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

481–490 of 1001 posts

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

#481

Post by eropple »

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 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).

Sure. And that was not in the cards. What you want is not on the table and likely never will be. But expanding the rights of people because of basic fairness is a step in the process of making the lives of our fellow Americans better.

Asking gay people to wait for a unicorn is bullshit. Please don't be That Guy. Ideological purity is so often the enemy of making the world better.

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

#482

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. For example, people beat each other on the floor of the senate chamber over slavery. The only difference to this debate is that a court ended it by deciding to change the constitution.

This is not how the process is supposed to work. The fact that the majority of the US may be tired of a broken political system does not change this.

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

#483

Post by lukifer »

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…

One of the most brilliant ideas I've heard on the subject is a couple of proposed constitutional amendments stating that (a) your body is your personal property, and (b) you have an inalienable right to define who is a member of your family. When framed in that way, even most social conservatives would agree with the underlying principles.

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

#484

Post by lisper »

MajorLOL wrote: post #343
lisper wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I necessarily disagree with legalizing polygamy, but I think there is one non-bigoted answer: logistics. Our financial system in general, and our tax system in particular, has N=1 or N=2 hard-coded into it. There are other practical considerations as well. Suppose, for example, you have an N=5 marriage and three of them want to break away and take the kids. Resolving situations like that would be much more c…

While true, it's not a valid reason for preventing progress on the deconstruction of marriage. 'Our system is messy and complicated, so if we add more variables, it will be an even bigger mess!' - so make the system less messy and enable more variables. Can you imagine if someone came and said add this function/feature to the program and in response you said "the program is complicated and the code is long, no need t…

I don't claim this argument is valid, only that it is non-bigoted (and defensible).

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

#485

Post by jsmthrowaway »

taytus wrote: post #116
aedocw wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoting a comedian as a means of reflecting what's popular or at least socially acceptable is an appropriate and accurate way to say "at one point in recent history, it was socially acceptable to say demeaning things about gay people." Michael Richards is a comedian, and made anti-Semitic remarks that resulted in a significant backlash. Again, looking back this is a good indication of someone saying something that wa…

I think it all depends on the context. A comedy show is a comedy show. People are always looking for ways to feel offended.

In this case, the quote omitted the context of archetypes and specific people, namely George W. Bush, that Chapelle was very obviously satirizing. I say very obviously, because it wasn't a nuanced depiction: the skit was literally described as him being black Bush, and he was in a suit behind the POTUS podium, addressing the media.

Removing the context from that and hitting Chapelle for it is just a convenient target.

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

#486

Post by brandonmenc »

adventured wrote: post #323
brandonmenc wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm glad you are finally catching up to the rest of the developed world. Call us when one of you elects a black head of state.

To be fair, the response you're going to get there is: how about when the US elects a woman as head of state.

Don't worry, we'll elect a woman president before Europe elects a black one. Guaranteed.

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

#487

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

bduerst wrote: post #362
a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That used to be illegal, too.

So you don't have a problem with gay marriage, you have a problem with unsafe anal sex.

The assertion under discussion is that sodomy is not "gross." Do keep up.

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

#488

Post by coldtea »

aedocw wrote: post #98
taytus wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dave Chappelle is a comedian, they say stuff like that all the time, it's part of their job. If you are going to quote somebody (specially on these issues), I'd recommend not to quote a comedian.

Quoting a comedian as a means of reflecting what's popular or at least socially acceptable is an appropriate and accurate way to say "at one point in recent history, it was socially acceptable to say demeaning things about gay people." Michael Richards is a comedian, and made anti-Semitic remarks that resulted in a significant backlash. Again, looking back this is a good indication of someone saying something that wa…

It's still acceptable for a comedia to say to say demeaning things about gay, black, indians, asians, jews, whites, WASPs etc -- including rape victims, terrorism survivors, heroes, politicans, babies, etc.

That's what comedians do. Listen to Louis C.K (or anyone, really).

>Michael Richards is a comedian, and made anti-Semitic remarks that resulted in a significant backlash

Depends if he made them as part of a comedic routine or not. And actually even when part of a routine, depends if they were told as genuine preaching / ranting, or just for the comedic effect / exaggeration / black humor of it.

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

#489

Post by shas3 »

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…

It is about Government benefits primarily. The government incentivizes marriage through tax breaks, etc. So the definition of marriage matters in administering these benefits. The legislative branch should first start with redefining the eligibility for these benefits to keep religion out.

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

#490

Post by bighi »

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…

Which one is better?

1) A culture of segregation in the minds of part of the population AND segregative laws.

or

2) A culture of segregation in the minds of part of the population.

I would say 2 is better than 1. They already fixed part of it. And a part that was hurting a lot of people.

Post reply on HN