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

501–510 of 1001 posts

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

#501

Post by jasonjei »

bighi wrote: post #480
jasonjei wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

I understand that laws need definition, but why does a definition need governmental approval? Do we apply for a permit before we want to give birth to a child? Shouldn't it be the same basis as having a kid--that is, if you're going to marry, you are marrying, and no one is to have a say in that except realize that is fact?

Last time I checked, there is no application to have a kid, and kids are defined in law for governmental institutions like negligence of a child, etc.

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

#502

Post by anonz_ »

FlannelPancake wrote: post #190
jscheel wrote: post #142

I've never really given credence to the people that suggested a ruling would be a slippery slope. However, after reading the opinion for myself, I can see how the court's stance on marriage (opposite-sex and same-sex) can now be extended to polygamy and incest. I understand the need to define it as a fundamental right within the context of this ruling, but it seems that some of the wording opens the way for other mar…

Incest - maybe. There's a clear harm involved there (inbreeding depression) that's much more substantive than anything used to argue against gay marriage. Polygamy - We probably will revisit our stance on polygamy in decades to come. Historically it's been used in a way that's profoundly imbalanced towards women (i.e. almost exclusively polygyny), but it's not hard to imagine a future where that's not the case.

> Historically it's been used in a way that's profoundly imbalanced towards women (i.e. almost exclusively polygyny)

Any biologists care to chime in on this? It cuts both ways, and is more complicated than that.

I don't understand how polygamy is imbalanced toward woman. They get a stake of the alpha's attention and him providing for them. In the current system, it's AFBB. The beta male foots the bill for alpha seed.

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

#503

Post by ffn »

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…

Tax, immigration/emigration, and will/inheritance reasons. For one thing, the government gives you a tax break if you marry; this was particularly useful because, in the old days, women didn't work so it made sense to not tax the man (who did work) because he was effectively making money for two (and possibly more if they had children). Similarly, getting married changes your defaults if you die intestate (that is, you didn't draw up a will giving all your money to some slap-up blond or something), then your spouse (as oppose to your next-in-line) gets your $$. As for the immigration reason, if you're an US citizen but your wife (or hubby) is another nationality, you can get him or her over here and move onto getting him/her a resident alien card much more easily than through other methods of immigration (presumably this is so that families can be together, which is nice).

If you don't care about any of that and love another person, place, thing, or idea, you can just announce you're married to him/her/it without recognition from the government and just sort of be together.

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

#504

Post by jasonjei »

ffn wrote: post #503
jasonjei wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Tax, immigration/emigration, and will/inheritance reasons. For one thing, the government gives you a tax break if you marry; this was particularly useful because, in the old days, women didn't work so it made sense to not tax the man (who did work) because he was effectively making money for two (and possibly more if they had children). Similarly, getting married changes your defaults if you die intestate (that is, y…

Tax, inheritance, and immigration laws don't require you to apply for a permit though to have your kids recognized so long as there is a registered birth certificate. My problem is the "application for marriage" process. A marriage should be recognized in the same manner that we issue a birth certificate; something that is issued as a matter of fact, not as a result of application awaiting approval or denial. Why is it not "registration of a marriage" as opposed to "application for marriage"? I think the semantics are important, since "application" implies we are ceding power to the government.

Isn't your body your body as opposed to requesting the government permission to marry?

I understand that it's required for recognition, but isn't it time we at least imply marriage is just a matter of recording instead of a formal permitting process?

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

#505

Post by cjbprime »

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.

I don't think that same-sex marriage rights were encoded in the Constitution or thought of as being rights by its drafters, but that doesn't matter -- the same was true of the interracial marriage rights granted as a result of Loving v Virginia. Your method of narrowly interpreting the Constitution is not shared by the court.

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

#506

Post by jrs235 »

Raphmedia wrote: post #453
jrs235 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My best response is, because currently one of the parties (the state) to the original agreement doesn't want to nor currently agree to allow that? So I suppose if the state changed their laws and allowed it then it would be possible. My assumption is that the first state that is party to the first marriage would, in its best interests, require that all subsequent additions to the marriage be under that state and only that state.

ADD: Adding a joint tenant to an agreement can get complicated. Some current joint tenants (the state?) might not wish to dilute their rights?

ADD: More thoughts. The ADD above is poor reasoning. You can currently setup an organization with many people as you describe above. With marriage, what's different about a marriage than a company or business? Perhaps the state doesn't care to get involved in trying to determine paternity for children when/if things dissolve. To prevent potential future complexities the state opts to avoid them.?

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

#507

Post by bargl »

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 have a question about this. I'm not saying I feel this way, but does this mean that religions that are opposed to gay marriage have to perform marriages for people who are gay? I.E. Catholics?

The only reason I ask is because many Catholics I know say this is basically her argument against gay marriage. They don't always care about civil unions (some do) as long as it doesn't affect their church.

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

#508

Post by cjbprime »

DannyBee wrote: post #478
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…

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

Care to explain Loving v Virginia?

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

#509

Post by knodi123 »

venomsnake wrote: post #159
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…

>Without getting unduly personal, let's say that I have a stake in that question being resolved. I know several triples living quietly among us; they face the same kind of problems (child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance rights) as same-sex couples faced prior to this decision. I made that argument to a couple of friends - that they were not fighting for equality (which will be fairly easy to set up) but for…

> One of the problems with polygamy/andry is that we could hollow out the lower social classes of mating opportunities

Let's not bring up the argument of legislating for maximal gene propagation, unless you're willing to ban all forms of marriage that don't serve maximal gene propagation. Fertility tests before marriage! No marriage among the elderly, because what's the point! Let's set up a new 3-letter agency for matchmaking!

Marriage is not a government mechanism to encourage mating. Stop trying to put government in the business of animal husbandry. We're not animals.

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

#510

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN