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

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Post by nate_meurer »

spdustin wrote: post #273
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.

I think that's the wrong argument to make. There were a lot of things said in the Old Testament that aren't considered by most Christians to be applicable to them. The "Old Covenant" was, as the Jewish maintain today, between God and the Jews. For most Christians (more specifically, Catholics and several other groups), the laws in the Old Testament ceased to be valid when Jesus proclaimed the way into Heaven. That sa…

> "For most Christians (more specifically, Catholics and several other groups), the laws in the Old Testament ceased to be valid when Jesus proclaimed the way into Heaven."

Those Christians may have a bit of a quarrel with Jesus himself:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:17-18

One of the most important verses in the bible. It holds the tension between the judgement brought by the Old Covenant on the one hand, and our salvation and freedom in Christ on the other. Although its complexities are rightly subject to debate, there's simply no room to claim that the entire Old Convenant is invalid in Christian theology.

> "appealing to biblical authority is fraught with oppositions that focus on the numerous inconsistencies in the bible."

Amen to that.

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

#422

Post by rayiner »

andreyf wrote: post #406
hackuser wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 equali…

On the flip side, SCOTUS rulings have the power to accelerate trends already happening in society. Making segregation in schools and in housing illegal does not eliminate racism. But it does lead to a generation of people that aren't raised in schools and neighborhoods that only have people of one race.

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

#423

Post by dpark »

andreyf wrote: post #406
hackuser wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 equali…

> Convincing 5 of the top judges is easy compared to convincing the populace

About 60% of US residents now support gay marriage and consider it a right, according to the polls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_mar...

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

#424

Post by greggman »

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…

Just a random thought but you could argue age discrimination is still equal because except for death, everyone goes through the same ages. In other words, when you're 25 you'll be treated by the law the same as other 25yr olds.

Brothers and sisters does seems to me like it's just people think of it as icky. Some cultures encourage marrying first cousins and the genetic risks are minimal. And even people that aren't related can and are tested for whether their genes combined will likely lead to genetic issues with their children. In other words the genetic risk is mostly not a valid excuse to ban siblings from marrying anymore than not being able to create children is for same sex couples.

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

#425

Post by aclimatt »

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…

I believe the issue is that by passing a law prohibiting granting a marriage license to a same-sex couple, a State is violating that couple's Fourteenth Amendment right to life, liberty, and equal protection, among other things.

I will admit that there were a lot of high-soaring words that might have covered up the legal basis, but to me, the legal component of the ruling was simply:

1) The court finds that marriage is an inherent part of life and liberty (arguably the shakiest part)

2) A State passing a law prohibiting marriage by one specific group of people is taking away their rights of life and liberty

3) Therefore, said law is found to violate the Fourteenth Amendment which grants life, liberty, and equal protection under the law to all United States citizens, and is thus unconstitutional.

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

#426

Post by pyre »

th0waway wrote: post #330
mhurron wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can anybody counter Scalia, and say why the issue of gay marriage couldn't wait to be resolved by the states? Why should the States have the rights to prevent the exercise of a citizens civil rights granted by the US Constitution? The Constitiution, and the Bill of Rights explicitly, exists because there are things that are just not left up to 'the majority' to come to a democratic decision over. They are rights th…

holy crap! "granted by the US Constitution" - wow, where to begin? Here, how about this: our 'rights' are not granted by the Constitution, they are emphasized, publicly proclaimed. The Constitution delineates the rights and responsibilities of the GOVERNMENT. Anything granted can be taken away.

The Constitution 'grants us rights' in the way that it prevents the government from infringing upon them.

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

#427

Post by defen »

lisper wrote: post #335
jmorphy88 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in other words, "the beatings will continue until you come around to our views"?

No, the beatings will continue for as long as you fail to respect the law. If you want to forbid gay marriage, it's very simple: repeal the fourteenth amendment. (Good luck with that.) It's like I tell my liberal friends: if you want to regulate guns, it's very simple: repeal the second amendment.

So according to this ruling, the right for two men to marry has been "lurking" in the Constitution since 1868, right? But we just now discovered it? What I mean is that if someone had brought this case before the Supreme Court in 1870, the legally correct decision would have been to allow gay marriage? Things like that make me wonder what other "rights" (scare quotes because they are things that would not be considered rights today) are hidden in the Constitution, that will be discovered 150 years hence but would shock the conscience of nearly everyone alive today.

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

#428

Post by zzzeek »

lisper wrote: post #335
jmorphy88 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in other words, "the beatings will continue until you come around to our views"?

No, the beatings will continue for as long as you fail to respect the law. If you want to forbid gay marriage, it's very simple: repeal the fourteenth amendment. (Good luck with that.) It's like I tell my liberal friends: if you want to regulate guns, it's very simple: repeal the second amendment.

the word "regulated" is the third word of the second amendment.

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

#429

Post by coryfklein »

themoonbus wrote: post #402
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

It takes a lot of imagination to think that the founders had any vision of the laws that the commerce clause would be used to justify today.

It took me a long time to realize that whether or not the constitution was designed or intentioned as a "living document" is completely irrelevant. What matters is how the process actually works today, and it works as if the constitution is a living document, therefore it is a living document. See also: Duck typing.

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

#430

Post by adventured »

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…

Gay people do not have to be born gay, even if the radical majority tend to be.

There is nothing that prevents a person from deciding they want to experiment sexually, or completely alter their sexual identity, at any given time.

It would be a form of bigotry to proclaim that straight people can't choose to be gay of their own free will, and vice versa. It would imply we're not in control of our own sexuality, and that we lack free will.

And this is not a support of the bigots that proclaim that being gay is always a choice and that gay people should just stop pretending and change their minds --- those people were always in the wrong, their argument was always vile. Sticking to the: gay people are all born gay, premise, is a defeatist response to that bigotry, it's a very very poor defense when a defense is not needed at all.

The proper position is: if I want to be straight or gay, it is my choice, period. If I'm born gay, that's fine; if I'm born gay and want to be straight, that's fine; if I'm born gay and only want to be gay, that's fine. And so on.

Post reply on HN