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

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

#361

Post by hackuser » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:10 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #255

hackuser wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally agree, but ... > At bottom, this isn't a right flowing from the dictates of the Constitution. Nobody in 1789 would have said that gay marriage is a fundamental right. We acknowledge the right today for the same reason we acknowledge many other rights we did not acknowledge then--society as a whole has agreed to recognize the right Looking at just the legal aspects, in 1789 (and 1776) we did recognize that…

> Looking at just the legal aspects, in 1789 (and 1776) we did recognize that 'all men are created equal' and equal protection (and due process might apply too). From those rights flows the idea that a right conferred to some, such as marraige, should not be denied to others. That language is in the declaration of independence, which has no legal effect. The Constitution explicitly creates a system where all men are…

Equal protection is in the Constitution, in the 14th amendment.

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

#362

Post by bduerst » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:10 PM UTC

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #313

jordanlev wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh... straight people have anal sex too.

That used to be illegal, too.

So you don't have a problem with gay marriage, you have a problem with unsafe anal sex.

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

#363

Post by nate_meurer » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:12 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #260

nate_meurer wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polygamy is a Christian institution. It was pointedly prescribed in the old testament. Modern anti-polygamists will argue that the old testament prescription was a matter of necessity, and that new testament language (particularly Paul's) prescribes monogamy, but to my eyes the new testament's position is pretty casual, while the old testament's is quite strong.

> It was pointedly prescribed in the old testament. That's a common misconception. It was described, but not prescribed. The polygamy in the Old Testament is universally portrayed as dysfunctional.

Polygamy absolutely was prescribed, in very strong terms, in the form of levirate marriage:

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her. Deuteronomy 25:5-6

And no, it is not universally portrayed as dysfunctional. Dysfunction appears when the subjects disregard specific instructions regarding marriage and sex, in the midst of polygamous relationships that are explicitly allowed by God. E.g., David's adultery, and Solomon's marriage to women from outside of Israel.

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

#364

Post by jrs235 » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:13 PM UTC

edent wrote: post #315

jrs235 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the Civil Rights act had to be passed in the courts" What?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._Un...

OP should have written: "The same reason that the Civil Rights act had to be UPHELD in the courts".

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

#365

Post by dataker » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:13 PM UTC

Beyond YAY!'s, the state is saying it will 'let' you love someone of the same sex.

Can someone sense the creepiness in this? It tells you how/who/why you should love.

It still doesn't include certain groups and it could revoke such 'rights' in other circumstances.

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

#366

Post by innguest » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:14 PM UTC

Gay people finally earned the right to have their relationships meddled with by the government. Let's see if they remain "gay" (happy). Watch the parades dwindle!

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

#367

Post by amyjess » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:14 PM UTC

I'm really happy about this.

Not just because I'm a lesbian (I'm happily single, so no marriage for me regardless), but because it's a fundamental right that shouldn't be denied to anyone. It really warms my heart that everyone can finally marry the people they love.

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

#368

Post by eropple » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:15 PM UTC

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.

I'm not saying you're doing this, but this line of thinking is very often employed to minimize the damage done by discriminatory decision-making under the guise of "waiting for the perfect solution". Fixing what hurts people now is better than telling them to wait for something that will in all likelihood never actually come.

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

#369

Post by madmax96 » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:15 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #265

madmax96 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that gay marriage should be legal, but I disagree with this. Beware of the fallacy of analogy! There is no economic incentive for a state not to allow gay marriage, there was an economic incentive for states to keep slaves. Also, it wasn't the supreme court that ended up freeing the slaves...

There was no economic incentive to ban interracial marriage either. That didn't stop many states from doing it. And there are economic disincentives to racial discrimination. That didn't stop it from being institutionalized for decades. And I didn't say the supreme court needs to step in, I said the federal government needs to step in.

I could agree with the federal government stepping in, just not the court.

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

#370

Post by hackuser » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:15 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #325

worklogin wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> The idea is to set up an enduring process that will generally converge ...

Could you recommend any books on these issues?

EDIT: Thanks!