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

251–260 of 1001 posts

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

#251

Post by madmax96 »

lisper wrote: post #214
quizotic wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think that gay marriage should be legal, but I disagree with this. Beware of the fallacy of analogy! There is no economic incentive for a state not to allow gay marriage, there was an economic incentive for states to keep slaves. Also, it wasn't the supreme court that ended up freeing the slaves...

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

#252

Post by smackfu »

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…

Nothing happens to them. Even today, Catholic clergy won't perform many opposite-sex marriages unless certain conditions are met, like having it in a Catholic church and requiring pre-marriage counseling.

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

#253

Post by lisper »

ctdonath wrote: post #229
lisper wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that is not the same thing at all. People can (and will) get married with or without cakes. A baker refusing to serve a gay couple is no different from refusing to serve a black couple or a handicapped couple or a fat couple. That's not religion, that's commerce. Religious beliefs do not entitle you to discriminate in matters of commerce.

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

#254

Post by smackfu »

repsilat wrote: post #230
smackfu wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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".

I guess I was going more for "not legalized."

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

#255

Post by rayiner »

hackuser wrote: post #212
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…

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…

> 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.

That language is in the declaration of independence, which has no legal effect. The Constitution explicitly creates a system where all men are not created equal.

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

#256

Post by sigzero »

shepardrtc wrote: post #237
quizotic wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Marriage is a legally-binding contract. Since it is in the domain of public law, allowing religious beliefs to support or interfere with it would, in essence, allow the religion to be intertwined with the state itself. So, in my humble opinion, separation of church and state alone would require it to be legal for all people. In addition, just as states can't pass a law to allow for racial segregation of contracts, th…

I totally agree with this. Once the Government became the granter of marriage it moved the whole argument over to the SECULAR realm.

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

#257

Post by hackuser »

quizotic wrote: post #240
gibsonje wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but why this minority? Why not allow 12 year olds to marry as a consititutional right? Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry? I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument. I'm really asking. States license things all the time, and the conditions of their licenses block certain people from doing certain things. Why are the courts blocking the right of states to license this activity (marriage) in this p…

12 year olds, and brothers and sisters, are not oppressed minorities facing a long history of brutal discrimination.

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

#258

Post by jrs235 »

npinguy wrote: post #215
quizotic wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"the Civil Rights act had to be passed in the courts"

What?

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

#259

Post by BocceBaal »

BurningFrog wrote: post #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.

The dissenting opinions make that point. While I support gay marriage, the Supreme Court overstepped their authority in this case. The Legislative branch writes laws, not the Judicial. Public opinion on the definition of marriage should change future laws, not past laws.

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

#260

Post by humanrebar »

nate_meurer wrote: post #151
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…

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.

> It was pointedly prescribed in the old testament.

That's a common misconception. It was described, but not prescribed. The polygamy in the Old Testament is universally portrayed as dysfunctional.

Post reply on HN