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

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Post by lisper »

pc2g4d wrote: post #714
lisper wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> 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?

Ultimately, the Supreme Court, by virtue of the fact that the Union army won the civil war.

If you don't like it, you can always try to get the Fourteenth Amendment repealed. Maybe the Thirteenth too while you're at it. Good luck with that.

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

#742

Post by jgroszko »

ohitsdom wrote: post #572
jgroszko wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big ones are hospital visitation rights, being able to file joint federal taxes, and estate planning and inheritance benefits.

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.

From what I understand, in some cases where the couple didn't do any estate planning the deceased partner's family could seize the deceased partner's property out of spite, sometimes leaving the surviving partner homeless or destitute.

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

#743

Post by [deleted] »

leejoramo wrote: post #735
giaour wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 per…

[deleted]

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

#744

Post by kazinator »

analog31 wrote: post #738
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…

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.

Polygamous divorce doesn't necessarily mean that everyone goes their separate ways. Rather, it could be that one person leaves (and generalize it from there). One or more people want out, and so execute some exit clause in the contract. What, if anything, they take away is settled at that time. Just like a partner leaving a three or four partner company.

It's not a majority vote under monogamy, by the way, so why would it be under polygamy.

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

#745

Post by comex »

analog31 wrote: post #738
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…

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.

Some of it. But there are quite a lot of other effects of marriage that have nothing to do with that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of...

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

#746

Post by kstenerud »

vectorpush wrote: post #515
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…

I don't have any moral objections to poly-marriage, but I don't think it's the same thing as gay marriage. Prohibition of gay marriage is rooted in the identity of individuals , but prohibition of polygamy is based on the amount of participants in the union. No one is discriminated against in the face of poly-marraige prohibition because it has nothing to do with the traits of any individual.

Sure it does: The trait of whom you choose as a partner. The trait of the structure of your union.

The difference between the number of participants vs the gender distribution of the participants is academic.

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

#747

Post by henrikschroder »

baddox wrote: post #204
dennisbest wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kennedy is addressing the idea (myth) that churches would be compelled to perform same-sex marriages or somehow face legal consequences for speaking on the issue.

The closest thing I have seen is that Denmark apparently forces all church buildings to be available for gay weddings. No priest is forced to officiate, but the local bishop must arrange a willing replacement if necessary. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/931...

Denmark has a state church, which means that the church can influence politics, but also that politics can influence the church. So if church buildings are state buildings for marriage, and the state allows same-sex marriage, then those buildings have to accommodate same-sex marriages.

If the church has a problem with this, it should divorce the state.

In neighbouring Sweden, church and state separated in the year 2000, so when same-sex marriage was finally made legal in 2010, this was simply not an issue. The Church of Sweden can deny same-sex marriages on its premises and by its staff if it so chooses.

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

#748

Post by delecti »

hackuser wrote: post #123
ionforce wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I blame Glee. I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek but it definitely helps to have gay culture and gay icons just out there in the world, melded seamlessly with the rest of society. This includes things like trashy teen comedies and musicals and what not. Having equal marriage rights is just one more step in the right direction of having a more tolerant, loving earth society.

> it definitely helps to have gay culture and gay icons just out there in the world, melded seamlessly with the rest of society. On one hand I agree, but it's never been sufficient. There have been gay icons for a long time (probably forever); Oscar Wilde springs to mind, and Alan Turing (though I don't know if he was well-known to the public). And even with their status, they were still persecuted and ruined.

I think icons like Oscar Wilde are distinct from the root of why Glee was part of LGBT acceptance developing.

When we watch a show, we think of the characters as people. It helps eliminate the problem of people who don't think they know any gay people. Maybe you don't have a cousin or uncle who's gay, but that guy in Glee was gay, and he seemed okay right? Icons don't trivialize things in the same way, because by their nature they're viewed as different.

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

#749

Post by andrewmcwatters »

drcube wrote: post #526
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…

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…

What a joke of a comment.

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

#750

Post by kmonsen »

jivardo_nucci wrote: post #677
enjo wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if all we're doing is just changing the name.. then who really cares? Marriage isn't historically a religious institution, it's a civil one.

Yes, the civil and legal ramifications are important: - my inheritance: my spouse can get my SS income when I die, my wife inherits my goods by default, etc. Now gays get the same treatment. - taxes: are different for married and non-married folks. Now gays get the same treatment. IOW "follow the money". This ruling will change how much money the government pays to its citizens and how money is passed among its citiz…

Also visitation rights in hospitals, for example on death bed. Co-parenting rights and many more.
Post reply on HN