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

351–360 of 1001 posts

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

#351

Post by bennettfeely »

gaymarriage wrote: post #248
sgnelson wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

what a bogus argument. You're saying because 'some modern polygamy situations' are unhealthy, we should hope to keep it illegal? You're going to freak out when you learn about the divorce rate.

Polygamy is simply very different than same-sex marriage. It’s associated with patriarchy and sexual abuse, rather than liberation and equality. It flourishes in self-segregated communities, Mormon-fundamentalist and Muslim-immigrant, rather than being widely distributed across society. Its practitioners (so far as we know) are considerably fewer in number than the roughly 3.5 percent of Americans who identify as gay or bisexual.

While some polygamists may feel they were “born this way,” their basic sexual orientation is accommodated under existing marriage law even if the breadth of their affections isn’t, which makes them less sympathetic than same-sex couples even if their legal arguments sound similar.

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

#352

Post by giaour »

gadders wrote: post #283
Void_ wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10 years from now. HN Headline: Polygamy upheld by supreme court Comment: While this is excellent news for my polygamous friends, I see no progress on [insert new deviation here]. --- So what do you all think will be the next big thing?

Incest amongst consenting adults.

IIRC, New Jersey allows this, and consenting, incestuous couple have moved there in droves.

I would try to look up the reference but I don't want to do a search for "legal incest New Jersey" on my work computer.

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

#353

Post by philwelch »

Osiris wrote: post #331
philwelch wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monogamy also has a storied history of abuse. Up until the 1970's it was perfectly legal for a man to rape his wife. This does not make it fundamentally impossible for healthy and consensual monogamous relationships to exist, and neither does the supposed behavior of 19th century Mormons make it impossible for healthy and consensual polygamous relationships to exist.

What behavior of 19th century Mormons are you referring to? The majority of polygamous relationships were about taking responsibility for widows and their families. Mormons were violently persecuted and polygamy was a support mechanism.

Yeah, I edited it to "supposed behavior" because I don't really have a good basis of knowledge about 19th century Mormons. It's just that, fairly or unfairly, they're usually the ones held up as an example of how polygamy is supposedly abusive and sexist.

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

#354

Post by jessaustin »

taki1 wrote: post #107
jessaustin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK downvoters [EDIT: previously parent post had been grayed-out, now it appears this one is?], do you really not know that this is a thing? Lots of mommies and daddies don't want little Jenny and Billy looked after by a dude. I don't know what being gay has to do with it, except perhaps 'taki1 is telling us that gay dudes are more likely to want to work in child care than straight dudes are. Maybe that's true?

no, no, no. I'm all about individual rights! Each person, whatever their sex is, should have the right to work at a place if they are as qualified as other candidates. If there's a lady who wants to land a job at Child Care Center, and - let's say a Black transgender gay communist - they should have exactly the same chances. But these horrible sexist mothers will allow only other women, preferable white, to take care…

It seems we agree. I was just responding to the (it-seemed-to-me) reflexive downvoting of your previous comment, possibly because people didn't realize that lots of parents are homophobic. I know lots of parents, and they really are homophobic in this way.

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

#355

Post by notNow »

macjohnmcc wrote: post #341
notNow wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a slippery slope when you allow a bunch of unelected middle aged and old folks gather in a room and decide what is good and what is not for the rest of the population. The US political system is a big joke in my opinion.

I hope you also find the legislative process a joke because it certainly is.

Sure! Like I said the whole US political system is a big joke but at least lawmakers can be held accountable theoretically for their voting decision to their electorate but to whom these appointed judges answer actually?

I guess you know the answer for this.

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

#356

Post by seszett »

BurningFrog wrote: post #227

I'm glad we'll have full gay marriage now. But the idea that "the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage" is pretty laughable. Does anyone really believe this right was in the Constitution for 250 years, only to be discovered recently? In reality public opinion and culture changed, and 5 justices decided to change the law.

> Does anyone really believe this right was in the Constitution for 250 years, only to be discovered recently?

That seems to be the case to me. I'm not completely familiar with US history, but don't you think the right of black people to be free and equal to the other people was already written in the constitution 250 years ago, for example? Or women's suffrage. It just took a while to actually recognize it.

Homosexuality was legalized in France in 1791 according to the same set of ideals, during the same movement that gave birth to the US constitution. Slavery was abolished as well, and women's suffrage was discussed, because it was well recognized that these were all questions of equality. It isn't a stretch to think that the US constitution would also fundamentally allow homosexuality and forbid discrimination according to sexual orientation (and therefore allow gay marriage as well).

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

#357

Post by hackuser »

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…

You make excellent points and make them well. I would add: Let's not take the arguments entirely at face value. People facing defeat in federal court have long tried to hide behind states' rights (used for segregation and abortion, for example) and that any court decision that overturns legislation is democratically illigitmate.

> "regardless of what we think of marriage equality, who are we to override the decisions of the people?"

The courts were created, intentionally, as a check on the legislature and executive. Also, the will of the people as expressed in the Constitution, that all citizens are due equal protection and due process, is as democratically legitimate (and overrides) their will as expressed through the legislatures.

At the same time, as you say, there are legitimate concerns about the limits of judicial power, and they should be examined and advocated for, even if the advocacy is, as usual, for political convenience and not for principle or public good.

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

#358

Post by lmm »

ctdonath wrote: post #202
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…

So what happens to clergy who refuse to perform such "weddings" on religious grounds? All major religions have at least a majority, if not uniform, disapproval of "marrying" any other than man & woman. We already have cases of punishing & re-educating bakers for adhering to their religious views on the subject, how much more so those who may face compulsion to perform a union they cannot religiously condone? ETA: to…

Clergy have every right to refuse them. Other people have every right to express their views in peaceful, democratic fashion, e.g. picketing such churches, just as they would with a church that advocated any other distasteful view.

No-one, those bakers included, is legally compelled to support gay marriage. Some people may find themselves economically compelled to do things they find distasteful, but to a certain extent that's always true for anyone who has to work for a living.

There are some things that we consider it unfair to economically compel people to do, e.g. OHSA. Do you think that should be extended to e.g. making it illegal to make someone's job contingent on officiating gay marriages? What is the natural boundary there - should it be illegal to fire someone for doing something they're politically opposed to? Should a barman have the right to e.g. refuse service to women because they don't think women should be allowed to drink?

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

#359

Post by pgeorgi »

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…

Since it's about the civil aspects, same sex marriage is the logistically easier topic.

Take taxes: tax codes cover singles and pairs, optionally with children. Same sex marriage doesn't change much here, polygamy does. The same for lots of other provisions that are affected by civil unions (no matter what they're called).

It can be done, but it's a lot more work (and as such, a lot more legal attack surface) than declaring "we don't care anymore for the sex of the pairs' members".

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

#360

Post by clavalle »

ctdonath wrote: post #231
clavalle wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily their participation is not necessary.

The question isn't about whether they're necessary, the question is what happens to someone whose services are solicited and they refuse.

Oh, I see. You are conflating a 'religious service provider' with, say, a business who bakes cakes.

Religious institutions are not considered public accommodations so they are not required to offer their services without discrimination to protected classes.

Post reply on HN