC

krig wrote: post #203

masklinn wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was equivalent to marriage in Sweden which is an important difference, civil partnerships are inconsistent[0] and not necessarily transferrable across borders.

You're right that just listing the dates for same-sex marriage doesn't tell the whole picture, but adding civil partnerships and their details would necessarily expand the comment to something closer to a book.

[0] for instance in France civil unions are quite literally a marriage lite, open to all and very commonly used as a legally recognised engagement by heterosexual couples (>90% of civil unions are heterosexual)

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

#242

Post by notNow » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:32 PM UTC

baakss wrote: post #30

In my lifetime, I think this is the social issue that has seen the most positive change. As a kid, gay people were practically lepers. Eleven Years ago, Dave Chappelle just outright said "gay sex is just gross, sorry it just is", and it was considered funny and acceptable. (Not harping on him specifically, just pointing out what it was like in 2004) Seven years ago prop 8 passed, if barely with some caveats about lac…

"gay sex is just gross, sorry it just is"

It still is but whatever floats your boat buddy.

Some people are into dog and cat meat and they find it tasty, good for them.

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

#243

Post by discardorama » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:33 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…

> In brief, their view was that resolving this issue in the courts erodes the democratic process.

Basic human rights should not be subject to the "democratic process".

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

#244

Post by mchaver » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:33 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…

Legalized polygamy could create a lot interesting legal issues, particularly marriages of convenience. It would challenge a lot of traditional legal structures that assume a union between two people. If there is no restriction on how many people you can marry at once then you can start giving out residence rights via marriage or multiple wealthy individuals can amass large estates via marriage. I am sure there is a lot more.

This is not meant as an argument against legalized polygamy, rather to point out some of the obstacles it faces.

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

#245

Post by mhurron » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:33 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?

Why should the States have the rights to prevent the exercise of a citizens civil rights granted by the US Constitution?

The Constitiution, and the Bill of Rights explicitly, exists because there are things that are just not left up to 'the majority' to come to a democratic decision over. They are rights that were recognized to be inalienable rights. Time and again, courts have had to step in to once again assert that these rights already belong to all citizens because the States have used the democratic process to trample and curtail them even though the highest law of the land already should have put such questions to rest.

The Courts ruling says this. "the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry." Their dicision is not based on new law, it is simply stating that the US Constitution already recognized these rights.

Letting the States decide is letting the States pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they feel like following.

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

#246

Post by hackuser » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:33 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? Why is this class of license inequity different than other classes, where the states' right to license something is not resolved by SCOTUS?

Certainly with all the imagined legal expertise on HN, someone will answer. I have no expertise, but here's a shot at least from a moral point of view and based on some limited legal and political principles:

1) It can't wait because people are suffering now, today. Read Martin Luther King's 'Letter from a Birmingham Jail', where he points out that people who are not suffering always helpfully advise the oppressed to wait until later, 'until a more convenient time'. After I read that, I began to notice that pattern often.

2) We're not a democracy; we are, and this is essential, a constitutional democracy. Democracy is mob rule, or as someone said (Isaac Asimov?), 'democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner'. The Contitution, the Bill of Rights in particular, protects minority rights. It's not up to legislatures or the majority to grant or take away those rights. Civil rights are purposely excluded from the democratic process.

3) It's disingenuous to describe an issue of civil rights and the long-time oppression of millions as a dispute over licensing. Was segregation about hotel accommodations? Slavery and women's rights about employment disputes?

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

#247

Post by monocasa » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:33 PM UTC

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #195

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.

Basically. That's how most constitutional arguments work.

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

#248

Post by gaymarriage » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:33 PM UTC

sgnelson wrote: post #188

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…

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…

what a bogus argument. You're saying because 'some modern polygamy situations' are unhealthy, we should hope to keep it illegal?

You're going to freak out when you learn about the divorce rate.

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

#249

Post by ufmace » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:33 PM UTC

IanDrake wrote: post #180

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 have no problem with polygamy, as long as it is a consensual relationship between all adults involved. The real problem is that government has gotten into the marriage business and it doesn't belong there. The issues you mentioned (child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance rights) really have nothing to do with marriage and should all be assignable without a government endorsed marital contract.

That's much more along the lines of what I think. It's kind of the libertarian dilemma - with Gay Marriage, there's one huge, loud camp of religious homophobic bigots demanding that big daddy Government say that Gay Marriage is an illegal abomination, and another huge, loud group of homosexual-rights activists demanding that big daddy Government say that Gay Marriage is a-ok and governments everywhere are required to perform it. It was never really about marriage or anything - it's about getting the Government to bless your side of the argument with a magical scepter of rightness.

Meanwhile, my/our camp of libertarians saying hey, the Government really shouldn't be in the business of deciding who can be in what sort of relationship with who else or blessing either side of a controversial argument is disappointingly small and quiet and usually ignored.

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

#250

Post by throwaway342526 » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:33 PM UTC

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…

So being in the first 10% of countries to legalize is "Catching up?" We're number 20 out of 195.