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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by benjohnson »

pjc50 wrote: post #114
hackuser wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> opinion also reasserted that people who are really mad about this can continue to be mad and vocal about it, as guaranteed by the First Amendment Was this a question? I don't think I've heard anyone ever say otherwise. I'll add though, that people long have cloaked oppression in religion. People justified (and still justify) slavery, segregation, and oppression of women under the guise of religion, for example. Som…

There are quite a lot of people who argued that changing the definition of marriage was an infringement of their religious rights. I've never been clear on how that was supposed to happen but maybe you can dig it out of the oral arguments.

I am one of those religious types - if I may give you me reasoning or at least my ideas:

The immediate difficulty comes when we as religious citizens have trouble with separating what is civilly permissible with what is a religious ideal.

Long term, religious people are worried that our institution and faith will not be allowed to continue if a super-majority deems us unworthy - as we have seen through history.

As for me I'm not terribly upset at all as over my short life I should be infinitely more worried about my sacramental relationship with my wife than what others claim marriage should look like.

I would also point out from a religious standpoint that some people have found solace today actually points to the reality of how wonderful sacramental marriage truly is.

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

#432

Post by JoeAltmaier »

coryfklein wrote: post #429
themoonbus wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

It takes imagination for the founding fathers to allow women to vote. We own the constitution; its ours to interpret and change.

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

#433

Post by ninkendo »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #195
malkia wrote: post #112

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their…

Does this formally mean that gay marriage has been legal in the US since the 18th century, but no one noticed until recently? (half-serious question) Congratulations to Americans and to gays worldwide for this great step forward.

Strictly speaking it means the laws against gay marriage were themselves illegal. (As with any law deemed unconstitutional.) It's a matter of word choice to say "gay marriage was always legal" versus "anti-gay marriage laws were always illegal". There's some semantic difference between the two, but I'm not sure what the difference is from a judicial standpoint.

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

#434

Post by mhurron »

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.

Rights that are not backed by Law do not materially exist. That is why the Bill of Rights (and related documents in other countries) had to be written in the first place.

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

#435

Post by jsmthrowaway »

bennettfeely wrote: post #351
gaymarriage wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what a bogus argument. You're saying because 'some modern polygamy situations' are unhealthy, we should hope to keep it illegal? You're going to freak out when you learn about the divorce rate.

Polygamy is simply very different than same-sex marriage. It’s associated with patriarchy and sexual abuse, rather than liberation and equality. It flourishes in self-segregated communities, Mormon-fundamentalist and Muslim-immigrant, rather than being widely distributed across society. Its practitioners (so far as we know) are considerably fewer in number than the roughly 3.5 percent of Americans who identify as gay…

Nothing about marriage has anything to do with liberation or equality. That's a modern attitude. Marriage is associated with the treatment of a person as property and arrangements for political and financial reasons, even to this day. And yet here you are, saying one type of marriage is okay and the other kind that you're not particularly close to is associated with Mormons and Muslims and antiprogressivism, while lauding a modern view on one marriage and taking the dated view on another.

The reason plurals doesn't flourish, to you, is because the people who practice it don't tell you, lest you tell them what you just told us, and the inevitable "are you Mormon?"

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

#436

Post by DanBC »

greggman wrote: post #424
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…

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 r…

The risks are not "minimal". There are increased risks in cultures where first cousins marry. Part of that is that married first cousins have an increased risk of having children with birth defects. And part of it is that people are more related than they think if everyone is marrying a first cousin.

The link I posted earlier deals with this.

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

#437

Post by hackuser »

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…

> Today's decision pushes back the more important goals of social equality and cultural integration. ... 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 the result was that segregation does not exist in America.

As a counterpoint: Since the civil rights era, the welfare and integration of the black-skinned Americans has improved dramatically. Some argue that desegregation alienated more hearts and minds than it helped, but I've yet to see any evidence. Certainly American opinions about blacks also have changed dramatically. (But I agree that we do have a long way to go.)

> No hearts and no minds are changed as a result of the supreme court rulings, just the code powering the justice system ...

I'm not sure no hearts and minds were changed -- I suspect many will reconsider, having seen the decision of a respected institution and the direction of society -- but I agree that you can't do that by court order. But there is a very substantive change: Gay Americans now can get married!

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

#438

Post by ikeboy »

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.

If that's a valid argument, why isn't the same argument [1] against gays valid? Conversely, if greater risk isn't enough of a constitutional reason to allow bans on gay marriage, why is it enough to make incest bans constitutional?

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/

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

#439

Post by nsxwolf »

lisper wrote: post #327
lmm wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why have the states at all? Why have a tenth amendment?

Because even if you eliminate discrimination as one degree of freedom in the legal code, that still leaves a lot of room for experimentation. Some states have legalized marijuana, others haven't. Some states have high taxes. Some states have low taxes. Some states allow self-serve gasoline, others don't. I could go on and on. There's an awful lot of room for legal "biodiversity" left.

Based on this flowery language on the 14th Amendment in the majority opinion, I'm having trouble understanding why the 14th Amendment doesn't make marijuana bans illegal too.

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

#440

Post by JoeAltmaier »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #435
bennettfeely wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polygamy is simply very different than same-sex marriage. It’s associated with patriarchy and sexual abuse, rather than liberation and equality. It flourishes in self-segregated communities, Mormon-fundamentalist and Muslim-immigrant, rather than being widely distributed across society. Its practitioners (so far as we know) are considerably fewer in number than the roughly 3.5 percent of Americans who identify as gay…

Nothing about marriage has anything to do with liberation or equality. That's a modern attitude. Marriage is associated with the treatment of a person as property and arrangements for political and financial reasons, even to this day. And yet here you are, saying one type of marriage is okay and the other kind that you're not particularly close to is associated with Mormons and Muslims and antiprogressivism, while la…

Marriage of course depends entirely upon the married, their culture and their interpretation. Especially in America where we have fused 100 cultures and traditions, there's little you can call universal truths about marriage.
Post reply on HN