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

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

#401

Post by guelo » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:24 PM UTC

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…

Scalia says striking down campaign finance laws passed by congress and supported by the people was vital but striking down discriminatory marriage laws is extreme judicial overreach. There's no principle there, it's just the politically expedient argument for his ideological battles.

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

#402

Post by themoonbus » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:25 PM UTC

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.

I'm not an expert, but it is often claimed that the constitution is a living document, that is, it is designed to be broad and flexible

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

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

#403

Post by ryandrake » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:25 PM UTC

jayess wrote: post #148

My partner and I are discussing getting married, but the federal income tax "marriage penalty" is giving us serious pause.

Marriage penalty? My taxes went way down when I got married. Additionally, all of the income limits where benefits phase out go up when you're married, so for instance, you might qualify for a Roth IRA when you're married filing jointly, but not if you're single. In my experience, getting married is one of the best things you can do for your tax bill.

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

#404

Post by pgeorgi » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:25 PM UTC

jscheel wrote: post #142

I've never really given credence to the people that suggested a ruling would be a slippery slope. However, after reading the opinion for myself, I can see how the court's stance on marriage (opposite-sex and same-sex) can now be extended to polygamy and incest. I understand the need to define it as a fundamental right within the context of this ruling, but it seems that some of the wording opens the way for other mar…

Incest is legal in France since 1810 - and the new law from 2010 that seem to forbid it really doesn't. It's some additional protection law for minors.

As far as I can tell, it didn't lead to the entire French population growing an additional eye (and I doubt that incest rates are extraordinary in the first place), so the impact of lifting that ban probably isn't all that bad.

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

#405

Post by Roodgorf » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:25 PM UTC

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…

I think your third point is what's most striking about the dissenting opinion. Not providing marriage licenses to couples based on the arbitrary criteria of sex is a deliberate act of denying a specific group of people access to marriage.

The women's and civil rights movements went against the traditions of plenty of millennial old cultures such as the "Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs"[0] as well.

[0]http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf#p...

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

#406

Post by andreyf » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:27 PM UTC

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…

Legally, you are right. Morally and practically, I'm not so sure. Few hearts and minds are changed as a result of the supreme court's rulings, just the code powering the justice system. Convincing 5 of the top judges is easy compared to convincing the populace, and the latter is more important for the long term goals of equality.

Federally legislated social change pushes back the more important goals of social equality and cultural integration. These are arguably more important, as our interactions with marriage laws are a relatively minor part of our lives when compared to our interactions with other people.

The historical precedent here is clear, of course - there are no and have been no segregation laws in America for decades as a result of federal action, but you'd be silly to say that segregation does not exist in America.

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

#407

Post by raisedbyninjas » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:27 PM UTC

matt-attack wrote: post #306

FlannelPancake wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incest - maybe. There's a clear harm involved there (inbreeding depression) that's much more substantive than anything used to argue against gay marriage. Polygamy - We probably will revisit our stance on polygamy in decades to come. Historically it's been used in a way that's profoundly imbalanced towards women (i.e. almost exclusively polygyny), but it's not hard to imagine a future where that's not the case.

> There's a clear harm involved there You conflation of marriage with breeding should be rethought. I suppose infertile couples should be allowed to marry since they cannot bear children?

Also brothers, sisters, mom and daughter, nephew and uncle

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

#408

Post by __z » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:27 PM UTC

glesica wrote: post #397

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? 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…

>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.

I don't think we should have them. We only have them because its "eeeewwwww." Social taboo. Cousin marriage is legal in most of the east coast, including in my state and cousin marriage wasn't taboo historically.

In non-cousin marriage states it would be hard to enforce such a ban anyways. Do you have to prove you aren't related when you get your license? Who is going to find out? Who is going to care? Is the IRS going to challenge you? Is your employer going to find out your spouse is actually your cousin, know that is illegal in the state you got married in, and then deny your spouse benefits because your marriage wasn't technically legal? Probably not.

"Genetic problems" is compelling in some ways (but probably overblown) but you can have sex without marriage and marriage without sex and have sex without children (especially in the case of same-sex sex, post menopause sex, sex with someone who had their gonads removed, sex with inter-sexed persons... I can go on...)

I would also say it is your choice to have children with genetic problems - I mean we don't actually outlaw it. If two people were carriers of a terrible disease we don't punish the parents for knowingly taking that risk. We don't punish parents who have children much later in life (children born to parents of advanced age have a higher chance of a few diseases such as Down's Syndrome.)

The reason we have these laws is nobody has challenged them in court yet and is not likely to because not to many people want to marry their sister enough to file a federal lawsuit and I'm not aware of too many people who were arrested for incest (regardless if they were practicing it or not).

Legislatures can pass any laws they want. It can only be challenged by judicial review after said law is passed.

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

#409

Post by claudius » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:27 PM UTC

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).…

> That's the essence of democracy; the Constitution and country are now ours

But isn’t that exactly the point? As I understand the various previous posters, the main argument is not whether the constitution should ensure a right to marry for everyone, but whether it does give out this right.

Further (again my interpretation), it seems that the issue is that the previous interpretation of the constitution did not allow for homosexuals to marry – otherwise it would have been allowed before. ‘The People’ now want to give out this right, but: should it be granted by a court deciding “This sentence, which previously was interpreted as X, now means Y” or should it be done by a change of the actual constitution?

Additionally, does this ruling imply that homosexuals were always allowed to marry (i.e. the constitution/law always allowed it, it was just misinterpreted by the courts) or does it mean that the law has now suddenly changed? Then, should such a change of law be implemented by a court or via the usual democratic process?

(I don’t understand the common law system and the US enough to give any answers to these questions, but they do seem interesting.)

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

#410

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 4:28 PM UTC

matt-attack wrote: post #306

FlannelPancake wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incest - maybe. There's a clear harm involved there (inbreeding depression) that's much more substantive than anything used to argue against gay marriage. Polygamy - We probably will revisit our stance on polygamy in decades to come. Historically it's been used in a way that's profoundly imbalanced towards women (i.e. almost exclusively polygyny), but it's not hard to imagine a future where that's not the case.

> There's a clear harm involved there You conflation of marriage with breeding should be rethought. I suppose infertile couples should be allowed to marry since they cannot bear children?

[deleted]