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

261–270 of 1001 posts

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

#261

Post by macspoofing »

ManFromUranus wrote: post #133
macspoofing wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yeah, you should start leading again by cross-species marriage too. They keyword is consent. Animals can't consent. Children can't consent. Having said that, in a few years (decades?), I could see poly-marriages also getting equal standing under the law.

There is no question that this is the case. This video a guy articulates this, be warned I suspect that his conservative opinions and religiousness may rub some HN users the wrong way. However I think his point is persuasive and well made nevertheless. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcs1K7Gi9Pg

The question is, is that so bad?

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

#262

Post by jodah »

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.

Sounds like an argument against their existence. They didn't have to take up the case...

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

#263

Post by foolinaround »

coldpie wrote: post #132
talmand wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the downvotes? Is that not a valid point? Or is it bad because it's a point used by the opposing side? Or is the problem the way it was stated?

SSM and polygamy are not really related issues. You run into very complicated issues when you consider how children and property ownership would work in a many-person relationship. Marriage specifies shortcuts for these kinds of things, but they only work for two-person relationships. Polygamous relationships would basically require unique contracts given all circumstances, which is a pretty high burden. It's also no…

I am arguing that they are related.

re: children; in a gay marriage, at best the child belongs to one of the parents, at worst: it is adopted.

How is it different from polygamy.

Regarding property ownership: polygamy has been historically done is so many cultures that there is prior art & legal framework.

polygamy's legitimacy was taken away, unlike gay marriage, where it was never legitimate.

Both were illegitimate because of moral reasons. And now, that is being whittled away....

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

#264

Post by masklinn »

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…

> So what happens to clergy who refuse to perform such "weddings" on religious grounds?

Nothing.

> 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?

Clergy are not public accommodations and are not subject to non-discrimination law. Clergy in the US can still refuse to officiate interracial marriage for instance.

The bakers you're talking about were not "punished and re-educated for adhering to their religious views", they were punished for discriminating against a protected class in the state they operated in. Just as they would have been punished for refusing cake to an interracial marriage, even if condoning it were against their sincerely held religious beliefs.

But you really shouldn't worry about that: this SCOTUS decision only forces states to issue and recognise marriage licenses to same-sex couples, it does not force them to make sexual orientation a protected class.

And in all 29 states where sexual orientation still isn't a protected class, same sex couples can have a cake-less marriage in the morning because businesses aren't forced to serve them, and then get fired in the afternoon because their bosses can discriminate against them for reasons of sexual orientation.

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

#265

Post by lisper »

madmax96 wrote: post #251
lisper wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

There was no economic incentive to ban interracial marriage either. That didn't stop many states from doing it. And there are economic disincentives to racial discrimination. That didn't stop it from being institutionalized for decades.

And I didn't say the supreme court needs to step in, I said the federal government needs to step in.

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

#266

Post by gaymarriage »

mchaver wrote: post #244
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 l…

it's an argument against marriage as a metric at all. No one should have to be romantically interested in someone to consider them a life partner.

This decision was awful IMHO. Government has no place in marriage.

So long as they are already involved with it, I'm happy that they're at least making the mistake equally for all genders.

But the real solution is to stop validating this religious rite at all.

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

#267

Post by jordanlev »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #232
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" Do you think we've totaled into the billions in costs related to diseases spread primarily by sodomy? Probably. It seems pretty natural and healthy to regard such a dangerous activity with some revulsion.

Uhh... straight people have anal sex too.

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

#268

Post by mason240 »

I for one am glad that we got the opportunity to show, state by state, that we supported supported same sex marriage.

An earlier SCOTUS decision would have taken away our ability to show consensus on the issue.

I'm glad that I was able to personally vote "No" to an amendment in MN that would have banned marriage rights.

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

#269

Post by hackuser »

chrisguilbeau wrote: post #163
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…

To be fair, the things you mention (slavery, segregation, oppression, even genocide) have been justified by people led by pure atheistic humanism effectively cloaking oppression in logic, academia and scientific theory (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot). I think it's fair to say that people with all sorts of ideologies have treated those they fear, don't understand or just plain don't like pretty poorly. I'll add that so…

Agreed, absolutely. I was only responding to an issue raised about religion and so I didn't mention the other ideologies.

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

#270

Post by ghaff »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #184
pavanky wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or make all marriages inconsequential.

I wish more people saw it this way. The fact that a government has any say in who can/can't marry and be with in their private lives is absurd. The concept of marriage should be left up to religious entities.

However, there are many legal matters that are deeply affected by marital status (whether or not you want to call it differently). Many of those rights/benefits are there for good reasons, e.g. child custody, decision-making in medical matters, etc. You can call marriage something different but you'd end up with a legal relationship that looked an awful lot like marriage. Personally, I don't think having a civil union that's different from a religious marriage (with no legal significance) is unreasonable as a concept. But it's not the way institutions have evolved--and, especially now, it doesn't really solve a problem. One could imagine civil unions being expanded as scope but they're never going to be arbitrary so long as there are rights and responsibilities associated with them.
Post reply on HN