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

631–640 of 1001 posts

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

#631

Post by jasonjei »

unfamiliar wrote: post #626
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…

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.

I agree. But that's why we have the marriage inequality problem.

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

#632

Post by IanDrake »

nutate wrote: post #555
IanDrake wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no problem with polygamy, as long as it is a consensual relationship between all adults involved. The real problem is that government has gotten into the marriage business and it doesn't belong there. The issues you mentioned (child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance rights) really have nothing to do with marriage and should all be assignable without a government endorsed marital contract.

How could it be consensual between all adults? The marriage "license" in polygamy is between man and women, yet by secondary effects the women are fully entangled with one another. Yet if you watch any show on polygamy you'll see that a guy will keep adding new, younger wives while holding their current wives hostage (due to their lack of another option in terms of housing, money, etc). It's absurd to think that any…

>How could it be consensual between all adults?

Quite literally, I imagine it would go something like:

Do you take this woman to be your wife? I do.

Do you take this woman to be your husband's second wife? I do.

Do you take this man and woman to be your husband and second wife? I do.

That's how three adults could all consent.

You can argue that someone is being forced to say yes, but you could argue that in any type of marriage or contract.

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

#633

Post by ap22213 »

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…

Alternatively, religions can just rename 'marriage' to 'holy marriage' or something.

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

#634

Post by _ls7m »

therobot24 wrote: post #447
michaelsbradley wrote: post #318

A sad day for our country, our highest court and much of our culture has succumbed to social insanity. For my part, I will never under any circumstances recognize by word or deed that any so-called marriage can be or has been established between two persons of the same sex. No government on earth has the power or authority to do that, anymore than a legislature could repeal the law of gravity or a judge could declare…

>> With kindness and charity, but with firm resolve, persons of good will should give civil disobedience to this court ruling and all that flows from it. lol wut. In a single sentence you basically just said to nicely riot

Civil disobedience: the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest.

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

#635

Post by jasonjei »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #630
lukifer wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's to prevent two people who've met in person from agreeing to be "married" for tax purposes?

Marriage fraud is marriage fraud--an application for marriage doesn't prevent that even presenting themselves before court officers.

However, there's a whole discussion on how tax benefits for married couples is in violation of the equal protection clause...

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

#636

Post by baddox »

tommorris wrote: post #625
baddox wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 d…

> 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.

Yes. It's a shortcut, and I completely understand why people want to take it.

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

#637

Post by _ls7m »

rmxt wrote: post #561
michaelsbradley wrote: post #318

A sad day for our country, our highest court and much of our culture has succumbed to social insanity. For my part, I will never under any circumstances recognize by word or deed that any so-called marriage can be or has been established between two persons of the same sex. No government on earth has the power or authority to do that, anymore than a legislature could repeal the law of gravity or a judge could declare…

What "social insanity" is it to recognize and legalize a completely natural phenomenon? Or are you going to tell me that all those ducks and bonobos are sinners too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals And, if you're a fan of beating people over the head with that book that tells you to primarily love others (e.g. turn the other cheek, see the beam in your own eye, etc.), here's a good money…

Should we legalize and support through marriage all naturally occurring sexual desires and acts?

I think that questions almost answers itself, but you never know after a ruling like this.

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

#638

Post by zzleeper »

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…

You could apply that to a lot of other situations. What about the right to own slaves? Southern states certainly preferred if that was handled at the state and not federal level.

Sure, marriage is a "license" but you could make "negro ownership" a license thing and it wouldn't change things.

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

#639

Post by dta5003 »

nmrm2 wrote: post #539
jrs235 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Contitution, the Bill of Rights in particular, protects minority rights"... "minority" should be replace with "individual". An individual is the greatest minority.

No, "minority" is correct here. Individuals who happen to be members of a majority do not need a Bill of Rights. Individuals who are a member of a minority do. (edit: Holy cow this post got downvotes! If you think this is wrong please go read pretty much literally anything on the topic of the bill of rights by literally any of the founding fathers. Protecting the rights of democratic minorities was a very, very, VERY…

No way. As a member of the majority that disagrees with said majority on many issues, I'd like to keep my Bill of Rights please.

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

#640

Post by dimino »

Homunculiheaded wrote: post #497
seszett wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does anyone really believe this right was in the Constitution for 250 years, only to be discovered recently? That seems to be the case to me. I'm not completely familiar with US history, but don't you think the right of black people to be free and equal to the other people was already written in the constitution 250 years ago, for example? Or women's suffrage. It just took a while to actually recognize it. Homosexu…

I'm not disagreeing with your general premise that the fundamental right for equality is the basis of the constitution and therefore equal marriage is implied by it. But to your points: "the right of black people to be free and equal to the other people" (specifically the abolishment of slavery) Is made explicit in the 13th amendment[0] And "women's suffrage" is the 19th amendment[1] So for both of your examples, the…

These amendments were added via a process built into the Constitution to allow changes to be made, because the folks writing it knew they couldn't account for everything.

But furthermore, the specific wording of the constitution may actually have been intentional insofar that Jefferson may have wanted it to be clear that all people have equal rights. He obviously couldn't singlehandedly change the minds of everyone at the time, but the idea that he intentionally left the wording vague enough to include everyone is a valid idea, I think.

Post reply on HN