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

311–320 of 1001 posts

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

#311

Post by worklogin »

chockablock wrote: post #271
quizotic wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Why not allow 12 year olds to marry as a consititutional right? Children are not considered capable of consent. > Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry? Claimed societal interest in preventing harm to offspring born from inbreeding. > I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument. I'm really asking. OK, well now you have a couple answers.

>OK, well now you have a couple answers.

You're rude with your snark.

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

#312

Post by humanrebar »

gherkin0 wrote: post #210
sigzero wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to decide if it is legal or not. If it is not, send it back to Congress to fix. While I agree with the ruling, this court has been doing things clearly outside its purview.

> The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to decide if it is legal or not. This is a really bad idea, you're basically describing an oligarchy. The Supreme Court is really a consensus-enforcing machine, for the most part.

Congress is not supposed to be a consensus-enforcing machine. The Supreme Court is supposed to make sure the words of the Constitution and the words of the laws mean something. If they don't, then the country is ruled by people, not by laws.

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

#313

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

jordanlev wrote: post #267
a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "gay sex is just gross, sorry it just is" Do you think we've totaled into the billions in costs related to diseases spread primarily by sodomy? Probably. It seems pretty natural and healthy to regard such a dangerous activity with some revulsion.

Uhh... straight people have anal sex too.

That used to be illegal, too.

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

#314

Post by chralieboy »

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…

The opinion goes into strenuous detail on the history of marriage cases before the court. This decision was not tearing down "what is marriage?", but pivoted (for Justice Kennedy, who was the deciding vote and wrote the majority opinion) on providing equal dignity. In essence, they found that the core aspects of marriage were upheld in gay marriages and as such they were due equal protection.

Your question — whose dignity falls under the scope of consideration — is the tricky one here. This is malleable and in the US Constitution is reinterpreted as views change. The majority's view is that, as we have seen states experiment with gay marriage and civil unions, we have found the arguments against them to be untenable. We've never defined marriage as being about procreation (e.g. if a man and a post-menopausal woman want to marry that's never been an issue) and we hold it as a form of social cohesion (which applies in LBGT unions, as seen in state who have allowed them.)

Why not siblings? This has a genetic argument against it that was not addressed here. Why not 12 year olds? We don't see their union as a part of the social construct. Again, this decision isn't about tearing down the definition of marriage. It upholds the definition of marriage and says that it applies to same sex couples.

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

#315

Post by edent »

jrs235 wrote: post #258
npinguy wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same reason that the Civil Rights act had to be passed in the courts and the first students in integrated schools in the south had to be marched in with armed guard. "Democracy" is frequently used interchangeably with freedom, but never underestimate the power of a close-minded majority to rule with tyranny and impose their will and discrimination on a minority - racial, sexually-orientatated, or otherwise.

"the Civil Rights act had to be passed in the courts" What?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._Un...

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

#316

Post by tdees40 »

jayess wrote: post #148

My partner and I are discussing getting married, but the federal income tax "marriage penalty" is giving us serious pause.

I have friends who "got married" in a legally unsanctioned way. No tax penalty, but they still feel like they expressed their commitment to one another.

And yes, obviously there are massive downsides to this approach.

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

#317

Post by chralieboy »

hackuser wrote: post #257
quizotic wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

12 year olds, and brothers and sisters, are not oppressed minorities facing a long history of brutal discrimination.

The opinion very specifically did _not_ provided any protected status to gays and lesbians.

Persecution had nothing to do with it.

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

#318

Post by michaelsbradley »

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 a human person to be a toaster oven. With kindness and charity, but with firm resolve, persons of good will should give civil disobedience to this court ruling and all that flows from it.

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

#319

Post by worklogin »

tptacek wrote: post #284
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…

Scalia's argument isn't that marriage equality is an issue for the states. It that it's an issue for the legislature ; that is, that the people should decide on it, rather than an interpretation of our secular scripture. It's helpful to remember that the balance of powers were carefully designed, with an overarching purpose of not centralizing power into a monarchy or aristocracy. We are by design not a nation govern…

>Of course, there are even more powerful arguments in favor of marriage equality. For one thing, the black letter language of the Constitution, right smack in the beginning of it prior to any amendments, requires all the states to honor each other's judicial proceedings, public acts, and records.

It's not clear cut as you imply. If it were, Concealed Carry Licenses for handguns would have reciprocity everywhere.

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

#320

Post by spdustin »

samch wrote: post #197
enlightenedfool wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, you should start leading again by cross-species marriage too. It may sound bizarre now but that's how same sex marriage was a 100 years back. Marrying your pets should be legal too.

One of these days, I'll earn the right to downvote a hateful comment. Seriously, any analogy of gay marriage and marrying animals is outright hateful.

As I learned recently, you can click the time stamp of their comment and flag it for moderator review on the resulting page. That's the path to reporting hateful or unacceptable speech.
Post reply on HN