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

321–330 of 1001 posts

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

#321

Post by dorian-graph »

dennisbest wrote: post #187
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…

Kennedy is addressing the idea (myth) that churches would be compelled to perform same-sex marriages or somehow face legal consequences for speaking on the issue.

[Myth?](http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/October/Idaho-Ministers-T...) Also, what about [photographers](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/07/supreme-court-g...) and so on facing fines and criminal charges for not taking on clients? I came across this amusing story too, [pro-gay bakers refuse to make cakes that do not support their own precepts](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/this-evangelist-asked-a-ga...).

Wait and see though, is what I say.

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

#322

Post by sremani »

netfire wrote: post #272
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.

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.

That is correct. Change in attitude can be reflected by due legislative process, but some of the liberal victories always believed in Fiat, either from the POTUS or SCOTUS.

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

#323

Post by adventured »

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.

To be fair, the response you're going to get there is: how about when the US elects a woman as head of state.

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

#324

Post by jfaucett »

I'm sad to see this happen, not because LGBTs can marry, in my personal opinion I think they should be able to. I just dislike systems in general that force any global mandate and prefer those in which entities can freely compete against one another to decide between one another what works and what doesn't. The two party, winner takes all system the USA has right now, is already too totalitarian IMHO, this just seems like another step in that direction.

I think in the long term all less efficient, less happiness producing systems will loose out anyway. All you need to do is ensure that your system protects the minority enough so that they can freely compete and coexists with all the rest.

But I'm a libertarian, so I think all laws regarding sexual relations between consenting adults should be repealed whether gay or straight...

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

#325

Post by tptacek »

worklogin wrote: post #319
tptacek wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scalia's argument isn't that marriage equality is an issue for the states. It that it's an issue for the legislature ; that is, that the people should decide on it, rather than an interpretation of our secular scripture. It's helpful to remember that the balance of powers were carefully designed, with an overarching purpose of not centralizing power into a monarchy or aristocracy. We are by design not a nation govern…

>Of course, there are even more powerful arguments in favor of marriage equality. For one thing, the black letter language of the Constitution, right smack in the beginning of it prior to any amendments, requires all the states to honor each other's judicial proceedings, public acts, and records. It's not clear cut as you imply. If it were, Concealed Carry Licenses for handguns would have reciprocity everywhere.

I think I just said it's not that clear-cut. :)

Another really helpful thing to remember about the Constitution is that it's incoherent. The framers were not logicians and the Constitution was not an exercise in formal consistency. There are provisions and even rights that conflict directly with each other.

And that's by design, too. The idea is to set up an enduring process that will generally converge, like a good distributed commit algorithm, on the citizenry having access to the channels of power. When that system arrives at a circumstance that implicates a conflicting set of Constitutional mandates, the design of the system is "fuck it, let smart judges chosen (at some remove) by the people resolve that."

The justices are supposed to be referees. They aren't supposed to change the outcome of the game. But anyone who's ever watched more than a couple baseball games knows that it's tough to keep refereeing and outcomes separate.

It happens to make sense to me that (a) allowing MS to deny full faith and credit to MA marriages is overt support for discrimination against LGBT people: it's using an implied principle (respect for people's belief in religious sanctity of marriage) to upturn an explicit principle, and (b) allowing MS to effectively monkeywrench the decisions of other states, so that you're effectively un-married if your job moves you from IA to MS, is undemocratic. So I think the refs made a good call this time. But reasonable people can see it differently.

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

#326

Post by arprocter »

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…

>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)

iirc the bit you're referring to was how saying outrageous things is viewed as acceptable when a white woman does it.

In the black Bush piece he said 'and no gays settling down!' to poke fun at the GOP.

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

#327

Post by lisper »

lmm wrote: post #304
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…

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

Because even if you eliminate discrimination as one degree of freedom in the legal code, that still leaves a lot of room for experimentation. Some states have legalized marijuana, others haven't. Some states have high taxes. Some states have low taxes. Some states allow self-serve gasoline, others don't. I could go on and on. There's an awful lot of room for legal "biodiversity" left.

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

#328

Post by icebraining »

_delirium wrote: post #169
dublinben wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polygamy is a deeply troublesome arrangement, with a storied history of abuse. It has been steadily abandoned and outlawed as societies grant more legal rights and self-determination to women. There is simply no way to legally recognize poly* relationships under the law in a way that resembles binary marriage.

In Europe in the modern era, the trend is more in the other direction: as society gains more respect for both men and women's choice of sexual self-determination, instead of being fixated on traditional opposite-sex, pair-courtship rituals, polyamorous relationships are becoming more accepted. They were once strongly disapproved of and even illegalized, but are now increasingly being seen as a legitimate personal cho…

Same in Portugal. People I know are already doing alternative celebrations to regular marriage, influenced in part by the cost - since marriage celebrations are expected to have certain elements (catering, dresses, etc) which these celebrations do without.

"De facto unions" have existed (for both hetero and homosexual partners) for more than ten years already, and have many of the same rights as married couples, including inheritance, refusal do testify in court, etc.

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

#329

Post by notNow »

baddox wrote: post #157
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…

> 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. Good. If only they (or society) would decide that no consenting people need permission from anyone else to call themselves "married."

If you are so intent on redefining/bastardizing marriage, while we're at it, please take a look at family bonds and friendships and see what we can come up with "novel" and "progressive" ideas to add to the conversation.

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

#330

Post by th0waway »

mhurron wrote: post #245
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? Why should the States have the rights to prevent the exercise of a citizens civil rights granted by the US Constitution? The Constitiution, and the Bill of Rights explicitly, exists because there are things that are just not left up to 'the majority' to come to a democratic decision over. They are rights th…

holy crap! "granted by the US Constitution" - wow, where to begin?

Here, how about this: our 'rights' are not granted by the Constitution, they are emphasized, publicly proclaimed. The Constitution delineates the rights and responsibilities of the GOVERNMENT. Anything granted can be taken away.

Post reply on HN