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

491–500 of 1001 posts

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

#491

Post by verisimilidude »

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…

Marriage is really important to people. If you define the legal part of that as "civil union", people will add new cultural/religious significance to that new definition. Then when polygamy or whatever becomes popular in 2115, the conservatives of that time will cry out about the "sanctity of only two people in civil union, the way it's always been!" And around the circle we go.

What's important today is that our country has expanded our liberties and rights, and a lot of people can now live fuller and more secure lives as a result.

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

#492

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#493

Post by snowwrestler »

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…

Essentially, the question is whether marriage is a right, or is it a privilege.

If it is a right, then it should not be subject to the democratic process in the first place, so taking it out does not count as erosion. If it is a privilege, then it can be granted (or not) through the democratic process. The Court held today that it is a right.

Disclaimer--I have not finished reading all the opinions yet.

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

#494

Post by malkia »

malkia wrote: post #125
raldi wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. We don't say "gay passport" or "black diploma" or "woman's fishing license".

And yet the news reports I've heard on the shooting in Charleston kept mentioning "9 African Americans". No one calls the "white" folks (that would probably be me) "European Americans" or "Caucasian Americans" in the reports. It's just silly.

I see some fair points in here. It's possible that what I've heard was influenced by the recent findings of the shooter.

But I'm just so pissed, because in my country (Bulgaria) the roma (gypsy) population are always treated (by the media, and unfortunately a lot of people I know) as non-bulgarians, non-citizens, even non-people by some.

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

#495

Post by EdSharkey »

lisper wrote: post #253
ctdonath wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bakers specializing in facilitating weddings have been punished for refusing to provide wedding cakes to events which they consider not weddings. ETA: clergy have [citation needed] been prosecuted for refusing to perform weddings based on race.

But that is not the same thing at all. People can (and will) get married with or without cakes. A baker refusing to serve a gay couple is no different from refusing to serve a black couple or a handicapped couple or a fat couple. That's not religion, that's commerce. Religious beliefs do not entitle you to discriminate in matters of commerce.

It sounds like our hypothetical baker can't object to giving service on any grounds by your explanation. Are there truly no limits in your mind?

Must the Muslim baker need to bake the gay marriage cake and deliver it to the ceremony just because some customer wants one made? Must the Christian baker bake a cake with a pentagram and goat head on it and deliver it to the sacrificial altar just because some customer wants one made? Or, how about yesterday's lurch issue? Shall we force the black baker to bake a rebel flag cake with some racist epithet on it because some a-hole customer wants it?

Can't we back off here and simply respect one another's personal or religious beliefs? Respect must flow in both directions in a civil society, in my opinion. If the baker doesn't want to participate in the target celebration based on personal or religious beliefs, why not just amicably part ways? Why the bent noses if the customer can find some other baker that will gladly take the money and participate. Why does this even rise to the legal challenge level?

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

#496

Post by brownegg »

nostromo wrote: post #456
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. Wo…

I can't upvote this hard enough. OP is right in my mind, but....

I'm straight (and divorced), and we got married for many of the same reasons that LGBT folks want to--it makes sense. Visitation rights, inheritance, tax treatment, etc.

It's unlikely that marriage would be removed as something of concern to lawmakers--has that kind of thing ever happened anywhere, any time, any way?

I respect OP's opinion, but it's ivory tower and we're talking about real people right now.

possibly unnecessary edit: just want to reiterate that I think OP is _right_, it's just not practical, and I'll sacrifice rightness for a rather-large "quick and dirty win".

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

#497

Post by Homunculiheaded »

seszett wrote: post #356
BurningFrog wrote: post #227

I'm glad we'll have full gay marriage now. But the idea that "the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage" is pretty laughable. Does anyone really believe this right was in the Constitution for 250 years, only to be discovered recently? In reality public opinion and culture changed, and 5 justices decided to change the law.

> Does anyone really believe this right was in the Constitution for 250 years, only to be discovered recently? That seems to be the case to me. I'm not completely familiar with US history, but don't you think the right of black people to be free and equal to the other people was already written in the constitution 250 years ago, for example? Or women's suffrage. It just took a while to actually recognize it. Homosexu…

I'm not disagreeing with your general premise that the fundamental right for equality is the basis of the constitution and therefore equal marriage is implied by it. But to your points:

"the right of black people to be free and equal to the other people" (specifically the abolishment of slavery) Is made explicit in the 13th amendment[0]

And "women's suffrage" is the 19th amendment[1]

So for both of your examples, these things are explicity added to the constitution.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...

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

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

#498

Post by fixermark »

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…

This is a logically-consistent line of thought that---inconveniently---doesn't seem to align with evidence.

Historically, it seems to be the case that when society legalizes something, and people can observe that under that new order, society doesn't crumble, societal attitudes on the morality of that thing change to reflect the reality (albeit slowly).

Consider women's suffrage. Consider no-fault divorce. Consider black men and white men being forced to serve side-by-side in WWII by the draft, then coming home to a country that still treated them unequal in the eyes of the law.

It's not a 100% consistent scenario (contrast abortion rights debate in the wake of Roe v. Wade), but the trend is for culture to adapt in the face of evidence.

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

#499

Post by nmrm2 »

nostromo wrote: post #456
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. Wo…

Very interesting, because it would undermine basically everything SCOTUS has ever said about marriage.

(undermine in the sense of reverse a principle upon which the arguments used by SCOTUS to defend various decisions depend.)

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

#500

Post by techpeace »

DannyBee wrote: post #482
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…

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 pas…

As a lawyer, could you explain how denying over 1,000 federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples would be offering them equal protection under the law?
Post reply on HN