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

391–400 of 1001 posts

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

#391

Post by hackuser »

clavalle wrote: post #360
ctdonath wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question isn't about whether they're necessary, the question is what happens to someone whose services are solicited and they refuse.

Oh, I see. You are conflating a 'religious service provider' with, say, a business who bakes cakes. Religious institutions are not considered public accommodations so they are not required to offer their services without discrimination to protected classes.

> Religious institutions are not considered public accommodations so they are not required to offer their services without discrimination to protected classes.

What if their services are funded by the government, such as services to the poor? Can they refuse poor gay people?

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

#392

Post by amyjess »

rayiner wrote: post #46
fweespeech wrote: post #12

Yeah, I'm still slightly pissed they basically waited until the majority was clear before they'd rule on the matter. Its another clear sign our Judiciary is really just as political as the politicians are, even if no one says so openly. > As late as October, the justices ducked the issue, refusing to hear appeals from rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states. That decision delivered a tacit victory for gay r…

> Yeah, I'm still slightly pissed they basically waited until the majority was clear before they'd rule on the matter. Its another clear sign our Judiciary is really just as political as the politicians are, even if no one says so openly. I'm a strong supporter of gay marriage, but I'm glad the Court waited until the consensus was clear. At bottom, this isn't a right flowing from the dictates of the Constitution. Nob…

Support for interracial marriage didn't pass 50% until the '90s, but SCOTUS ruled decades before that.

The fact that they waited until after support for SSM passed 50% is what's unusual.

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

#393

Post by lmm »

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #220
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…

Saying it has deep roots in America is disingenuous, because Mormonism is the only religion, in a well defined geographical area to do so. There's a lot more to American religious (and demographic) history than Mormons. EDIT: And hasn't been a part of Ashkenazi Judaism for a millenium at least.

Mormonism is very much a part of America. The claim wasn't "it has deep roots everywhere in America".

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

#394

Post by slavik81 »

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.

>> Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry? > Claimed societal interest in preventing harm to offspring born from inbreeding.

If that's all, it seems that logically, brother-brother marriage should be OK.

I suspect the real reason for a lot of these laws are is "because it's icky". The justifications seem more like rationalisations.

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

#395

Post by return0 »

venomsnake wrote: post #159
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…

>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…

polygamy is a correct term. polyandry/polygyny are specializations

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

#396

Post by mason55 »

BocceBaal wrote: post #259
BurningFrog wrote: post #227

I'm glad we'll have full gay marriage now. But the idea that "the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage" is pretty laughable. Does anyone really believe this right was in the Constitution for 250 years, only to be discovered recently? In reality public opinion and culture changed, and 5 justices decided to change the law.

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.

What is your opinion on Loving v. Virginia? Do you believe that anti-miscegenation laws should be allowed if the populace decides to vote for them?

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

#397

Post by glesica »

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…

> Why not allow 12 year olds to marry as a consititutional right?

Marriage is a legal contract. 12 year olds can't enter into legal contracts (alone). Therefore, 12 year olds can't get married. This also takes care of pedophiles marrying children.

Gay people are born gay. So this is different from polygamy. Animals can't enter into legal contracts. So this is different from bestiality.

As an aside, my girlfriend just pointed out to me that it is hard to justify laws against incest (two adult relatives). Maybe we shouldn't have such laws.

The best way, in my opinion, to look at this issue is to see marriage not as some kind of weird lovey-dovey thing, but to see it as what it is, a legal contract that has special consideration in many areas of the law and society.

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

#399

Post by scott_karana »

mc32 wrote: post #183
sarciszewski wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that just presumptuous? "All black people trace their immediate ancestry (past 400 or so years) from Africa." Nevermind that black people also come from: Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Thailand, etc.

But when say the victims of a violent crime are all white, the news don't typically say things like 'all five white victims were....' They just say all five victims were...' and whatever dependent clause.

Here's the difference:

> Five statistically unlikely people have been shot simultaneously

> Five statistically common people have been shot simultaneously

To say nothing of the killer's explicitly stated racial motives, historical repression, slavery, curtailing of rights, violence, et cetera. :P

See also, "man bites dog".

If the shooting had been in a predominantly non-white society, the headline could well have been what you proposed.

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

#400

Post by __z »

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…

Two 12 year old girls can get married in Massachusetts as long as their parents approve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_...

Post reply on HN