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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by __z »

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 (…

"Spouse" and "parent" are not synonyms. Fertility was never a requirement of civil marriage. Post-menopausal women were always allowed to marry, just one example.

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

#622

Post by trhway »

baddox wrote: post #595
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…

> 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.

>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.

I suspect that marriage - a man/wife pairing (or 1-to-N grouping) recognized by the tribe/village with respect to all those legal distinctions related to property, children, etc... - existed long before the religion.

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

#623

Post by vinay427 »

teraflop wrote: post #89
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 ?

There are a ton of legal ramifications, including tax benefits (it's advantageous for a married couple to file income taxes jointly), immigration (spousal visas etc.), inheritance, and so on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of...

I believe immigration and federal taxes, which are handled solely by the federal government, are not affected as the US (on a national level) already recognized same-sex marriages after the DOMA overrule.

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

#624

Post by eropple »

yellowapple wrote: post #605
eropple wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 matte…

> a large number of opponents to same-sex marriage have expressed acceptance of same-sex civil unions

Some folks express that, yeah. I do not believe it is an honest position in the general case and have suspected since the jump that that's a move of the goalposts designed to appear more reasonable than they are, ready to be dragged back further as they are approached.

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

#625

Post by tommorris »

baddox wrote: post #610
ffn wrote: post #503

Earlier 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, 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…

> 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).

Should be, but isn't. Gay couples have been having expensive lawyers write these contracts for twenty years or so and when push comes to shove, they often don't mean shit. That's why we have been pushing for marriage rights.

The other issue is divorce. I know someone who is going through the end of a messy breakup with his long-term boyfriend. They met before marriage or civil partnership were a thing and the process of untangling shared assets, property, mortgages and so on is really complicated.

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

#626

Post by unfamiliar »

jasonjei wrote: post #464
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 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…

You don't need permission from the government to marry, you can do it yourself in the woods. But if you want all the benefits of a government sanctioned marriage then you have to be married in the eyes of the government.

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

#627

Post by amyjess »

gherkin0 wrote: post #210
sigzero wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to decide if it is legal or not. If it is not, send it back to Congress to fix. While I agree with the ruling, this court has been doing things clearly outside its purview.

> The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to decide if it is legal or not. This is a really bad idea, you're basically describing an oligarchy. The Supreme Court is really a consensus-enforcing machine, for the most part.

There's nothing wrong with oligarchy. It's better than mob rule.

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

#628

Post by masklinn »

yellowapple wrote: post #597
masklinn wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With the palm of least waste of resources being to keep marriage as it is, right and name.

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

#629

Post by masklinn »

roghummal wrote: post #598
masklinn wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Changing a name to something which is no clearer for no reason is not refactoring, it's pointless wankery.

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

#630

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

lukifer wrote: post #483
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…

One of the most brilliant ideas I've heard on the subject is a couple of proposed constitutional amendments stating that (a) your body is your personal property, and (b) you have an inalienable right to define who is a member of your family. When framed in that way, even most social conservatives would agree with the underlying principles.

Then what is there to prevent two people who've never even met in person from agreeing to be "married" for tax purposes.
Post reply on HN