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

341–350 of 1001 posts

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

#341

Post by macjohnmcc »

notNow wrote: post #292
BocceBaal wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hope you also find the legislative process a joke because it certainly is.

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

#342

Post by giaour »

krapp wrote: post #299
Void_ wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What happens between me and my roomba is none of the government's business.

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

#343

Post by MajorLOL »

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…

While true, it's not a valid reason for preventing progress on the deconstruction of marriage.

'Our system is messy and complicated, so if we add more variables, it will be an even bigger mess!' - so make the system less messy and enable more variables.

Can you imagine if someone came and said add this function/feature to the program and in response you said "the program is complicated and the code is long, no need to confound it any further with features."

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

#344

Post by giaour »

IanDrake wrote: post #180
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…

I have no problem with polygamy, as long as it is a consensual relationship between all adults involved. The real problem is that government has gotten into the marriage business and it doesn't belong there. The issues you mentioned (child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance rights) really have nothing to do with marriage and should all be assignable without a government endorsed marital contract.

The key word there is "adults." Polygamist communities have a documented tendency to seek out younger and younger women for marriage. (http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657)

EDIT: added source; had previously assumed this was common knowledge

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

#345

Post by lisper »

norea-armozel wrote: post #300
lisper wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nothing is stopping you from doing that today. In fact, if you're really serious about advancing polygamy, this would be the way to start: show -- don't tell -- us how it would work. Because right now the poster children for polygamy are (AFAICT) all white male religious nut cases who just want to use it as an excuse to keep a harem.

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

#346

Post by themartorana »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #288
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…

Well children are always an exception. Siblings/cousins creep most people out due to inbreeding, but honestly I don't really see a problem with it if they promise to not have kids. (I'm an only child though, so I don't have any perspective) Polygamy also seems like it should be legal to me, as long as everyone is a fully consenting adult. Basically I just think the government should just stay out of peoples lives as…

I think they should stay out of marriage since it's almost entirely a religious construct. Instead, they can be in the business of civil partnerships, which dictate those things required by law - HIPPA/healthcare rights, inheritances, child custody, death rights, and so on, and so forth.

Then "marriage" can be defined by your religion. My wife and I were not married in a Catholic Church. Therefore, in the eyes of the church, we're not married. That's fine with me. In the same vein, I'm friends with a gay couple who's synagogue married them before their state legalized gay marriage. In their eyes, they were married, whether or not the state acknowledge inheritance/HIPPA rights.

It seems relatively logical, but it's never come up in conversation. Let the state make rules around civil partnerships, and let religions deal with marriage - which, basically, says that if you say you're married, then cool - you're married.

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

#347

Post by aNoob7000 »

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…

You asked, why this minority? Because two consenting adults want to get married, that's why. Not two children, but two adult Americans want to get married and have it recognized around the United States, not just a few states.

States screwed up when they took the civil part of marriage and associated it with the ceremonial part in a church.

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

#348

Post by MajorLOL »

smackfu wrote: post #254
repsilat wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> gay marriage is illegal Hah, this seems like a strange way to put it -- "get a gay marriage, go to jail". Maybe the word is used in that way, but I'd tend to say something more like "doesn't exist" or "isn't recognised".

I guess I was going more for "not legalized."

"make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law."

Try again...

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

#349

Post by Retric »

mason240 wrote: post #211
Retric wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering there are plenty of examples of "gay" marriage from thousands of years ago, calling strait marriage traditional seems factually incorrect. Edit: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1367/gay_marriagenot...

>Considering there are plenty of examples of "gay" marriage from thousands of years ago That is not true. There are examples in Western Civilization of the acceptance of some homosexual behavior, but not of same sex marriage. Not even Roman Emperor Hadrian was able to marry his lover.

There are plenty of other examples of far more extreme behavior that was tolerated. So saying a Roman Emperor was unable to marry is clearly wrong ex: Nero.

"Both Martial and Juvenal refer to marriage between men as something that occurs not infrequently, although they disapprove of it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

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

#350

Post by themartorana »

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…

There's an often referenced and interesting argument from the TV show The West Wing where a republican woman argues against the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) based on the same question - passing an amendment saying women are equal somehow implies they weren't under Article 14 of the Constitution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQIkLTLf_IQ

Post reply on HN