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

331–340 of 1001 posts

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

#331

Post by Osiris »

philwelch wrote: post #285
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.

Monogamy also has a storied history of abuse. Up until the 1970's it was perfectly legal for a man to rape his wife. This does not make it fundamentally impossible for healthy and consensual monogamous relationships to exist, and neither does the supposed behavior of 19th century Mormons make it impossible for healthy and consensual polygamous relationships to exist.

What behavior of 19th century Mormons are you referring to? The majority of polygamous relationships were about taking responsibility for widows and their families. Mormons were violently persecuted and polygamy was a support mechanism.

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

#332

Post by giaour »

tych0 wrote: post #219
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…

What happens when a member of a gay couple gets sick in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriages? What do gay couples do when they file their federal taxes?

Currently, you can file your federal taxes as "married" if you got married in any state that recognizes marriage equality. This right does not end when you move to a different state, so there are couples who have to file as two singles in Alabama but as married to the federal government because they got married in Vermont. So, the answer to your second question is: status quo.

The first question would probably decided by a judge.

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

#334

Post by themartorana »

hackuser wrote: post #246
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 is this class of license inequity different than other classes, where the states' right to license something is not resolved by SCOTUS? Certainly with all the imagined legal expertise on HN, someone will answer. I have no expertise, but here's a shot at least from a moral point of view and based on some…

We're not a democracy; we are, and this is essential, a constitutional democracy

Or even a Constitutional Republic - as you say, we're not a mob-rule democracy.

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

#335

Post by lisper »

jmorphy88 wrote: post #291
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…

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

No, the beatings will continue for as long as you fail to respect the law. If you want to forbid gay marriage, it's very simple: repeal the fourteenth amendment. (Good luck with that.)

It's like I tell my liberal friends: if you want to regulate guns, it's very simple: repeal the second amendment.

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

#336

Post by balls187 »

caseysoftware wrote: post #198
balls187 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OT: It wasn't anti Semitic remarks that got Michael Richards in trouble. Michael Richards went on a massive tirade saying the N-word repeatedly after he felt that a black patron was being disrespectful.

I think the difference is that many people laughed with and applauded Dave Chappelle at the time while few (if anyone?) applauded Michael Richards. Chappelle was commenting on a widely held belief. Richards, not so much.

I was just pointing out that it wasn't anti-semetic remarks that got Richards in trouble, it was disparaging remarks against blacks.

Edited the above to make that clearer.

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

#337

Post by hackuser »

elmin wrote: post #239
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.

If that's how the equal protection clause works, why was it necessary to pass the Civil Rights Act as a law or Woman's Sufferage as an amendment? Based on the state of civil rights at the time, it's clear that the founding fathers did not intend the constitution to provide universal equality for all peoples. I agree with this decision, but not because I think it's justifiable under the constitution. I see it as accep…

> the founding fathers did not intend the constitution to provide universal equality for all peoples

In fact, they agreed that some people should be slaves to others and only landholding white males should vote. But the founding fathers intentions are not decisive or necessarily even important (and relying on grasping their intentions is, as I understand it, is not a legal principle but just one philosophy of many).

To emphasize the difference in perspectives: This is not a religion; the Founding Fathers are not gods, and they did not hand down scripture to us. They were the citizens of their day, they did what they did (I think they did very well), and we are the citizens of our day, to do what we think best. That's the essence of democracy; the Constitution and country are now ours, not the property or responsibility of 18th century or 19th century or any other ancestors; they belong to the people, to make of it what we will.

If you think about it, it's a very conservative and pessmistic idea to say we must appeal to these ancient authorities to decide things for us, that we can't do it ourselves just as well (and if you read about the people and politics of that era, you will see they were no different than us). A more optimistic and I think democratic point of view is to say (it's a well-known idea but I don't know who I'm quoting ...), "We are the ones we've been waiting for'.

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

#338

Post by btown »

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…

Wow. I just read it (for the interested, it starts on page 69 and is well worth the read for anyone even the slightest bit interested in constitutional law), and it brings up some very good points.

My counter would be this: Of course it would be hubris to think that SCOTUS can "create 'liberties.'" But that is not what SCOTUS is doing in this case. There's a clear reading of the Bill of Rights where it is up to SCOTUS to clarify the definition of "liberty" or "equal protection" in the 14th Amendment as the general human understanding of human rights expands - as ambiguous language in the amended Constitution, it is very much in the federal judiciary's domain.

Now, if the states or the citizens feel strongly that this interpretation oversteps what should be the judiciary's domain, then there's a process for the other branches and the citizenry to tighten the limits of the judiciary's domain. That is the process of a Constitutional amendment. But to say, as Scalia implies, that SCOTUS should wait for an amendment or legislation before being able to expand the interpretation of ambiguous language in the amended Constitution, is counter to the very mandate SCOTUS was given in the first place - it should not wait or falter when a reasonable case is presented to the body, and where constitutional language is ambiguous. I applaud the Court's courage in living up to that mandate today.

...

And at the end of the day, Mr. Scalia, when it comes to bodies-not-representative-of-the-human-citizenry broadly interpreting ambigous language in the fundamental Laws, we should truly be glad that this is what we're seeing, not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evitable_Conflict ... :)

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

#339

Post by MBlume »

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.

>12 year olds [...] are not oppressed minorities facing a long history of brutal discrimination.

No, they absolutely are -- not in a way that really bears on whether they should get married, but seriously, have you been 12? Ever spent five minutes inside a Jr. High?

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

#340

Post by unclenoriega »

baddox wrote: post #204
dennisbest wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The closest thing I have seen is that Denmark apparently forces all church buildings to be available for gay weddings. No priest is forced to officiate, but the local bishop must arrange a willing replacement if necessary. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/931...

Separation of church and state gets a bit murky when there is a state religion.
Post reply on HN