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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by vacri »

caskance wrote: post #773
trhway wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 marriage - a man/wife pairing (or 1-to-N grouping) recognized by the tribe/village with respect to all those legal distinctions related to property, children, etc... - existed long before the religion.

That would require humans to have existed before religion, which is frankly quite ridiculous.

You don't think that there were humans that existed before any form of codified spirituality? I'd be willing to believe that explicit ritual bonding (marriage) didn't predate religion, but find it hard to believe that the first words we uttered went along with some sort of priestly social class or referenceable rules for living.

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

#912

Post by vacri »

bane wrote: post #537
wyager wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it's just a social ceremony, the government should not give it special legal allowance. The government doesn't recognize Quinceañeras or bar mitzvahs. If you believe that marriage has an important legal function, it's also not fair to preclude polygamists from getting those same legal utilities. A much better generalized solution is to expand the purview of contract law to allow it to do everything marriage d…

> bar mitzvahs The government does recognize a legal "coming of age" in several cases (at least in the U.S.). - Driving a car (restricted at 15 years and some months, open at 16) - Entering the Majority (18) - Can enter the military (18, or 17 with some restrictions) - Can have Sex (rules vary by state, but is generally 16-18 with various limits) - Can drink (21) etc. It just so happens that these legal coming-of-age…

At first I thought of it jokingly, but it is actually related - you can add to this list minimum age for politicians: representatives (25), senators (30), and potus (35). It doesn't affect many people, of course, but it is age-based freedoms implemented by the guv.

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

#913

Post by DonHopkins »

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…

Precisely! And that "concern troll" argument is also commonly used by bigoted opponents of gay marriage who don't want to admit their real motivation. As soon as the concern trolls can come up with a plan to convince all the right wing religious bigots to abandon the institution of marriage, we can start taking them seriously.

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

#914

Post by DonHopkins »

pekk wrote: post #649
eropple wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a reasonable position, but a realistic one only if you believe that the opposition to same-sex marriage is the use of the word "marriage" and not a fear-driven hatred of people with a different use for their plumbing. As it happens, I do not; I am entirely certain that "civil unions" being applied to gay people would call down the exact same rhetoric from the exact same people. (I am further certain that the wh…

I can't agree. The word "marriage" in particular makes people irrationally excited and start thinking about their church's definition of marriage. So politically, it is a line in the sand. "Defense of civil unions act" doesn't have the same ring and wouldn't get Republicans out to the polls the same way. If, in an alternate history, this could have been made a matter of the government meddling in the issue of marriag…

It's the word "gay" that makes them irrational.

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

#915

Post by OJFord »

olalonde wrote: post #798
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.

What? That's exactly the opposite of what parent is suggesting (if I understood correctly): marriage should be a private or religious matter and not a legal institution. Also, non religious marriage has been going on for a long time in many countries (e.g. China) and I don't think France is a notable pioneer in that area.

Well the point is that the state has to do _something_ since some sort of legal status is required for many purposes in most countries.

The described scenario in France means that you can have a religious marriage if you so wish; an official contract-signing 'event' out of necessity.

Makes sense IMO - not a government's job to tell a church who is or isn't allowed to marry under their religion.

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

#916

Post by nutate »

zxcvcxz wrote: post #852
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? Are you trying to say multiple adults can't all agree on something? Your argument is based on ignorance and you're no better than the people who oppose gay marriage. You've been fed Christian and feminist propaganda to make you believe that only two consenting adults can love each other and that if you happen to love more than one person you shouldn't have the same righ…

You're perhaps confusing polyamory with polygamy/polyandry? To put it in hacker terms, polygamy / polyandry is forcing an edge reduction creating a hub and spoke architecture when the arrangement has to be a 1 to n-1 mesh. The equality of a mesh is an easy mathematical argument to make, but it isn't the argument polygamy/polyandry is making. Polygamy/polyandry is inherently unequal. [edit] to get the math right a polygamous/polyandrous relationship maxes out at n-1 contracts. Polyamory would be (n*(n-1))/2 contracts and I would argue for equality that if n changed all contracts would have to be retermed. Polygamy / polyandry is unequal. Period. It's a mathematical fact. Polyamory I could be convinced of the possibility of legal equality, but not for polygamy/polyandry.

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

#917

Post by OJFord »

enjo wrote: post #618
yellowapple wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is that OP wants the current rights from marriage to be part of civil unions instead, not for said rights to be eradicated outright. The former sounds like a more reasonable position and would address your (and the parent commenter's) concerns.

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.

Can you support that claim? I always thought it was rooted in religion, and the practice dates back to a time when every person and thing was religious since we really knew no better, as far as I'm aware.

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

#918

Post by vacri »

quizotic wrote: post #200
mkr-hn wrote: post #17

For me and a lot of friends and family, marriage equality. Yay. "It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality . . . Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this…

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…

> In brief, their view was that resolving this issue in the courts erodes the democratic process.

That the issue made it to the supreme court shows that it is following the democratic process laid out in the constitution. If it has to be decided on by SCOTUS, the issue has already been through a number of other checks and balances. SCOTUS decisions are part of the American democratic process, and it's incredibly disingenuous of Scalia to complain about it.

Basically the "this is not democratic process!" is a standard dog-whistle cry put forward when conservatives lose a vote. Progressives have their own cries, of course, but "this isn't democratic, and the proof is that I didn't win" is a standard losing conservative trope.

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

#919

Post by millstone »

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.

Social security is one benefit that can only be inherited by a spouse. It cannot be willed to someone else.

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

#920

Post by DonHopkins »

csallen wrote: post #881
vehementi wrote: post #782

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, why not? Because gays not being able to marry is an injustice, an unfairness, oppression, etc. Priority #1 is to stop doing harm to those people however it can be implemented. We didn't * say "Oh black people should have rights, but let's postpone that until we can come up with the best possible way to write it in legislature" *racist people did in fact use that argument

> We didn't say "Oh black people should have rights, but let's postpone that until we can come up with the best possible way to write it in legislature" Yes we did. Black people were legally discriminated against for almost 100 years until the Civil Rights Act. And before that, we were slaves until the 14th Amendment. Similarly, women weren't allowed to vote until the 19th Amendment. I'm all for civil disobedience in…

No, it's not worrisome that gay marriage is wrong from a legal perspective, it's worrisome that the laws are wrong from an equality perspective.
Post reply on HN