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

381–390 of 1001 posts

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

#381

Post by borski »

madmax96 wrote: post #251
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…

I think that gay marriage should be legal, but I disagree with this. Beware of the fallacy of analogy! There is no economic incentive for a state not to allow gay marriage, there was an economic incentive for states to keep slaves. Also, it wasn't the supreme court that ended up freeing the slaves...

I agree with this being a fallacy of analogy, but yours is the wrong point. There is absolutely economic reason to prevent gay marriage - lower taxes for married couples, for one thing.

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

#382

Post by lmm »

Void_ wrote: post #235
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…

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?

Furries

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

#383

Post by nate_meurer »

ziotom78 wrote: post #224
nate_meurer wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polygamy is a Christian institution. It was pointedly prescribed in the old testament. Modern anti-polygamists will argue that the old testament prescription was a matter of necessity, and that new testament language (particularly Paul's) prescribes monogamy, but to my eyes the new testament's position is pretty casual, while the old testament's is quite strong.

> Polygamy is a Christian institution. It was pointedly prescribed in the old testament. Correction: "Christian" refers to Jesus Christ, which does not appear in the old testament. Catholics, Ortodoxes and many protestant churches are against polygamy.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Have you noticed that every complete Bible contains the Old Testament, including the Pentateuch in its entirety? Old Testament law and prophesy is woven deeply in the fabric of the gospels and of Paul's letters.

And while most modern churches have chosen to interpret Paul's prescription for monogomy strictly, some Christian churches and cultures continue to embrace polygamy.

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

#384

Post by hackuser »

lmm wrote: post #358
ctdonath wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ext…

It's not that clear cut. Could a business refuse service because the customer is black? Could a town effectively segregate gays into separate but equal neighborhoods, with separate but equal businesses, churches, schools, etc?

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

#386

Post by dorgo »

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.

>> Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry? >Claimed societal interest in preventing harm to offspring born from inbreeding. They can produce offspring without a marriage. Or, if it would be allowed, they could marry and dont produce offspring. Dont see how one is connected to the other. Its not a question of reasoning. All you need is a lobby big enough and enough time and you are allowed to do whatever you like to do. Marry a 12 year old, marry a pet, marry a car..

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

#387

Post by yourapostasy »

ctdonath wrote: post #182
plg wrote: post #45

Can we finally stop calling it "gay marriage" and "traditional marriage" and just call it "marriage" now? good job USA I'm glad you are finally catching up to the rest of the developed world.

No, because there is an objective difference. One pairing tends to procreate, the other cannot. The state has an objective interest in facilitating one over the other.

Procreation at this stage of our civilization is not the hurdle, procreating high-value citizens is the hurdle. Whether your value metric is happiness, ethics, wealth, income, etc., or whatever combination.

Once past the baseline survival of struggling to meet and secure basic physiological needs, arguably established for the majority in the developed nations, our species (not just "the state" groupings) should be blind to which groupings (not just pairings) facilitate the procreation and raising of high-value future adults, and if interfering at all, should instead focus upon which individual "family" groups are producing high-value results, regardless of the structure of the "family".

There are long and interesting discussions about what constitutes high-value; that's politics. But I don't subscribe to the notion that there is a currently-valid "objective interest" in promoting heterosexual families on the basis of straight-out procreation. If the species dropped to a population bottleneck level again, then sure; but absent similar catastrophic situations, I don't see where simply promoting procreation progresses the species' civilization, though I welcome counter-views.

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

#388

Post by a_c_s »

dorian-graph wrote: post #321
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.

[Myth?]( http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/October/Idaho-Ministers-T... ) Also, what about [photographers]( http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/07/supreme-court-g... ) and so on facing fines and criminal charges for not taking on clients? I came across this amusing story too, [pro-gay bakers refuse to make cakes that do not support their own precepts]( https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/this-evangelist-asked-a-…

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2014/10/2...

The key point about the Idaho ministers is this: "The Hitching Post has apparently in the past operated as a for-profit business and offered civil services as well as religious ceremonies. Earlier this month, it either became a religious organization or decided to present itself as such. If the Knapps are operating and plan to continue operating the Hitching Post as a religious organiztion, they have no reason to fear prosecution from the city."

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

#389

Post by lmm »

ziotom78 wrote: post #224
nate_meurer wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polygamy is a Christian institution. It was pointedly prescribed in the old testament. Modern anti-polygamists will argue that the old testament prescription was a matter of necessity, and that new testament language (particularly Paul's) prescribes monogamy, but to my eyes the new testament's position is pretty casual, while the old testament's is quite strong.

> Polygamy is a Christian institution. It was pointedly prescribed in the old testament. Correction: "Christian" refers to Jesus Christ, which does not appear in the old testament. Catholics, Ortodoxes and many protestant churches are against polygamy.

Jesus Christ is not on every line of the Bible, but the work as a whole is the Christian holy book.

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

#390

Post by DanielBMarkham »

tptacek wrote: post #325
worklogin wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I think I just said it's not that clear-cut. :) Another really helpful thing to remember about the Constitution is that it's incoherent. The framers were not logicians and the Constitution was not an exercise in formal consistency. There are provisions and even rights that conflict directly with each other. And that's by design, too. The idea is to set up an enduring process that will generally converge, like a good…

As a libertarian, the less government is involved in marriage, the better. So yay!

But Scalia's argument is the stronger here. And there will be a time when this kind of reasoning is used in a way that will not be good.

Historical sidebar: back in the 90s, there was a rash of state governments passing "defense of marriage" laws. There was one at the federal level. At the time, the best argument I heard against such laws was that they were idiotic: there's no way the federal court system would start mucking around with marriage.

As I said, today's decision is a good thing. But I am very disturbed that many very intelligent people thought this was none of the court's business. For a fundamental issue like this, it's not a good thing that nobody knows even whether it's relevant to the court or not.

Post reply on HN