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

611–620 of 1001 posts

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

#611

Post by haberman »

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…

Should the courts have waited for the state legislatures in the deep south to desegregate schools? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education#/m...

Should the courts have waited for the state legislatures in the deep south to legalize interracial marriage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage#/media/Fi...

The court needs the power to overrule legislatures because democratic majorities have consistently failed to protect the rights of minorities.

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

#612

Post by nathan_long »

kisna72 wrote: post #559
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 with you. An example of how bad things can get, we can look at ISIS. people governing a with religious rules will never go any good, mostly because religious rules were created a very long time ago for a completely different world.

That's an extremely selective example to support your view. For an example of the opposite, look at the Khmer Rouge, which governed with a specifically anti-religious stance, committed genocide and torture, and starved a large portion of their population. Or consider Stalin and Mao, who killed tens of millions each, or even the French Revolutionaries, who killed tens of thousands without trial.

Religion is not the source of evil, either in individuals or in governments. Evil is in people's hearts. Sometimes it is expressed via religious action, unfortunately. But the two should not be conflated.

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

#613

Post by rndmind »

anti-shill wrote: post #35

good...now maybe the so-called "leftists" can put this issue aside and concentrate on issues that matter to more than about 1% of the population...I refer to these really "silly" issues like wages, single-payer healthcare (obamacare is a mess), trade, flooding of the labor supply, the drug war, worker rights and benefits, more time off and vacation, monopolies, regulatory capture, NIMBYized zoning/regs (aka affordabl…

I agree with you strongly. There are more pressing issues that could be detrimental to the global population that should take prescience.

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

#614

Post by thoman23 »

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…

If the governmental/legal aspects of marriage are captured under "civil union", what exactly is "marriage" at that point? A pretty ceremony at a church?

For all practical purposes, marriage IS a secular contract between two people that helps mediate the rights of two people in a wide variety of domains. To me saying gay people can't marry is akin to saying gay people can't form LLCs.

Maybe the religious side should come up with a new name for their ceremonies to avoid some of the confusion? How about "religious union"? (whatever that means)

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

#615

Post by tommorris »

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 (…

> 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.

So, you think marriage shouldn't be available for straight people who are both infertile?

You ignore the important role that marriage plays in mutual care. Marriage gives legal backing and support (in the form of certain tax and other financial and non-financial benefits) to a reasonably large set of people in long-term care relationships. Those people who care for each other aren't going to be needing as much support from the public purse to care for them when they get older, because they care for each other.

My dear old grandparents cared for each other when they were old - when my grandma died, my grandfather had to go into a residential care home. But because they were together, they provided care for each other that prevented both from needing that social care for a long time. Long term gay couples will give something back in return: caring for each other, providing health and wellness benefits that would otherwise be something that the welfare state may need to provide.

The state has a strong vested interest in people caring for each other. Here in Britain, the support given to parenting are done for parenting regardless of marital status in the form of child benefit payments.

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

#616

Post by mkr-hn »

MichaelGG wrote: post #465
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…

Correct. And the restriction on two people is also a cheap hack. It should be more like an LLC where multiple entities join for tax and other concerns. Full stop.

"Will you form a corporation with me?" doesn't have the same ring to it.

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

#617

Post by tommorris »

baddox wrote: post #599
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…

> 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.

Because switching to a system where everybody has to get unmarried in order to satisfy the ideological preferences of people who want to get the government out of the marriage business is something that's going to be a really hard sell to all the existing straight married people.

I wrote a long post about it a while back: https://tommorris.org/posts/2555

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

#618

Post by enjo »

yellowapple wrote: post #566
brownegg wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But if all we're doing is just changing the name.. then who really cares? Marriage isn't historically a religious institution, it's a civil one.

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

#619

Post by TheCoelacanth »

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.

No, they believe this right was in the Constitution for 147 years (since the 14th amendment was added) and was only recently discovered. To be fair, the clause in question only says that they can't "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" which is extremely vague, so it's inherently prone to being reinterpreted every few decades.

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

#620

Post by matthewowen »

ohitsdom wrote: post #572
jgroszko wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are spousal exemptions for inheritance taxes.
Post reply on HN