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

651–660 of 1001 posts

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

#651

Post by hacknat »

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…

Your sentiment, while admirable, is a libertarian pipe dream. Even the most liberal countries in the world still get involved in marriage. While I am by no means a social conservative, I do agree with conservatives that the family is the foundational institution of civil society (and a lot of anthropological research supports this argument). Governments will be more or less involved with it to some degree, both to foster it economically and encourage it socially. To see the American social contract as having been set up to never have to encounter or acknowledge any spiritual/religious institutions is bad history, we have simply always held that the government cannot be in the practice of encouraging one over the other.

Taking the long view, conservatives (and others) should be rejoicing. This ruling is a broad expansion of the definition of what the government will recognize as a family, a definition that is of consequence to numerous helpful social programs, and an affirmation of what family is in civil society. The ruling will have enormous social benefits for our society.

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

#652

Post by InclinedPlane »

nostromo wrote: post #456
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'm gay and I agree with you. But, it's not fair to ask gay people to wait around until marriage is removed from our entire legal system (taxes, immigration, property rights, family law, custody...). So in the mean time marriage equality is a much easier fix. Maybe someday there will be a ruling based on the Equal Protections Clause that bans treating married people differently than unmarried people under the law. Wo…

Indeed. An excellent example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

More so, by expanding the institution of marriage to gays (as it was not long ago expanded to interracial couples) it will ultimately help build public support for redefining marriage.

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

#653

Post by Torgo »

hackuser wrote: post #548
benjohnson wrote: post #431

Earlier 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…

That is because largely these laws won't be weaponized to stick it to them. There was a youtube video of a guy going around to Muslim bakers trying to get them to bake him a gay wedding cake, which they of course refused. And the US media collectively mouthed a we-do-not-give-a-fuck.

>And aren't they the most powerful political grouping in the country?

If they really were, they would have stopped this ruling presumably.

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

#654

Post by metasean »

jasonlotito wrote: post #576
mikeash wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between a "civil union" and a secular marriage? It seems like the separation you wish for is already here, effectively. You can get a religious marriage without a government-recognized marriage, or you can get a government-marriage without a religious marriage. If you want, you can do both. Looks to me like the only difference is the name.

> Looks to me like the only difference is the name. That's literally what it is. People could get married in all 50 states before this ruling. At issue was whether it was officially recognized or not, which has been fixed.

> At issue was whether it was officially recognized or not, which has been fixed.

They can now be legally recognized. It is still up to churches whether to religiously recognize them.

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

#655

Post by pekk »

hacknat wrote: post #651
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…

Your sentiment, while admirable, is a libertarian pipe dream. Even the most liberal countries in the world still get involved in marriage. While I am by no means a social conservative, I do agree with conservatives that the family is the foundational institution of civil society (and a lot of anthropological research supports this argument). Governments will be more or less involved with it to some degree, both to fo…

There is no reason why governments should be involved in it, except that people can't keep their grubby hands off of it.

Doesn't make a lot of sense for us to subsidize people to do something which they are supposedly doing because they want to. The only reason there are all these fancy tax breaks is because politicians get ahead saying they are "for families".

It isn't the government's job to "acknowledge" every religious custom you have at church by also writing it into law or something. The government has its own jobs.

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

#656

Post by werber »

mkr-hn wrote: post #616
MichaelGG wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's a little nicer...

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

#657

Post by woofyman »

rndmind wrote: post #613
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.

Tell that to the widow who lost custody of their children since their state didn't recognize their marriage and didn't have 2 party adoptions.

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

#658

Post by ScottBurson »

nathan_long wrote: post #590
kefka wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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. Do you think that it serves the interests of the rest of society to offer special benefits and protections to 3-4 person unions? If so, what? Is there a size limit on such unions? And under what conditions do they begin/end? If one person leaves the union, is the entire union abolished? W…

Yes: questions like these need to be asked, and at least tentatively answered, before legally sanctioned poly marriage can even be put on the table for discussion. In particular, there needs to be a clear idea of what happens to the children under the various possible scenarios. I don't think just letting people make whatever agreements they want is going to fly, at least not once any children at all are involved. These things could get very very complicated. There needs to be at least a framework, a sense of what structures can work, as borne out by experience.

I have a suspicion that in the end, it will turn out to be best not to make any special legal provision for poly marriages. The law will recognize couples, and those couples will be free, as indeed they are today, to make whatever informal arrangements with other parties they wish. In a few areas -- hospital visitation rights are a good example -- I think it would work to detach the right from legal marriage altogether, and just let people declare who may visit them, etc. But the legal system has to know who is legally responsible for each child, and I don't think it can be more than two people -- even two is often problematic, as we know from long experience.

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

#659

Post by ohitsdom »

matthewowen wrote: post #620
ohitsdom wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah yes, taxes. Good point.

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

#660

Post by serve_yay »

_ls7m wrote: post #637
rmxt wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I think that questions almost answers itself

I think you should ask a better question.

Post reply on HN