Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules • Hacker News Board

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

#521

Post by Torgo » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:19 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #264

ctdonath wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what happens to clergy who refuse to perform such "weddings" on religious grounds? All major religions have at least a majority, if not uniform, disapproval of "marrying" any other than man & woman. We already have cases of punishing & re-educating bakers for adhering to their religious views on the subject, how much more so those who may face compulsion to perform a union they cannot religiously condone? ETA: to…

> So what happens to clergy who refuse to perform such "weddings" on religious grounds? Nothing. > We already have cases of punishing & re-educating bakers for adhering to their religious views on the subject, how much more so those who may face compulsion to perform a union they cannot religiously condone? Clergy are not public accommodations and are not subject to non-discrimination law. Clergy in the US can still…

The Mormon Church used to not allow black people to become priests, they probably changed that under threat of losing their tax-exempt status.

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

#522

Post by nly » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:19 PM UTC

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 agree, but I believe it's seen as more complicated to reclassify existing unions in law. The UK recently promoted 'civil unions' to 'marriage' status rather than downgrading traditional heterosexual marriages to unions.

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

#523

Post by bane » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #195

malkia wrote: post #112

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their…

Does this formally mean that gay marriage has been legal in the US since the 18th century, but no one noticed until recently? (half-serious question) Congratulations to Americans and to gays worldwide for this great step forward.

That's basically correct. It's always been legal, and efforts to stop gay marriage have basically been efforts to narrow the scope of this already legal right.

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

#524

Post by nmrm2 » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

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…

IANAL. FYI, this is a constitutional issue that goes back to the early days of the court. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_...

The essential response from Kennedy et al. was two-fold:

1. Marriage is a Right because the due process and equal protection clauses were designed to be interpreted broadly as society came to "understand" liberty in new ways. I think this is actually pretty damn accurate -- I have no doubt that some of the founding fathers had slavery on their minds, even though at the time the amendments we're interpreted in that way.

2. Rights are not subject to the "vicissitudes" of public opinion -- the democratic process doesn't get to take away rights.

Roberts and Scalia mostly disagreed with (1), but there was very little substance to their argument. Read through the four justifications given by Kennedy. Roberts and Scalia doesn't respond to these. They just sort of complain about a slippery slope to tyranny. But this court is by far less activist than previous courts and we have yet to devolve into a dictatorship-by-SCOTUS. So I'm sceptical of the veracity of their slippery slope argument. It would have been more compelling if that had talked more about this specific case.

Roberts and Scalia also made some more practical arguments, e.g. that democratically selected policies are more robust protections because they can hash out the details. I mostly believe that's a false dichotomy because there's very little evidence that courts conferring Rights upon groups of people actually shuts down legislative action or debate on either side of the question. Look at abortion or civil rights. Ultimately, I find this argument extremely ahistorical and massively empirically denied.

(As an aside, I think Scalia's "o'weening pride will be our fall" thing was a pretty dickish thing to say, given the overloaded connotations associated with pride in this case.)

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

#525

Post by nate_meurer » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:21 PM UTC

sigzero wrote: post #455

nate_meurer wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Um, yes it is. Levirate marriage is pretty simple; if a woman dies childless, her husband's brother is obligated to marry her so that she has a chance of bearing children, even if the brother is already married.

And for some entertaining context, go read the rest of Deuteronomy 25:5, where it says how the brother should be punished if he refuses the marriage.

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

This is simply not true. Tell me where Lamech's or Rehoboam's marriages caused a bad ending. And as I said above, King David -- perhaps the most famous of polygamists -- is never rebuked for his marriages. The Bible makes a very clear point of rebuking him only for his adultery:

David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. 1 Kings 15:5

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

#526

Post by drcube » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:21 PM UTC

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 has always been a government institution. Religion co-opted it for themselves at a later time. This "leave marriage to the churches where they belong" cry is disingenuous. Marriage is about a contract between individuals. It provides government granted privileges in regards to taxes, healthcare, inheritance, court testimony and child custody. It has nothing to do with religion. If you want to have a religious ceremony to celebrate and "sanctify" your government granted marriage, so be it. But don't pretend this is a religious tradition meddled with by government. It is a government institution that has been meddled with by religion since before religion and government were separate.

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

#527

Post by kefka » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:21 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #481

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 st…

> 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.

But, why not?

I'm a male. And I'm bisexual and polyamorus. I understand, and accept if a family wants to have 3 adults. Or 4 adults. I'm even OK if children are raised in that atmosphere.

Right now, there are rules and restrictions on polygamy (which is a subset of polyamory) mainly created for the Mormons in the 18 and early 1900s.

Doing as the GP said would have these archaic rules also overturned.

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

#528

Post by sliverstorm » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:22 PM UTC

jasonjei wrote: post #504

ffn wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are pregnant mothers who sneak to America to birth their child on American soil.

There are green card marriages.

In the case of the first, we have decided that we will still give the kid citizenship. In the case of the second, we don't allow it (if we catch it).

I'm pretty sure you can marry without a marriage license. You just aren't legally married, i.e. you don't get all the legal benefits.

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

#529

Post by Spooky23 » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:22 PM UTC

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 that's a flawed assertion. Civil marriage has been around forever, and is nearly universal in western society.

Civil Union / domestic partnership is a compromise solution that addresses the realities of modern society. You get the benefits of partnership without involving assets. Marriage has always been a more binding thing, and for good reason.

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

#530

Post by GuiA » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:24 PM UTC

jasonjei wrote: post #504

ffn wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I mostly agree with you, but I'm unclear on:

> A marriage should be recognized in the same manner that we issue a birth certificate

In the case of a birth there is a clear indisputable fact: a child is born, therefore a new human being that must be taken care of and have rights as a citizen is added to the world.

That's a pretty clear event to which a birth certificate can be attached. Is there such an equivalent for marriage?