I'll tell you it upsets me to see so many homophobes here on Hacker News attempting to argue that those in same-sex situations should be denied the right to marriage.
Hacker News you disappoint me.
Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
591–600 of 1001 posts
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#592Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am one of those religious types - if I may give you me reasoning or at least my ideas: The immediate difficulty comes when we as religious citizens have trouble with separating what is civilly permissible with what is a religious ideal. Long term, religious people are worried that our institution and faith will not be allowed to continue if a super-majority deems us unworthy - as we have seen through history. As fo…
Thanks; it's very valuable to learn from your perspective. > Long term, religious people are worried that our institution and faith will not be allowed to continue if a super-majority deems us unworthy - as we have seen through history. A sincere question: I can see that risk for small religious minorities facing a history of discrimtination (e.g., Jews and Muslims). But most people talking about this are white-skinn…
It is indeed a sincere question! I'd love to whole-heartily agree with you that our country is a bastion of tolerance and courtesy, and in the grand sweep of history we could argue such.
But I would also say that we have persecuted the weak from the start - Native populations, African-Americans, Irish, and Japanese to name a few.
From a religious and biological standpoint our greatest persecution is our most recent - we have (in my opinion) disposed of 50,000,000 children in the womb during the last 40 years for various reasons.
So, while indeed Christians have nothing to fear based on our numbers, I could imagine that in the future that our claim a supernatural relationship with an unprovable entity will be deem us mentally unfit and not worthy of consideration.
Oddly enough our Bible acknowledges us as crazy " We are fools for Christ! [...] We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored!" in 1 Corinthians.
The weird bit - from a Christian perspective, we Christians deserve persecution.
We have been given the faith and love of Jesus Christ, and we have not shared that love and kindness with our neighbors. From our standpoint, those that have been given much will be called to account, and (again from our standpoint) we have been given everything in Christ Jesus.
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#593Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
[deleted]
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#594Earlier 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.
Yes, but why this minority? Why not allow 12 year olds to marry as a consititutional right? Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry? I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument. I'm really asking. States license things all the time, and the conditions of their licenses block certain people from doing certain things. Why are the courts blocking the right of states to license this activity (marriage) in this p…
> Why not allow 12 year olds to marry as a consititutional right?
12 year olds can't provide informed consent.
> Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry?
I actually don't object to this, so long as they're not permitted to have biological children. The primary reason why incest is bad is because of the genetic damage caused by it; eliminate that problem (by preventing the possibility of said damage), and there's not really that much of a reason left to forbid it (other than a potential "ick" factor, but that's mostly subjective).
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#595Well, 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…
> Marriage has always been a government institution. Religion co-opted it for themselves at a later time.
I don't think that's the full story. I suspect that religious marriage existed long before nation states and most of the current legal distinctions associated with marriage.
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#596Well, 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 (…
My cousin and the two kids that he and his husband adopted beg to differ. As do many, many other kids who might otherwise be in the foster care system consuming the resources of the state. The state has an interest in stable household formation, full stop.
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#597Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So he wants the exact same thing with a new name for essentially no reason? That strikes me as an inane waste of resource.
I agree, but it's far less a waste of resource than abolishing the rights conferred by marriage entirely, which was my only point.
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#598Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So he wants the exact same thing with a new name for essentially no reason? That strikes me as an inane waste of resource.
Refactoring? Waste of resources?
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#599Well, 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…
> And that was not in the cards. What you want is not on the table and likely never will be.
How do you figure? Nothing is objectively on or off the table. Nothing is on the table until people make it on the table.
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#600Earlier 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…
> 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.
Because you're applying for an official recognition of your marriage for which the government grants various benefits, and the government can in fact refuse it (for siblings for instance)