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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by AnimalMuppet »

samatman wrote: post #121

While this is excellent news for my gay and lesbian friends, I see no progress on polygamy. Which, unlike same-sex marriage, is an institution with deep roots both in America (the Mormons were forced to give up this sacrament as a condition of statehood) and in the majority of world cultures, where it ranges from condoned to celebrated. Without getting unduly personal, let's say that I have a stake in that question b…

The majority opinion in the comments here seems to be that polygamy would be OK. So is there anywhere where you would draw the line? Incest? Underage? Anything at all?

Is everything really acceptable?

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

#733

Post by baddox »

rodgerd wrote: post #671
baddox wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 suspect that religious marriage existed long before nation states Do you have any actual evidence? Because here in reality-land, the evidence shows that the English legal tradition considered marriage a civil institution long before the churches tried to claim it.

Well, nation states have only existed for 500 years or so, and marriage is mentioned in the Bible and plenty of Ancient Greek writings. I'm not sure if that counts as evidence here in reality-land.

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

#734

Post by interlocutor »

delecti wrote: post #719
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.

>>> You teach them that when they grow up, they can marry someone they love.

That's avoiding the question. Do you, for example, show kids pictures of gay/lesbian couples and straight couples in equal proportion? Or do you show them mostly pictures of straight couples, and gay/lesbian couples only occasionally? Is it bigoted to teach kids that being straight is the "default"?

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

#735

Post by leejoramo »

giaour wrote: post #694
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…

France has done so. When you get married there, it has to be performed by a government official (usually someone representing the mayor's office). You can have a big church wedding if you want, but the state doesn't recognize it. Later, France created a very powerful form of non-marriage civil union (the PACS) and saw it become incredibly popular with straight couples.

This is largely true in the US. I can't speak for how it works in all states, but in most you need an official to marry the couple. The official can be either a religious minister or a government official (such as a Judge or Clerk). From the States point of view, it is not really a religious issue.

There are actually "religious" organizations who for a small fee will give you a certificate to act as a minister to perform a weddings, no dogma required. I believe these are accepted in all states.

In my state of Colorado, a couple can marry themselves without the need for any official from the state or religion. Couples marrying themselves are free to ask a friend to stand in as an informal "official" during a ceremony, but legally, they sign the marriage certificate as having married themselves.

In the US the question of gay marriage is really about the government recognizing the it and giving gays and lesbians the legal rights and responsibilities found in marriage. Most church's will continue to be against it and not perform such ceremonies. Although a few, such as my own Unitarian Universalist have been advocating for gay marriage for decades.

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

#736

Post by kstenerud »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #731
samatman wrote: post #121

While this is excellent news for my gay and lesbian friends, I see no progress on polygamy. Which, unlike same-sex marriage, is an institution with deep roots both in America (the Mormons were forced to give up this sacrament as a condition of statehood) and in the majority of world cultures, where it ranges from condoned to celebrated. Without getting unduly personal, let's say that I have a stake in that question b…

The majority opinion in the comments here seems to be that polygamy would be OK. So is there anywhere where you would draw the line? Incest? Underage? Anything at all? Is everything really acceptable?

What do either of those have to do with polygamy?

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

#737

Post by intopieces »

lisper wrote: post #335
jmorphy88 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in other words, "the beatings will continue until you come around to our views"?

No, the beatings will continue for as long as you fail to respect the law. If you want to forbid gay marriage, it's very simple: repeal the fourteenth amendment. (Good luck with that.) It's like I tell my liberal friends: if you want to regulate guns, it's very simple: repeal the second amendment.

>repeal the second amendment.

Alright, I'll bite: Historically, the second Amendment was meant to to refer to guns being allowed inside of a well-regulated militia. This is accomplished by the states' National Guards. It was not intended to mean that each person gets to have a gun.

This, according to America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhail Reed Amar. Great read, it walks the reader in a novel-type way through each part of the Constitution.

But, we've expanded the 'meaning' of the Constitution several times in ways the founders would have never anticipated. This in like with the 'living document' aspect, and a direct result of our veneration of document that is quite short.

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

#738

Post by analog31 »

kefka wrote: post #527
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…

> 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…

How's polygamous divorce work? Majority vote? A lot of what constitutes "marriage law" has to do with what happens when marriages fail in one way or another.

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

#739

Post by justinpaulson »

quizotic wrote: post #240
gibsonje wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a case of states violating the constitution of the united states. It's a pretty clear violation of equal protection. It's not up to the states to decide this. Rights of a minority should not be left to the democratic process.

Yes, but why this minority? Why not allow 12 year olds to marry as a consititutional right? Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry? I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument. I'm really asking. States license things all the time, and the conditions of their licenses block certain people from doing certain things. Why are the courts blocking the right of states to license this activity (marriage) in this p…

Because they brought the case to the supreme court. If 12 year olds and incestual couples want the right to marriage then they need to also bring that case to the supreme court. They didn't just decide to make this decision, they are judging a case that was brought to the court.

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

#740

Post by hobbyjogger »

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.

In an odd way, your constitutional amendment (b) would outlaw marriage altogether.

When you have an inalienable right to something, you can't bargain that right away through contract.[1] An inalienable right to define who is family would make it impossible for anyone to enter a "contract" for an exclusive relationship (which alienates your right to marry others you want to have in your family).

You couldn't get married (at least as that term is used now) any more than you can enter a contract to become a slave.

[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable+ri...

Post reply on HN