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

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

#301

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:49 PM UTC

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.

> Do you think we've totaled into the billions in costs related to diseases spread primarily by sodomy?

We should probably ban preschool/kindergarten on those grounds, then.

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

#302

Post by toomuchtodo » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:49 PM UTC

tanderson92 wrote: post #286

toomuchtodo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polygamous/polyamorous relationships can easily be supported from a property rights standpoint using corporate entities (LLCs). I see it as the ultimate social/political hack for a right.

Could you elaborate, or point to some material which expounds on this hack?

Any property to be shared by the relationship is owned by the LLC, with people in the relationship being owners of the LLC.

Here's a great article on the subject: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/up-for-pol...

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

#303

Post by sigzero » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:49 PM UTC

tosseraccount wrote: post #152

sigzero wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As we see today, history isn't always right. Sex with minors should always been illegal.

Sex with 17 year old should be illegal? Why, exactly? What if the partner is 18? What if the partner is 35?

If the age of consent is 18 (and I don't think that is true across all the States), then 17 is illegal and should be illegal no matter what the age of the partner is.

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

#304

Post by lmm » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:49 PM UTC

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…

Then why have the states at all? Why have a tenth amendment?

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

#305

Post by kraig911 » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:49 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…

As a point in examining history the supreme court I thought was usually the case where issues like this bubble up. i.e. Abortion Women Voting (I think?) Corporate Entities etc.

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

#306

Post by matt-attack » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

FlannelPancake wrote: post #190

jscheel wrote: post #142

I've never really given credence to the people that suggested a ruling would be a slippery slope. However, after reading the opinion for myself, I can see how the court's stance on marriage (opposite-sex and same-sex) can now be extended to polygamy and incest. I understand the need to define it as a fundamental right within the context of this ruling, but it seems that some of the wording opens the way for other mar…

Incest - maybe. There's a clear harm involved there (inbreeding depression) that's much more substantive than anything used to argue against gay marriage. Polygamy - We probably will revisit our stance on polygamy in decades to come. Historically it's been used in a way that's profoundly imbalanced towards women (i.e. almost exclusively polygyny), but it's not hard to imagine a future where that's not the case.

> There's a clear harm involved there

You conflation of marriage with breeding should be rethought. I suppose infertile couples should be allowed to marry since they cannot bear children?

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

#307

Post by kaybe » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

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.

Most of us do not have a lot..

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

#308

Post by spdustin » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #182

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.

No, because there is an objective difference. One pairing tends to procreate, the other cannot. The state has an objective interest in facilitating one over the other.

To be honest, the couple that can't procreate isn't necessarily a same-sex couple. And many couples, gay or straight, that wants children but aren't able to procreate will adopt a child that would otherwise not grow up with devoted, supportive parents.

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

#309

Post by adventured » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

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…

I definitely agree on the complexity of our tax / govt financial and legal codes, and the problem that poses. The solution there is obvious too, and has been needed for decades anyway: simplification. Of course that's held up by political gridlock.

The easiest way to resolve the child situation would be to keep custody to two parents as it is today. Any children that exist in the N=5 marriage, would be biologically between two people. So the only thing that would be changing is marriage itself, not child custody laws (which today are not primarily built on marriage anyway, we can obviously marry other people that have pre-existing children without adopting those children as our own; and we can obviously have children outside of marriage).

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

#310

Post by lisper » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

angersock wrote: post #276

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…

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.

Who is waving the democracy flag? Certainly not me. I'm waving the fourteenth-amendment equal-protection flag. The United States isn't a (pure) democracy. Never has been, never will be. Thank goodness.