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

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

#561

Post by rmxt » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:43 PM UTC

michaelsbradley wrote: post #318

A sad day for our country, our highest court and much of our culture has succumbed to social insanity. For my part, I will never under any circumstances recognize by word or deed that any so-called marriage can be or has been established between two persons of the same sex. No government on earth has the power or authority to do that, anymore than a legislature could repeal the law of gravity or a judge could declare…

What "social insanity" is it to recognize and legalize a completely natural phenomenon? Or are you going to tell me that all those ducks and bonobos are sinners too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

And, if you're a fan of beating people over the head with that book that tells you to primarily love others (e.g. turn the other cheek, see the beam in your own eye, etc.), here's a good money quote (Matthew 19:11-12)

"Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”"

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

#562

Post by mikeash » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:43 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…

What's the difference between a "civil union" and a secular marriage? It seems like the separation you wish for is already here, effectively. You can get a religious marriage without a government-recognized marriage, or you can get a government-marriage without a religious marriage. If you want, you can do both. Looks to me like the only difference is the name.

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

#563

Post by ohitsdom » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:43 PM UTC

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…

Agreed. The "slippery slope" arguments always seemed weak to me, yet it didn't take long for polygamy comments to pop up here. So seems like they weren't that weak after all...

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

#564

Post by Chinjut » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:43 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 is not primarily a religious institution. Many non-religious people get married, and see no incongruity in it.

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

#565

Post by edko » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:44 PM UTC

drcube wrote: post #526

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 religiou…

There was almost no difference between government and religion when marriage originated, so it makes little sense to argue who invented it. Was Moses a political or religious leader? Were pharaohs political rulers or gods? Etc. What is very clear is that, in our society, civil and religious marriage are two different things that share a common name, and that one should have no influence over the other.

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

#566

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:44 PM UTC

brownegg wrote: post #496

nostromo wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ivo…

My impression is that OP wants the current rights from marriage to be part of civil unions instead, not for said rights to be eradicated outright. The former sounds like a more reasonable position and would address your (and the parent commenter's) concerns.

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

#567

Post by jasonjei » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:44 PM UTC

dirtmerchant wrote: post #557

jasonjei wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 go…

Where can I send donations to the political party that proposes a license to breed?

The Communist Party of China

"In November 2013, following the Third Plenum of the 18th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, China announced the decision to relax the one-child policy. Under the new policy, families can have two children if one parent is an only child.[90] This will mainly apply to urban couples, since there are very few rural only children due to long-standing exceptions to the policy for rural couples.[91]"

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

#568

Post by nickhalfasleep » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:45 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…

The Government only got into the Marriage business when they wanted to start denying it.. to interracial couples.

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

#569

Post by kaonashi » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:45 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…

What functional difference does it make?

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

#570

Post by jasonlotito » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 5:47 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…

That's what happened. Your problem is that they are using the word marriage. Prior to this, gays could marry in all 50 states. Just not all 50 states would recognize that marriage. And if the government doesn't recognize your marriage, does it really matter what religion or personal tradition you are following? Apparently, it does.

There is nothing religious about this. It's merely the a similar phrase, one that happens to have religious or cultural attachment.

> but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root.

That's because it can't be fixed at the root. The root has already happened, and the only people with a problem with the fix now are people who think this has anything to do with religion, which it does not.