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

571–580 of 1001 posts

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

#571

Post by mikeash »

netfire wrote: post #272
gibsonje wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a case of states violating the constitution of the united states. It's a pretty clear violation of equal protection. It's not up to the states to decide this. Rights of a minority should not be left to the democratic process.

Can you specify what part of the constitution is being violated here? There are amendments that protect race, color, gender, etc. Protection based on sexual orientation doesn't seem to be covered, at least not specifically. In my mind, the correct solution to this issue should have been legislative (that is, add an amendment to the constitution), not judicial.

This really has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

It's not gay marriage, it's same-sex marriage. This is a subtle but extremely important distinction.

Gay people have always been allowed to marry. They haven't been allowed to marry the people they want, but a gay man was allowed to marry a gay woman in every state in the union. Similarly, straight people were not allowed to marry other straight people of the same sex.

Marriage is just a matter of straight-up sex discrimination. Bob can marry Jane but Susan can't, because Bob is a man and Susan is a woman. That's clearly discrimination based purely on the sex of the participants (and not the sexual orientation, which is merely the thing that might cause Susan to want to do this, but not relevant to whether it's allowed) and IMO a clear violation of the equal protection clause.

Laws are supposed to be sex blind. If a man can legally do something, a woman should be able to legally do it as well. That was not the case with marriage before this decision.

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

#572

Post by ohitsdom »

jgroszko wrote: post #104
pavanky wrote: post #50

As a non american, does the US Government have an official definition of marriage that is going to change today? I understand the social consequences. But what legal rights have been granted now that did not exist previously ?

The big ones are hospital visitation rights, being able to file joint federal taxes, and estate planning and inheritance benefits.

I think estate planning and inheritance all could have been done before (you can leave your money/assets to whoever). This just ensures your spouse gets it even if you don't have a will.

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

#573

Post by drcube »

edko wrote: post #565
drcube wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't matter who invented it. It matters what it is. And marriage is fundamentally a government institution. It concerns laws and legally granted privileges. If there's a sacred component, let the churches keep that part, but that's not what the SCOTUS ruled on, and it's not what millions across the country have been demanding for decades.

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

#574

Post by DannyBee »

techpeace wrote: post #500
DannyBee wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

First, this is not what laws were challenged. The laws that were challenged are very specific. As roberts says, "petitioners’ lawsuits target the laws defining marriage generally rather than those allocating benefits specifically"

Had they challenged benefits laws, that would change the equal protection analysis significantly. But in this lawsuit, given what they've actually challenged, the normal precedent would be to apply the rational basis test, and nothing stronger.

Again, i'll quote roberts, who quotes lawrence:

"In any event, the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ “legitimate state interest” in “preserving the traditional institution of marriage.”" Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 585.

(Now, you could argue this isn't a legitimate state interest, but that's a pretty resolved question at this point, and would require overruling about 200 years of precedent on the issue :P)

The majority doesn't even bother to argue otherwise.

Second, the vast majority of the opinion does not rest on any equal protection claim, and not even the majority takes that argument seriously on these facts given the above. In fact, the majority doesn't even explain how their argument that this is correct works. They don't even spend a paragraph explaining it, just make a conclusory statement.

So to answer your question, i don't claim what you are stating would in fact, be offering equal protection, but will point out

A. This isn't actually the case before the court

B. Resolving that case does not require declaring states must issue same sex marriage licenses. It would probably require that those validly marriage be given the same benefits. SCOTUS is supposed to go out of it's way to not resolve questions not before it, and when they do resolve questions, they generally resolve them in the least sweeping way possible.

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

#575

Post by masklinn »

Torgo wrote: post #521
masklinn wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Nope. They changed that because the LDS had started expanding outside the US and into very ethnically mixed countries (Brazil). I know of no source claiming the move was motivated by IRS intervention.

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

#576

Post by jasonlotito »

mikeash wrote: post #562
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.

> Looks to me like the only difference is the name.

That's literally what it is. People could get married in all 50 states before this ruling. At issue was whether it was officially recognized or not, which has been fixed.

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

#577

Post by yellowapple »

GuiA wrote: post #530
jasonjei wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Is there such an equivalent for marriage?

Is walking into the courthouse hand-in-hand stating "We're married now; could you record that fact?" not such an equivalent?

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

#578

Post by dba7dba »

Liquix wrote: post #11

"A recent Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans – an all-time high – support extending the same rights and privileges to same-sex marriages as traditional ones." only 60% of US citizens support same-sex marraige? in my area it is more like 90-95%, this was surprising and sad for me to hear

Because you can choose read/watch/work/live that is agreeable to your preference, yes one's perception can be very skewed.

Visit some parts of US and it's not 90-95%. And I think some that say they support it but privately they don't care or don't actually agree. It's not cool to oppose SSM in certain industry, age group, etc etc.

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

#579

Post by giaour »

jfaat wrote: post #415
giaour wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key word there is "adults." Polygamist communities have a documented tendency to seek out younger and younger women for marriage. ( http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657 ) EDIT: added source; had previously assumed this was common knowledge

That seems like a pretty huge and likely misinformed generalization. But feel free to back it up and prove me wrong.

The most accessible summary can be found in "The Puzzle of Monogamous Marriage" on http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657

Scroll down to section 3.a.ii (or ctrl+f search for "Implication: monogamous marriage reduces the spousal age gap, gender inequality and fertility")

Anecdotally, this is what a family friend who worked as a counselor for Southern Utah University observed repeatedly. SUU is located in Cedar City, which has one of the highest concentrations of present-day polygamists in the US.

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

#580

Post by ctdonath »

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 state has a vested interest in procreation (i.e.: creation of new citizens & taxpayers as others die off), so takes an interest in "marriage" as a means for facilitating the most efficient & effective means of promoting procreation, doing so by giving special benefits in return for parents taking on special obligations. Expanding the beneficiaries of those benefits to those to whom there is absolutely no chance (to the point of the notion being preposterous based on just 2 literal bits of information) of procreation is giving benefits to those whom will give nothing back in return.

The problem, as you sort of touch on, is that between evolution, religion & politics we've added abstractions & tangents to the issue, making most people think it's really about feelings etc instead of the base issue of procreation.

Post reply on HN