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

271–280 of 1001 posts

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

#271

Post by chockablock »

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…

> Why not allow 12 year olds to marry as a consititutional right?

Children are not considered capable of consent.

> Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry?

Claimed societal interest in preventing harm to offspring born from inbreeding.

> I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument. I'm really asking.

OK, well now you have a couple answers.

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

#272

Post by netfire »

gibsonje wrote: post #206
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…

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.

Can you specify what part of the constitution is being violated here? There are amendments that protect race, color, gender, etc. Protection based on sexual orientation doesn't seem to be covered, at least not specifically.

In my mind, the correct solution to this issue should have been legislative (that is, add an amendment to the constitution), not judicial.

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

#273

Post by spdustin »

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.

I think that's the wrong argument to make. There were a lot of things said in the Old Testament that aren't considered by most Christians to be applicable to them. The "Old Covenant" was, as the Jewish maintain today, between God and the Jews. For most Christians (more specifically, Catholics and several other groups), the laws in the Old Testament ceased to be valid when Jesus proclaimed the way into Heaven.

That said, it is true that the bible doesn't disapprove of polygamy. The Old Testament is filled with examples of God condoning it (Lamech, Esau, Jacob, Gideon, Solomon... The list of men with multiple wives goes on and on - God even gave Saul's wives to David), and the New Testament has a few "mentions", so to speak: Paul's letter to the Corinthians, which explicitly says it's his opinion and not law, Ephesians, and a few others that are suggestive of opinion and not law. But honestly, appealing to biblical authority is fraught with oppositions that focus on the numerous inconsistencies in the bible.

I believe that polygamy is a personal and/or moral belief, and while I'm personally an atheist, and personally do not have an interest or stake in debating the morality or religious support of it, I recognize that there are potential and actual inconsistencies with how rights and responsibilities are handled with respect to polygamists, and hope they're able to find the path to equality.

Selfless love knows no bounds, frankly. It's the selfish ones that need to find humility before they find peace.

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

#274

Post by rayiner »

sigzero wrote: post #86
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…

The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to decide if it is legal or not. If it is not, send it back to Congress to fix. While I agree with the ruling, this court has been doing things clearly outside its purview.

SCOTUS has no police or armies to enforce its edicts. The institution functions entirely on "trust capital." Every time it strikes down some democratically-instituted law, it uses up some of that trust capital. Sometimes, it must spend that capital. But doing it too often erodes faith in the institution, and ultimately, that is the only thing they have.

I'd argue that Citizens United is a great example of that in action. In my opinion, the Court got the law absolutely right in that case. But they used up a lot of trust capital in the process.

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

#275

Post by corysama »

ionforce wrote: post #65
toomuchtodo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You eat an elephant one bite at a time. EDIT: I did not mean to cause a trainwreck below this comment. It was the quickest way on mobile to communicate "all big problems are tackled one task at a time".

Are you calling me an elephant? Now I'll never fit in my wedding dress! /runsaway (guys, it's a joke)

Please note that the HN community takes a rather strict approach when moderating comments that contribute noise to the conversation. "Nice article!" comments are routinely downvoted. As is sarcasm, witticisms, memes, references and other styles of comments that occur frequently but do not add information to the discussion. It's a knowingly doomed attempt to hold back the flood of noise that covers Reddit.

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

#276

Post by angersock »

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…

You know what a significant minority of people is when they have a majority? A majority.

I'm not saying they're not idiots, mind you, but you can't go against the will of the majority (dumb as it is) and still wave the "democracy" flag.

On a related note, this is why democracies suck: at least half the people participating are below average.

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

#277

Post by toast0 »

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…

California passed a law allowing more than two parents, which while intended for other circumstances may help to some degree with this as well http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...

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

#278

Post by dsr_ »

ctdonath wrote: post #231
clavalle wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily their participation is not necessary.

The question isn't about whether they're necessary, the question is what happens to someone whose services are solicited and they refuse.

Absolutely nothing. The government can't coerce religions to perform ceremonies. The right to marriage is not a religious right, it is a civil right, and will be provided by civil authorities.

For example, in Massachusetts anyone can become a marriage officiant by applying to the governor. There's a form; permission is always granted. As a result, I have performed two marriages.

The better question is, what happens to a civil official who declares that it is against their religion to perform their civil duty?

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

#280

Post by baakss »

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.

If we're basing revulsion based on cost of diseases spread, vaginal sex would also have to be considered disgusting. Actually, you'd have to view quite a lot of non-sexual activities with revulsion as well based on that premise. Sorry, but I don't believe it's any more gross or decent than any other consensual sex act.
Post reply on HN