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

511–520 of 1001 posts

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

#511

Post by Pinckney »

edko wrote: post #168
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…

I would bet the biggest opposer to polygamy will be the INS ... imagine the Green Card businesses that would enable!

I would bet the biggest opposer to divorce will be the INS ... imagine the Green Card businesses that would enable! After all, it should make little difference to INS whether people choose to have their multiple marriages in series or in parallel.

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

#512

Post by knodi123 »

samatman wrote: post #185
venomsnake wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Without getting unduly personal, let's say that I have a stake in that question being resolved. I know several triples living quietly among us; they face the same kind of problems (child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance rights) as same-sex couples faced prior to this decision. I made that argument to a couple of friends - that they were not fighting for equality (which will be fairly easy to set up) but for…

Worth noting that at least one of the triples I referred to is a woman and two men. At least one is a man and two women. I'm being vague here, because bigamy is a felony. We really have quite a long way to go on this front.

> I'm being vague here, because bigamy is a felony.

I'm sure your vagueness is really slowing down the investigative arm of law enforcement that normally goes around searching the internet for evidence of dastardly polys.

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

#513

Post by [deleted] »

lukifer wrote: post #483
jasonjei wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's shocking to me is that we need permission from the state to marry, whether gay or straight. Why do we need the blessing of the government to marry anyway? We can have kids without permission from the state (so long as you aren't in China), why do we need to ask for permission and "apply for marriage"? In theory, applying for marriage implies the government could deny a marriage, gay or straight. Why do we impl…

One of the most brilliant ideas I've heard on the subject is a couple of proposed constitutional amendments stating that (a) your body is your personal property, and (b) you have an inalienable right to define who is a member of your family. When framed in that way, even most social conservatives would agree with the underlying principles.

[deleted]

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

#515

Post by vectorpush »

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…

I don't have any moral objections to poly-marriage, but I don't think it's the same thing as gay marriage. Prohibition of gay marriage is rooted in the identity of individuals, but prohibition of polygamy is based on the amount of participants in the union. No one is discriminated against in the face of poly-marraige prohibition because it has nothing to do with the traits of any individual.

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

#516

Post by primroot »

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…

Wouldn't you agree something similar applies to workplace discrimination? For example, I would never be willing to work with someone who discriminates against gays. However it is only due to my own economic circumstances that I'm able to act based on that preference. One could as well conclude that the root of the problem is people having to tolerate unfavorable conditions just to get by, and that addressing the issue of discrimination is just a temporary solution. I live in Panama not in the U.S.

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

#518

Post by wpietri »

andreyf wrote: post #406
hackuser wrote: post #246

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? Why is this class of license inequity different than other classes, where the states' right to license something is not resolved by SCOTUS? Certainly with all the imagined legal expertise on HN, someone will answer. I have no expertise, but here's a shot at least from a moral point of view and based on some…

Legally, you are right. Morally and practically, I'm not so sure. Few hearts and minds are changed as a result of the supreme court's rulings, just the code powering the justice system. Convincing 5 of the top judges is easy compared to convincing the populace, and the latter is more important for the long term goals of equality. Federally legislated social change pushes back the more important goals of social equali…

> No hearts and no minds are changed as a result of the supreme court rulings, just the code powering the justice system.

A lot of the "hearts and minds" you talk about are animated by "tradition", which is often code for "continuing to do the thing I grew up with". The legal code changes what people grow up with, thereby changing future hearts and minds.

Take a look at the graph of approval rates of interracial marriage:

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Prod...

Some of the change there is changing hearts and minds. But a lot of it is just the replacement of bigoted hearts and minds with new ones.

As Max Planck wrote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

And if that's true for science, it's much more so for cultural things like this. I think there's little point in continuing to harm GLBT families in the hopes of preserving the delicate feelings of people who were unlikely to change anyhow.

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

#519

Post by snowwrestler »

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.

The Constitution guarantees that the government will be fair to citizens, and places certain restrictions on its powers. It does contain any rights in it at all. Rather, it assumes the pre-existence of rights, and works from there.

When it comes to rights, the onus is on the side of proving something is NOT a right. This goes all the way back to the founding of the nation and is enshrined in the 10th Amendment.

So yes, people have a right to same-sex marriage. Why? Because they want to. That's enough in the United States. If the government is going to intervene to prevent that, it needs to demonstrate a compelling reason to do so. No one has demonstrated such a compelling reason when it comes to same-sex marriage.

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

#520

Post by wyager »

bighi wrote: post #470
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…

But marriage is not a religious thing. Before most popular religions were created, marriage was already old. For cultural reasons, it's popular to do a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY along the marriage. What's religious there is the ceremony, not the marriage. You can have religious ceremonies without marriage, and marriages without the religious ceremony. Two independent concepts that, by happenstance, often come together.

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 does.

Post reply on HN