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

471–480 of 1001 posts

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

#471

Post by enlightenedfool »

samch wrote: post #197
enlightenedfool wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, you should start leading again by cross-species marriage too. It may sound bizarre now but that's how same sex marriage was a 100 years back. Marrying your pets should be legal too.

One of these days, I'll earn the right to downvote a hateful comment. Seriously, any analogy of gay marriage and marrying animals is outright hateful.

what? what's hateful? How's giving animals the status of humans hateful? I gave a no analogy there. I mentioned a possibility. Also, I am pretty sure 100 years back someone mentioning that gay marriage should be legal was categorized as hateful.

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

#472

Post by eropple »

ufmace wrote: post #249
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.

That's much more along the lines of what I think. It's kind of the libertarian dilemma - with Gay Marriage, there's one huge, loud camp of religious homophobic bigots demanding that big daddy Government say that Gay Marriage is an illegal abomination, and another huge, loud group of homosexual-rights activists demanding that big daddy Government say that Gay Marriage is a-ok and governments everywhere are required to…

You're not being ignored. Lots of people agree that, in an ideal world, the government not having a role in marriage would be a decent solution. This is not an ideal world and that political position is not feasible; in the art of the possible, that is not.

On the other hand, we have people being harmed by the unreasonable jank thrown at homosexuals who wish to marry. The perfect must not be made the enemy of the good out of a sense of ideological purity.

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

#473

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#474

Post by Roodgorf »

hackuser wrote: post #444
Roodgorf wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

The audacity! Europeans had feudalism for... as long as I can remember! Who do those colonists think they are?

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

#475

Post by fixermark »

jasonjei wrote: post #464
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…

What's shocking to me is that we need permission from the state to marry, whether gay or straight. Why do we need the blessing of the government to marry anyway? We can have kids without permission from the state (so long as you aren't in China), why do we need to ask for permission and "apply for marriage"? In theory, applying for marriage implies the government could deny a marriage, gay or straight. Why do we impl…

Because the unions carry legal consequences, and are therefore the purview of the state.

That having been said, one could imagine that a government that didn't evolve from a religiously-knitted culture would have grounded those unions of family more firmly in contract law, not in a construct that's bound up with gender requirements.

... and when you can find such a government on the entirety of Earth, let me know. ;)

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

#476

Post by williamle8300 »

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 think it's trickier than that because tax laws are deeply intertwined with institutions like marriage.

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

#477

Post by coryfklein »

hackuser wrote: post #100
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…

> 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…

> Was this a question? I don't think I've heard anyone ever say otherwise.

As a former Mormon, I'll give a resounding YES. Mormons have a persecution complex. And whenever Prop 8 or gay marriage is brought up it gets even worse. They tend to inflate opposition - you say "we should legalize gay marriage" and they will respond "I have a right to talk about my religious beliefs!!"

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

#478

Post by DannyBee »

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…

Sorry, but as a lawyer totally in favor of gay marriage, Roberts, at least, is completely right on the legal theory.

There has been basically nothing, in the history of our country, considered more of a state right than defining marriage.

The supreme court is not a ruling council. Our constitution is about freedom from government intervention, not guaranteed government benefits.

The debates over everything in the past that led to amendments looked roughly the same as the debate over same sex marriage. The only difference is this time a court ended it by deciding to change the constitution.

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

#479

Post by api »

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 agree with them in a sense -- it's not democratic. Neither was desegregation. As the saying goes: democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

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

#480

Post by bighi »

jasonjei wrote: post #464
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…

What's shocking to me is that we need permission from the state to marry, whether gay or straight. Why do we need the blessing of the government to marry anyway? We can have kids without permission from the state (so long as you aren't in China), why do we need to ask for permission and "apply for marriage"? In theory, applying for marriage implies the government could deny a marriage, gay or straight. Why do we impl…

It's the opposite. You can be together whoever you want. What they mean, in this case, is the government recognition of your union. As the government need defined laws to operate...

And why do the government need to recognize the union? To give them some rights that united people need. Like keeping important possessions (like a house), becoming responsible for kids, taking important medical decisions when the other person can't take them, etc.

Post reply on HN