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

601–610 of 1001 posts

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

#601

Post by tommorris »

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…

> People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, at least not as the cultural/religious thing that it is.

No, I think religion shouldn't have messed with a societal institution. Religion has no more right over it than the state does. The state makes the laws, not religion.

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

#602

Post by baddox »

bighi wrote: post #470
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…

But marriage is not a religious thing. Before most popular religions were created, marriage was already old. For cultural reasons, it's popular to do a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY along the marriage. What's religious there is the ceremony, not the marriage. You can have religious ceremonies without marriage, and marriages without the religious ceremony. Two independent concepts that, by happenstance, often come together.

Marriage need not be a "government thing" in the modern sense, with all the legal distinctions we currently have. Marriage is inherently a legal thing, in the sense that it's a contract between people.

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

#603

Post by jasonjei »

masklinn wrote: post #600
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…

> 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)

For the sake of argument, if you want to marry your sibling, and your sibling consents, are we to judge that? Aren't we holding a double standard if our religious or moral standards are opposed to that? Or are you saying the government should still deny those marriages? A segment of society wants to deny same-sex marriage because their moral and religious beliefs are against it.

Yes, many religions are against sibling marriages, but many religions are also against same-sex marriage.

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

#604

Post by mikeash »

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.

Since the decision rests on the 14th Amendment, it's only about 150 years.

But yes, the right was there all along, but the implications weren't realized before now. It's generally been accepted for quite a while that the government can't discriminate on the basis of a person's sex, but for some reason the obvious implications for marriage haven't been accepted until now.

Sure, the people who wrote the 14th Amendment didn't intend it to say this. But that's because they had a great deal of implied context that didn't go into the law, like "women can't vote," which no longer applies. But if the context disappears and the law as written pretty clearly says X without that context, are we supposed to ignore that?

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

#605

Post by yellowapple »

eropple wrote: post #586
yellowapple wrote: post #566

Earlier 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.

It is a reasonable position, but a realistic one only if you believe that the opposition to same-sex marriage is the use of the word "marriage" and not a fear-driven hatred of people with a different use for their plumbing. As it happens, I do not; I am entirely certain that "civil unions" being applied to gay people would call down the exact same rhetoric from the exact same people. (I am further certain that the wh…

Except that reality doesn't agree entirely with that model; a large number of opponents to same-sex marriage have expressed acceptance of same-sex civil unions.

However, your point still stands true in the case of custody rights, since same-sex-marriage opponents tend to claim (rather dubiously) that children raised in such a family tend to experience psychological trauma.

I'm really more-or-less neutral on the matter; it doesn't matter what it's called so long as the rights are equal for everyone. "Marriage" is a good-enough term for that.

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

#606

Post by saturdaysaint »

ctdonath wrote: post #580
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 (…

Right, so we should add fertility tests to remove other people that have no chance of procreating from the marriage pool. We should also eliminate many of the benefits if couples don't produce children after a certain age and maybe even eliminate tax benefits after a certain number of years since a married couple's last child. Thanks for bringing this discussion back to the true soul of marriage: procreation incentives.

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

#607

Post by honestcoyote »

kefka wrote: post #527
eropple wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 poly…

I've often wondered if polyamorus families could make an end run around the old anti-polygamy laws by creating a corporation. It would give legal protection for shared property and money. Would also provide a mechanism for divorce by allowing the remaining people to buy out the shares of the person leaving. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be a start.

I'm personally not poly in any way, but it's a fun thought experiment about how one could make it work in the current legal climate.

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

#608

Post by [deleted] »

ctdonath wrote: post #580
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 (…

[deleted]

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

#609

Post by Terr_ »

ctdonath wrote: post #580
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 (…

So you're saying the government's "vested interest" should let it prohibit/nullify the marriages of heterosexual couples don't (or can't) pop out a child?

What about couples whose prospective offspring would be... undesirable to the state? Eugenics?

No, it's not about procreation, it's about social structures. Adoption is always a possibility.

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

#610

Post by baddox »

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, immigration/emigration, and will/inheritance reasons.

Inheritance should be simple enough with normal contracts, regardless of marriage (same goes for hospital visitation and medical decision-making, which you didn't mention). Immigration is already completely arbitrary, at the whim of the government. The government could change the immigration effects of marriage just as easily as changing who can get married. That brings us to taxes. Well, that's already an extremely obvious violation of the equal protection clause. Why should married people's taxes be any different than single people's taxes?

Post reply on HN