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

451–460 of 1001 posts

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

#451

Post by curiousgeorgio »

Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root.

What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, at least not as the cultural/religious thing that it is.

In a nation where we care so much about the separation of church (broadly defined to include ideologies that may not be formal religions) and state, I don't understand why we're seeking to only expand that connection.

What should happen is the government should stop defining marriage of any form (leave that to religion or personal tradition), and simply define all these rights under civil union (or a similar phrase with no significant religious/cultural attachment).

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

#452

Post by ctdonath »

clavalle wrote: post #360
ctdonath wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question isn't about whether they're necessary, the question is what happens to someone whose services are solicited and they refuse.

Oh, I see. You are conflating a 'religious service provider' with, say, a business who bakes cakes. Religious institutions are not considered public accommodations so they are not required to offer their services without discrimination to protected classes.

The baker in question specializes in weddings. They may refuse customers if the function at issue is not a wedding. The baker considers the formalized celebratory union of anyone other than a man + woman to be not a wedding.

Now, based on no legislation (as one dissenting Justice makes scathingly clear), a new "protected class" has been created. The baker still considers a pair entering that "protected class" not a "wedding", a view the ruling notes still should be respected and free to hold & act on.

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

#453

Post by Raphmedia »

jrs235 wrote: post #378
jrs235 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we found each other. The things that irritate me the most is that people believe that marriage is a right. It is not. It is a government granted legal status privilege. The privilege grants those recognized as married numerous benefits. Now, with that said, I can't see why allowing any two consenting adults who wish to extend the government recognized benefits to each other should be infringed. One question t…

Marriage is not about love. It is about property. The government/state doesn't give two flying ducks about whether two people get married because they love each other, are in love (infatuated) with each other, or just like each other. Love is not required to get married. Marriage involves determining and transferring property rights (before, during, and after a marriage). A marriage license and a state recognized mar…

About polygamy: If I can share a company with two other founder, share its money and profits, share the building, etc. why can't I do the same thing with my private life if I want to? Instead of dividing by two, you divide by three, four... sixteen... why not?

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

#455

Post by sigzero »

nate_meurer wrote: post #363
humanrebar wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was pointedly prescribed in the old testament. That's a common misconception. It was described, but not prescribed. The polygamy in the Old Testament is universally portrayed as dysfunctional.

Polygamy absolutely was prescribed, in very strong terms, in the form of levirate marriage: If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her. Deuteronomy 25:5-6 And no, it is not universally portrayed…

That isn't polygamy that verse describes.

Every instance of polygamy has a bad ending in the Bible.

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

#456

Post by nostromo »

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #451

Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…

I'm gay and I agree with you.

But, it's not fair to ask gay people to wait around until marriage is removed from our entire legal system (taxes, immigration, property rights, family law, custody...). So in the mean time marriage equality is a much easier fix.

Maybe someday there will be a ruling based on the Equal Protections Clause that bans treating married people differently than unmarried people under the law. Wouldn't that be interesting?

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

#457

Post by beering »

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #451

Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…

But you know that the gov't is not going to just drop marriage any time soon, so it's good that this is happening.

Would you rather continue the (imo) injustice in pursuit of a pie-in-the-sky reform?

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

#458

Post by MichaelGG »

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.

Why two? Civil marriage should be a normal contract between n entities that are allowed to engage in contracts. It seems extremely inelegant to have arbitrary restrictions on it.

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

#459

Post by task_queue »

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. 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 people.

We've proven as a society that this won't happen without administrative action being taken from the top.

The legality has real consequences for people right this second, so waiting for the tide of change is absurd to ask of those that are affected.

Both fronts can be attacked simultaneously.

Though, I do agree there is a trend to pass a stopgap measure and to then pretend the problem is fixed.

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

#460

Post by notNow »

dataker wrote: post #365

Beyond YAY!'s, the state is saying it will 'let' you love someone of the same sex. Can someone sense the creepiness in this? It tells you how/who/why you should love. It still doesn't include certain groups and it could revoke such 'rights' in other circumstances.

Gays wanted this way to be a top down authoritarian decision not a bottom up democratic one so there you have it.

The govt should not be in the business of meddling with personal affairs in the first place except voluntarily and for minimum legal purposes.

Post reply on HN