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

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411

Post by lmm »

rfrey wrote: post #71
tptacek wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get the tl;dr summary of Scalia's dissent; actually read it. Scalia is obnoxious and mean-spirited (and in fine form this time), but he's a really good writer, the fun- to- read kind. IIRC, he wrote a book on writing with Brian Garner, of usage dictionary fame.

I respect Scalia as a scholar and philosopher. But I couldn't find anything in his dissent that couldn't equally apply to desegregation.

Maybe desegregation should have been handled at the state level. It's easy to say "of course the federal government should overrule the states" in cases where the states are obviously wrong, but what about the cases where it's the federal government that's in the wrong? Would standing up for the principle, even in repellent cases like segregation, do more good overall?

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

#412

Post by jbattle »

malkia wrote: post #125
raldi wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. We don't say "gay passport" or "black diploma" or "woman's fishing license".

And yet the news reports I've heard on the shooting in Charleston kept mentioning "9 African Americans". No one calls the "white" folks (that would probably be me) "European Americans" or "Caucasian Americans" in the reports. It's just silly.

Right - it's another manifestation of the subtle and pervasive racism in our society. It/we conceptualize and talk about whites as the "normal" ones, the default, and everyone else as not-normal.

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

#413

Post by pgeorgi »

FlannelPancake wrote: post #190
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 - 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.

The risk to offspring is definitely higher with certain genetic diseases than with relatives.

The case against incest can be made on that base when eugenics are re-established and codified into law. As-is the only argument that holds water is "yuck" - one that same sex marriage proponents should be vaguely familiar with.

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

#414

Post by masklinn »

throwaway342526 wrote: post #250
masklinn wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Timeline 2001 — Netherlands 2001 — Belgium 2005 — Spain, Canada 2006 — South Africa 2009 — Norway, Sweden 2010 — Portugal, Iceland, Argentina 2012 — Denmark 2013 — France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand 2014 — England and Wales 2015 — Luxembourg, Ireland, United States of America 2017 — Finland (the law is voted and signed but not yet in effect) > I mean, Massachusetts le…

So being in the first 10% of countries to legalize is "Catching up?" We're number 20 out of 195.

GP did specify "the developed world". It is a very fuzzy criteria, but however you slice it it's a far cry from 195 countries. The IMF identifies 37 advanced economies and the World Bank lists 31 "high-income OECD members" and 28 Development Assistance Committee members.

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

#415

Post by jfaat »

giaour wrote: post #344
IanDrake wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That seems like a pretty huge and likely misinformed generalization. But feel free to back it up and prove me wrong.

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

#417

Post by lmm »

gherkin0 wrote: post #210
sigzero wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to decide if it is legal or not. If it is not, send it back to Congress to fix. While I agree with the ruling, this court has been doing things clearly outside its purview.

> The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to decide if it is legal or not. This is a really bad idea, you're basically describing an oligarchy. The Supreme Court is really a consensus-enforcing machine, for the most part.

The Supreme Court is a literal oligarchy - it's 9 people who are accountable to no-one. The Senate is a more democratic body, since they can be held to account by voters.

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

#418

Post by DanBC »

hackuser wrote: post #257
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…

12 year olds, and brothers and sisters, are not oppressed minorities facing a long history of brutal discrimination.

http://rt.com/news/185256-us-unicef-children-homicide/

> The US leads Western nations in child homicide rates, while millions of children around the world are threatened with physical, sexual and emotional abuse, including murder, rape and bullying, a new UNICEF report revealed

I dunno, sounds pretty brutal to me.

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

#419

Post by talmand »

vidarh wrote: post #176
talmand wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, I'm tired of hearing about this topic and the time wasted on it. Although, I'm waiting for the 3 consenting adults lawsuit, that will be interesting. EDIT: since the world is full of reactionaries that love to take things out of context; my public disclaimer on this is that I have no issue with this ruling.

Though sometimes it can be entertaining. In the UK the debate included one lord embarrassing himself by "warning" that gay marriage might lead to a lesbian queen giving birth to a future monarch through artificial insemination, as well as musing about how it could allow said lord to marry his son to escape inheritance tax [1] I'm already looking forward to reading some of the tripe that will be written about this SCO…

I'm failing to understand how a lesbian queen and a queen giving birth through artificial insemination is even related. That's just weird. Was the guy suggesting if a queen married to a man, say with sperm issues, who chose to use artificial insemination would somehow produce a child that wouldn't be considered royalty? Even despite being born of the queen? What an idiotic comparison.

Although, I like the father/son marriage thing. That's an interesting thought exercise concerning modern laws. Kind of silly, but interesting nonetheless.

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

#420

Post by usaphp »

rayiner wrote: post #33
troycarlson wrote: post #3

Hopefully this whole "issue" will just go away soon...so many more important things that deserve the public's attention. Edit: To clarify, I support marriage equality and believe this is great news that deserves celebrating.

What's more important. Denial of a basic social rite to the 5-10% who are gay, or something like NSA spying that gets tremendous attention on places like HN but only has a material impact on almost nobody?

5-10%? Are you saying that every 10th person is gay in America?
Post reply on HN