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

371–380 of 1001 posts

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

#371

Post by chc »

hackuser wrote: post #337
elmin wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).…

The point is not that the Founding Fathers were mortal incarnations of the divine. The point is that the law has to have a meaning or else it is literally meaningless. If we use the law like tea leaves and just read in whatever meaning we want, whether or not it's what the law is actually supposed to mean, that puts us in a precarious position. Maybe today "equal protection" means that gays should be allowed to marry, but tomorrow it means that everyone should be equally protected from being hit on by gays. That's not a good footing for our society to be on.

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

#372

Post by netfire »

gibsonje wrote: post #206
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…

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.

Rights of a minority should not be left to the democratic process.

If the constitution and the its amendments, which protect minority rights (and people's rights in general) aren't the result of a democratic legislative process, what are they a result of?

The question is whether the current constitutional legislation provides these minority rights. The court's role is to interpret existing laws, not add to them because it thinks its the right thing to do. That's the legislature's role.

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

#374

Post by lmm »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #207
venomsnake wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Without getting unduly personal, let's say that I have a stake in that question being resolved. I know several triples living quietly among us; they face the same kind of problems (child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance rights) as same-sex couples faced prior to this decision. I made that argument to a couple of friends - that they were not fighting for equality (which will be fairly easy to set up) but for…

>One of the problems with polygamy/andry is that we could hollow out the lower social classes of mating opportunities And this doesn't already happen? M/Dating does not require marriage.

Not so long ago it was culturally enforced; it was not impossible to date and raise children while unmarried but there were severe social consequences and as a result not many people did.

I think we have yet to see all the consequences of this cultural change.

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

#375

Post by LordKano »

chockablock wrote: post #271
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…

> Why not allow 12 year olds to marry as a consititutional right? Children are not considered capable of consent. > Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry? Claimed societal interest in preventing harm to offspring born from inbreeding. > I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument. I'm really asking. OK, well now you have a couple answers.

Claimed societal interest in preventing harm to offspring born from inbreeding.

Does this mean that marriages between same-sex siblings will be permitted?

It's simply the fact that we find the idea of siblings having sex to be icky. Which is the same reason for the prohibition against same-sex marriage.

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

#376

Post by Pxtl »

As ecstatic as I am about this, I'm disappointed that it had to come from the Supreme Court instead of the American voters. I do believe that gay marriage is an obvious extension of the non-discrimination clause, so it's perfectly appropriate for the Supremes to act on this. I guess I'm just more disappointed in the voters than anything else.

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

#377

Post by jsmthrowaway »

sgnelson wrote: post #188
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…

One problem I have with Polygamy is that I have never seen a 1-woman, multi-husband community. Sure, I've seen a few relationships in which this was the case, but when you look at the historic aspects in the US, it seems a very rare thing. That makes me wonder if there is a severe power imbalance in the relationships and what is truly occurring. It's well known that in some modern US polygamy situations, there is a g…

The only plurals I know are multi-husband communities and everyone involved are happier than clams. Your concern trolling to equate happy relationships with domestic abuse, simply because you don't understand them and think that everyone in a plural relationship is FLDS and lives in Utah, is pretty striking and antiprogressive (which is odd, considering you're attempting the progressive argument against their happiness).

And no, what you're saying is not "well known." You are arguing against certain fundamentalist groups, not plurals. They are not equivalent, despite this thread's clear goal to say otherwise.

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

#378

Post by jrs235 »

jrs235 wrote: post #149
MrZongle2 wrote: post #96

I'm a straight conservative (more fiscal than social, and sure as hell not Republican any more), and my reaction to this is: "meh". The writing has been on the wall for a while now, and anybody surprised by this hasn't been paying attention. Any social conservatives on HN -- that is to say, both of you -- should keep in mind that if you're worried about how this affects the sanctity of marriage, that institution has…

I guess we found each other. The things that irritate me the most is that people believe that marriage is a right. It is not. It is a government granted legal status privilege. The privilege grants those recognized as married numerous benefits. Now, with that said, I can't see why allowing any two consenting adults who wish to extend the government recognized benefits to each other should be infringed. One question t…

Marriage is not about love. It is about property. The government/state doesn't give two flying ducks about whether two people get married because they love each other, are in love (infatuated) with each other, or just like each other. Love is not required to get married.

Marriage involves determining and transferring property rights (before, during, and after a marriage).

A marriage license and a state recognized marriage is a three party agreement. It's an agreement between the two spouses and the government. It gives consent to the government to arbitrate marital issues and in return the government gives benefits to the individuals getting married.

ADD: Due to a marriage being a three party agreement, state recognized polygamy gets really complicated really fast, especially when multiple states might be involved.

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

#379

Post by woodchuck64 »

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…

"The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. "

I can change this paragraph only slightly to come up with an absurdity.

"The fundamental right to vote does not include a right to make a State change its definition of suffrage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of suffrage (to be those related by blood to the historically dominant culture taking part in the political process) that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational."

States are not free to define away your rights, it's that simple.

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

#380

Post by ufo »

tosseraccount wrote: post #27
SCHiM wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your sentiment, but no with your account name. I don't think you deserve to be downvoted.

Why restrict love to one person?

One problem I have with polygamy is that its more common to have one-man-many-woman marriages than one-woman-many-man marriages. This results in a surplus of single males, who are prone to causing trouble.
Post reply on HN