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

291–300 of 1001 posts

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

#291

Post by jmorphy88 »

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…

So, in other words, "the beatings will continue until you come around to our views"?

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

#292

Post by notNow »

BocceBaal wrote: post #259
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.

It's a slippery slope when you allow a bunch of unelected middle aged and old folks gather in a room and decide what is good and what is not for the rest of the population.

The US political system is a big joke in my opinion.

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

#293

Post by ohitsdom »

brandonmenc wrote: post #228
plg wrote: 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.

Mic drop!

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

#294

Post by jcater »

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.

My old church refused to marry anyone who was previously divorced. Clergy have a lot of leeway in who they can refuse. No one is forcing them to do anything.

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

#295

Post by MajorLOL »

hackuser wrote: post #257
quizotic wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pre-requisite for protections under law; "long and brutal history of discrimination" - hackuser

Sorry white people, you can't be protected under law, you haven't been brutally oppressed for long enough, just a couple more years than we can protect you.

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

#296

Post by tomp »

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…

I still think that gay (two men) sex us gross... or any sex with a man. Which is why I don't engage in it, but I'm pretty grateful that about 50% of the inhabitants of Earth enjoys it!

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

#297

Post by ceejayoz »

smackfu wrote: post #252
ctdonath wrote: post #202

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…

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.

Hell, Catholic clergy won't marry non-Catholics, Catholics who've divorced, etc. They had those rights yesterday, and they have them today.

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

#298

Post by angersock »

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.

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it, sweetheart. :)

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

#299

Post by krapp »

Void_ wrote: post #235
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…

10 years from now. HN Headline: Polygamy upheld by supreme court Comment: While this is excellent news for my polygamous friends, I see no progress on [insert new deviation here]. --- So what do you all think will be the next big thing?

Robosexuality.

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

#300

Post by norea-armozel »

lisper wrote: post #238
adventured wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dictati…

Not that I necessarily disagree with legalizing polygamy, but I think there is one non-bigoted answer: logistics. Our financial system in general, and our tax system in particular, has N=1 or N=2 hard-coded into it. There are other practical considerations as well. Suppose, for example, you have an N=5 marriage and three of them want to break away and take the kids. Resolving situations like that would be much more c…

You could recreate marriage as a form of incorporation which wouldn't be a bad idea if you think about the cost of growing old and having children. More adult partners equals more income to ensure the survival of its members and their children.

And yes, I read Moon is a Harsh Mistress too many times (I'm a sucker for that novel). :P

Post reply on HN