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

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by dropit_sphere »

api wrote: post #804
rmxt wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a red herring, almost concern troll-esque, argument. This ruling isn't a slippery slope towards moral depravity and chaos, no matter how much religious authorities will attempt to paint it as such. We can definitely know that civilization as we know it will not collapse because two guys/girls are allowed to kiss, hold hands once in a while, and receive acknowledgment from civil authorities that they share tax…

The religious arguments made by opponents to this are disingenuous. The Bible and many other traditional religious texts have lots of bad things to say about, say, usury (the charging of interest, or at least excess interest), yet you see nobody protesting outside credit card companies or payday lenders. I don't think I've ever heard a Christian conservative criticize our excessive level of private debt. The Catholic…

So, speaking as the thing that goes bump in the night (NRX, HBD, the works), I'd agree that your average anti-gay-marriage person is not reading Leviticus and pulling out political positions based on such. I'd even agree that it's a proxy debate.

But I don't think the real issue is crypto-racism. I mean, for one, I'm what you'd call a "racist" and I don't mention such to my anti-gay marriage family. I mean, hey, if racists and homophobes are all one big happy family, they'd know it, right? All I can say is that I'd advise you to take it in good faith when someone says they're against gay marriage and abhor racism. I'm not one of those people, but I used to be, and there are many of them.

(Another way you can tell: when conservatives parody protected classes by assigning as many statuses as they can think of, often they will come up with the black disabled lesbian with a liberal arts degree. But that would be an object of glee rather than outrage for the person you describe: the suicidal enemy. That conservatives don't like the BDL tells me that they don't really consider the homosexual part (or the degree!) a handicap. That's a victory, of a sort, for someone)

But I do think you're right that it's a proxy debate. I think it's an attempt to re-fight the sexual revolution, and gay marriage is seen as yet more lost ground on that front.

Was this a viable political strategy? Intuitively no, and empirically, definitely no. But voters gonna vote.

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

#902

Post by yeahdude »

anti-shill wrote: post #900
api wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting how hard you got down voted. I don't disagree with marriage equality at all, but I also believe that the whole "culture war" has been horribly destructive to our ability to address more pressing issues. It's been a fantastic divide-and-conquer tactic to con lower income (and usually socially conservative) people into voting against their economic best interests, and to prevent the formation of any meaning…

the readers here are young and educated, which for practical purposes translates to being fascist. Fascism is best defined by the degree to which the overclass controls the youth of a nation by propaganda. Because the youth of today have been pushed into college, that means they are highly propagandized. And of course the overclass loves it when they can force the youth of the nation to focus on an issue such as gay…

What's ironic is how condescending and formulaic your writing is, considering your hatred of the 'overclass'.

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

#903

Post by anti-shill »

anti-shill wrote: post #900
api wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting how hard you got down voted. I don't disagree with marriage equality at all, but I also believe that the whole "culture war" has been horribly destructive to our ability to address more pressing issues. It's been a fantastic divide-and-conquer tactic to con lower income (and usually socially conservative) people into voting against their economic best interests, and to prevent the formation of any meaning…

the readers here are young and educated, which for practical purposes translates to being fascist. Fascism is best defined by the degree to which the overclass controls the youth of a nation by propaganda. Because the youth of today have been pushed into college, that means they are highly propagandized. And of course the overclass loves it when they can force the youth of the nation to focus on an issue such as gay…

formulaic, how?

Ironic, how? It is ironic like, it's ironic, the lakers beat the supersonics, or is it like rain on your wedding day sort of ironic?

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

#904

Post by stick »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #663
masklinn wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Timeline 2001 — Netherlands 2001 — Belgium 2005 — Spain, Canada 2006 — South Africa 2009 — Norway, Sweden 2010 — Portugal, Iceland, Argentina 2012 — Denmark 2013 — France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand 2014 — England and Wales 2015 — Luxembourg, Ireland, United States of America 2017 — Finland (the law is voted and signed but not yet in effect) > I mean, Massachusetts le…

>subdivision-level Coming from a European, I think that's a bit of unnecessary quibbling intended to justify condescending to the Americans. The United States started out as something like the European Union: a partial union of sovereign countries. As such, the appropriate comparison would be to ask: where's the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights declaring that all EU members must implement gay marriage, or…

Well, to give credit where credit is due: Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Massachusetts.

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

#905

Post by ams6110 »

__z wrote: post #876
thraaaawaaaa wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's controversy at the state level over whether religious photographers, DJs, bakers, florists, and wedding planners should be forced to participate equally in all weddings regardless of their religious belief. That's going to be the next big fight.

Photographers, DJs, bakers, florists are not religious organizations, they are for profit businesses. That's the big difference. They are business that are open to the public. The church has religious requirements for some of their ceremonies (such as first communion).

They are also often sole proprietors. Like independent software developers, they may not have a public "place" of business that is distinct from their home. What they do often amounts to contracts between private individuals and not so much businesses open to the public (like a restaurant or retail shop). I don't know enough about the law to say if this falls under a different set of rules, but it would seem reasonable that it might.

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

#907

Post by ElComradio »

SwellJoe wrote: post #892
ElComradio wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The perfect being the enemy of the good is one thing. It's something else when the compromise actually reinforces the root problem. We now have reinforced the idea that government gets to decide who can get married. Wrong direction.

And, so, until we correct the misunderstanding gay people should be excluded from being able to share custody of their children, be beneficiaries of social security, medicare, insurance, retirement plans, and visitation of the partners when in the hospital, etc., all things that heterosexual married couples currently enjoy under the law? That's the wrong direction, and it is unconstitutional. The reality is that the…

Who is working to correct the misunderstanding? The majority of gays and their allies have the opinion that now government has blessed them, other groups can fight their own battles. Or worse and hypocritally throw up their own objections about how it's bad for society.

I'm disinclined to celebrate an expansion of rights of a group that mostly relies on a "gotta get mine" mindset than one of true principles of liberty.

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

#908

Post by vacri »

vehementi wrote: post #775
nostromo wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is the critical thing for me and what makes that particular dissent so baffling ("This issue has been stolen from the democratic process!"). It is a crime and tragedy every day we go on where gay people can't marry. People are (were) suffering emotionally, materially and in principle - millions of people - because of that law. It's already been excruciatingly, unbearably, unjustly slow to get this far - and peop…

>This issue has been stolen from the democratic process!

This reminds me of the Tea Party slogan "No Taxation Without Representation!", the chanters seeming to have forgotten that they have representation. An elected official who represents them. Just because the chanter wasn't in the voting bloc that won doesn't mean that democratic process wasn't followed...

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

#909

Post by vectorjohn »

giaour wrote: post #344
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.

The key word there is "adults." Polygamist communities have a documented tendency to seek out younger and younger women for marriage. ( http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657 ) EDIT: added source; had previously assumed this was common knowledge

This has literally nothing to do with poly(gam|amor)y.

For one thing, looking for younger women / men is not wrong. As long as they're consenting, and old enough to consent.

Further, any relationship of any kind has the potential to be abusive. This is no ground to say it shouldn't be allowed. This is like the idiotic christian bigots that think homosexuals are bad because they're child molesters. No, they're not.

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

#910

Post by vectorjohn »

sgnelson wrote: post #188
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…

One problem I have with Polygamy is that I have never seen a 1-woman, multi-husband community. Sure, I've seen a few relationships in which this was the case, but when you look at the historic aspects in the US, it seems a very rare thing. That makes me wonder if there is a severe power imbalance in the relationships and what is truly occurring. It's well known that in some modern US polygamy situations, there is a g…

So basically, "I don't know about it, so it doesn't happen."

News flash, 1 woman multi man, and (prepare to have your mind blown), multi women multi man communities can and do exist.

Post reply on HN