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

711–720 of 1001 posts

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

#711

Post by nutate »

IanDrake wrote: post #632
nutate wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a polyamorous (group) marriage, not a polygamist one (at least as per my definition of those somewhat amorphous terms)

That said all of the legal agreements become far more complicated and likely null and void if one person drops out or is added. I think an argument could be made, but with the complication you're basically saying polymarriages would be like corporations, with their associated complexity.

Polygamy as practiced now is a "bring more childbearing women" into the flock type thing, which is by nature non-equitable. I doubt most folks in a polygamous marriage (by choice) would want to get involved in a polyamorous marriage and as such, I think you can't legally support a non-equal union of that sort.

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

#712

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#713

Post by tommorris »

pekk wrote: post #655
hacknat wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rel…

> Doesn't make a lot of sense for us to subsidize people to do something which they are supposedly doing because they want to.

Sure it does. Long-term couples tend to take care of each other's health and wellbeing. Marriage is a way of recognising that long-term care relationship.

In countries with any kind of government funded or subsidised health system (or even a private health system based on insurance), those benefits of being married are costs that would otherwise be borne by the rest of society.

When I'm old, having a partner to look after me means I'm less likely to need to go to hospital or need doctor's visits. I'm less likely to be unhappy, so more likely to be economically productive. If I need to take time off work, or retrain, or whatever, two partners are able to rely on each other for both financial and moral support.

Social conservatives are right in the sense that marriage is for plenty of people a form of social "glue" that holds people together. The state has good reason to want people to be held together like that - because it makes citizens happier, more productive, less likely to need public handouts, more likely to be able to raise children successfully or produce taxable wealth - and so on and so on.

It'd be difficult to measure the economic benefit of marriage to the state, but the actual economic benefit of being married is pretty minimal (estate/inheritance taxes seem like the biggest benefit) compared to the benefit to society and to the state.

Most if not all of those things that marriage does are also applicable to same-sex couples, incidentally.

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

#714

Post by pc2g4d »

lisper wrote: post #214
quizotic wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Can anybody counter Scalia, and say why the issue of gay marriage couldn't wait to be resolved by the states? For the same reason that slavery couldn't be resolved by the states. For the same reason that racism can't be resolved by the states. Because these things haven't gotten resolved by states. The United States of America, sadly, has a significant minority of people who Just Don't Get It, and there are enough…

> people who Just Don't Get It Ah, but you clearly _do_ "Get It" and should have the right to impose your understanding of the universe on the rest of the country? Who gets to decide who "gets it"? Who decides in which situations those not-getting-it-majority-states should be denied their right to self-government and forced to adopt ways they oppose?

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

#715

Post by aikah »

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 certainly predates Christianity. Therefore marriage shouldn't be associated with Christianity or Islam or whatever. Marriage is a social construct before being a religious one.

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

#716

Post by jrs235 »

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…

May I ask where you received your education pertaining to the Constitution? And just to be certain (as I am currently assuming you are), are you an American?

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

#717

Post by honestcoyote »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #693
honestcoyote wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 expe…

You probably don't need to be polyamorous to do this. But it's an expensive option given all the paperwork (and taxes) you'd have to file at least once a year. In the UK, you'd probably be better off incorporating as a trust - perhaps even a charitable trust, if you can find a good enough cover story. And you may think you're joking, but a lot of families set up financial trusts for their assets for exactly these rea…

I honestly wasn't joking at all. It's something I've thought of off-and-on over the years.

I could see how a trust would be better, though, in the US at least, I think a corp / LLC might be more flexible. And here, especially if the corp is formed in a few rules state like Nevada or Delaware, the paperwork isn't too terrible for small organizations.

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

#718

Post by Torgo »

masklinn wrote: post #575
Torgo wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Mormon Church used to not allow black people to become priests, they probably changed that under threat of losing their tax-exempt status.

Nope. They changed that because the LDS had started expanding outside the US and into very ethnically mixed countries (Brazil). I know of no source claiming the move was motivated by IRS intervention.

The Mormon Church was expanding outside the US to non-white countries since the 1800s.

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

#719

Post by delecti »

interlocutor wrote: post #701

Given this ruling, what do you now teach children? Do you tell your 5-year-old that "when you grow up you marry either a man or a woman"? Are both choices to be equally preferred? Or do you say, "by default" you marry someone of the opposite sex, but if you choose someone of your own sex that's OK? Is it OK to teach that being straight is "the default"?

Being straight has always been significantly more common, and will continue to be so.

You teach them that when they grow up, they can marry someone they love. Which, now, is now true no matter whether you're talking to a kid who happens to be gay or not.

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

#720

Post by geekamongus »

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…

So, you are saying it's OK to give privileges to one set of people but not to another. How is that OK?
Post reply on HN