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

441–450 of 1001 posts

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

#441

Post by jrs235 »

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…

"The Contitution, the Bill of Rights in particular, protects minority rights"...

"minority" should be replace with "individual". An individual is the greatest minority.

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

#442

Post by yourapostasy »

sgnelson wrote: post #188
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…

One problem I have with Polygamy is that I have never seen a 1-woman, multi-husband community. Sure, I've seen a few relationships in which this was the case, but when you look at the historic aspects in the US, it seems a very rare thing. That makes me wonder if there is a severe power imbalance in the relationships and what is truly occurring. It's well known that in some modern US polygamy situations, there is a g…

The term of art for 1-woman, multi-husband arrangements is "polyandry". The Wikipedia entry [1] has a citation to a survey that finds about 50 out of about 1230 known societies in a 1980 ethnographic atlas practicing polyandry, so it is a distinct minority community-scale arrangement.

The next public, conventional taboo to broach is group and line marriages. As economic conditions worsen for some nations' middle class in the upcoming decades, line marriage can potentially offer a coping mechanism, trading off resource collectivization and time in exchange for recapturing increased security of various forms.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry

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

#443

Post by pyre »

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.

> Some states have low taxes.

Some states have no taxes. Contrast Washington (state) and Oregon. Oregon has no sales tax, but an income tax. Washington has sales tax, but no income tax.

In Portland (which is right on the Washington-Oregon border), I recall a car with the license plate "TAXFREE," which was ambiguous enough that I couldn't figure out if it was referring to the owner being "tax free" (paying no income tax living in Washington) or that the car was "tax free" (the owner paid no sales tax when purchasing it in Oregon).

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

#444

Post by hackuser »

Roodgorf wrote: post #405
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…

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…

> 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.

Don't forget that liberal madness about replacing monarchs with elected government!

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

#445

Post by JoeAltmaier »

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.

The 'inbreeding' argument doesn't, and has never, held water. Not that I'm about to jump my sister; but as a point of science its not terribly significant. Cousins can actually have closer DNA than siblings; cousins are often allowed to marry (varies state by state). The idea that only horrible monsters will result is silly; its how all purebred farm animals are created.

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

#446

Post by return0 »

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…

"In forming a marital union, two people become something greater"

I wonder if the american constitution has the word "two" hardwired anywhere.

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

#447

Post by therobot24 »

michaelsbradley wrote: post #318

A sad day for our country, our highest court and much of our culture has succumbed to social insanity. For my part, I will never under any circumstances recognize by word or deed that any so-called marriage can be or has been established between two persons of the same sex. No government on earth has the power or authority to do that, anymore than a legislature could repeal the law of gravity or a judge could declare…

>> With kindness and charity, but with firm resolve, persons of good will should give civil disobedience to this court ruling and all that flows from it.

lol wut. In a single sentence you basically just said to nicely riot

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

#448

Post by rqebmm »

aNoob7000 wrote: post #347
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…

You asked, why this minority? Because two consenting adults want to get married, that's why. Not two children, but two adult Americans want to get married and have it recognized around the United States, not just a few states. States screwed up when they took the civil part of marriage and associated it with the ceremonial part in a church.

>States screwed up when they took the civil part of marriage and associated it with the ceremonial part in a church.

Couldn't agree more. To me the correct answer is that the government should grant civil unions, and not recognize marriages in any legal way. Marriage should be between people and their religious institution. Want to get married? Great! Go to your church and sign your civil union documentation when you're done with the ceremony to get all the governmental perks. If your church doesn't want to allow homosexual marriage? Fine! Homosexuals can find an accepting congregation and get married there. Or they're non-religious, and can just go get a civil union without the marriage.

The real problem with the gay marriage debate hasn't been the inequality, or the bigotry, it's the fact that a religious institution got mixed up with a legal institution. So instead of teasing them apart, we've decided that the legal definition now partially defines the religious institution. That is why some people are going to continue to be somewhat justifiably angry about this. If we just gave them separate definitions, it would let people self-select private institutions whose definition they agreed with.

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

#449

Post by sgnelson »

adventured wrote: post #222
sgnelson wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem I have with Polygamy is that I have never seen a 1-woman, multi-husband community. Sure, I've seen a few relationships in which this was the case, but when you look at the historic aspects in the US, it seems a very rare thing. That makes me wonder if there is a severe power imbalance in the relationships and what is truly occurring. It's well known that in some modern US polygamy situations, there is a g…

That same concern already equally applies to traditional marriage, in which some % are abusive. If you have a problem with polygamy on that basis, then you've got a drastically larger problem with the already existing system of marriage, in which millions of instances of abuse occur annually. The best solution is to bring polygamy out into the open, legalize it fully nationally. The government has no business dictati…

As to abuse in a typical 2 person marriage, yes, you're right, but this is also something that I believe society tries to deal with. There are always going to be abusive relationships, regardless of how many people are in them, but I do think that my question (opinion, whatever you want to call it), about how power and relationships change depending on the number of people involved is something to consider.

I totally agree with the fact that marriage is none of the government's business. But at the same time, we would probably want to change some tax laws and social benefits if polygamy became legal.

(I really couldn't care less if polygamy is legal or not. Yes, if there is a relationship of 5 women and 5 men, then there is no difference than traditional marriage system. But I really do wonder about what happens when you have 1 male with 10 wives, and 9 other young males with zero wives. In the past, this has traditionally lead to some form of revolutions. I haven't seen anyone actually answer this question yet, just people calling me a troll and a bigot.)

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

#450

Post by jrs235 »

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.

>Children are not considered capable of consent.

Children (minors and the "age of majority") and age of consent is defined by law. While we have come mostly to an agreement on the age of consent for many things, nothing prevents us from changing our definitions or age of consent for varying activities.

Post reply on HN