Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules • Hacker News Board

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

#691

Post by ScottBurson » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 7:08 PM UTC

pacala wrote: post #666

tommorris wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The state has a vested interest in procreation (i.e.: creation of new citizens & taxpayers as others die off), so takes an interest in "marriage" as a means for facilitating the most efficient & effective means of promoting procreation, doing so by giving special benefits in return for parents taking on special obligations. Expanding the beneficiaries of those benefits to those to whom there is absolutely no chance…

> So, you think marriage shouldn't be available for straight people who are both infertile? The rest of your argument around mutual care is reasonable. There are more nuanced views than a blunt "if state support for marriage depends on procreation, let's ban marriage for infertile people as well.", which sounds like spite: if I can't get it, then those guys over there should not get it either because they are similar…

As any parent will tell you, pregnancy and childbirth are only the beginning of all that is involved in raising a child. And those can be contracted out: adoption has always been possible, and modern technology gives us the option of surrogacy. Plenty of gay couples are raising kids, and have been doing so for years.

You're just trying to rationalize your prejudice by pretending it's about fertility.

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

#692

Post by nickhalfasleep » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 7:09 PM UTC

rodgerd wrote: post #678

nickhalfasleep wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Government only got into the Marriage business when they wanted to start denying it.. to interracial couples.

You aren't even wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_Un...

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

#693

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 7:09 PM UTC

honestcoyote wrote: post #607

kefka wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Asking gay people to wait for a unicorn is bullshit. Please don't be That Guy. Ideological purity is so often the enemy of making the world better. But, why not? I'm a male. And I'm bisexual and polyamorus. I understand, and accept if a family wants to have 3 adults. Or 4 adults. I'm even OK if children are raised in that atmosphere. Right now, there are rules and restrictions on polygamy (which is a subset of poly…

I've often wondered if polyamorus families could make an end run around the old anti-polygamy laws by creating a corporation. It would give legal protection for shared property and money. Would also provide a mechanism for divorce by allowing the remaining people to buy out the shares of the person leaving. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be a start. I'm personally not poly in any way, but it's a fun thought expe…

You probably don't need to be polyamorous to do this.

But it's an expensive option given all the paperwork (and taxes) you'd have to file at least once a year.

In the UK, you'd probably be better off incorporating as a trust - perhaps even a charitable trust, if you can find a good enough cover story.

And you may think you're joking, but a lot of families set up financial trusts for their assets for exactly these reasons.

It would be unusual for a trust to include non-married partners, but I don't see why it would be impossible.

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

#694

Post by giaour » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 7:10 PM UTC

brownegg wrote: post #496

nostromo wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can't upvote this hard enough. OP is right in my mind, but.... I'm straight (and divorced), and we got married for many of the same reasons that LGBT folks want to--it makes sense. Visitation rights, inheritance, tax treatment, etc. It's unlikely that marriage would be removed as something of concern to lawmakers--has that kind of thing ever happened anywhere, any time, any way? I respect OP's opinion, but it's ivo…

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.

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

#695

Post by ElComradio » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 7:10 PM UTC

asddubs wrote: post #664

ElComradio wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any straight guy will, if given the choice, avoid scenes of man on man sex as much as possible. They might say it's "just not my thing" out of politeness or tact but watch what they do. When Chapelle said it it was funny because everyone watching can relate and it's a tension reliever to hear what you've been bottling up is actually true. Much comedy works this way.

I dunno, I'm a straight guy and it doesn't bother me. It used to but one day I realized it was just socially instilled gay panic.

Interesting concept, that sexual orientation is something we believe is ingrained, but things we find sexually repulsive are fluid and subject to change.

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

#696

Post by mrgoldenbrown » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 7:12 PM UTC

jayess wrote: post #148

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

Don't pause yet, unless you've actually run the numbers. Whether you end up with an actual penalty or not depends on a number of inputs like each of your actual incomes, deductions, how your benefit packages, insurance, and other things are structured. It sounds like you haven't actually run the numbers yet, and are operating out of FUD. Talk to a tax expert, or do some research, before despairing.

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

#697

Post by justonepost » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 7:13 PM UTC

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…

Yeah, absolutely. I think Christians should have their own concept of marriage, but it should have nothing to do with the state.

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

#698

Post by jivardo_nucci » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 7:14 PM UTC

honestcoyote wrote: post #607

kefka wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Asking gay people to wait for a unicorn is bullshit. Please don't be That Guy. Ideological purity is so often the enemy of making the world better. But, why not? I'm a male. And I'm bisexual and polyamorus. I understand, and accept if a family wants to have 3 adults. Or 4 adults. I'm even OK if children are raised in that atmosphere. Right now, there are rules and restrictions on polygamy (which is a subset of poly…

I've often wondered if polyamorus families could make an end run around the old anti-polygamy laws by creating a corporation. It would give legal protection for shared property and money. Would also provide a mechanism for divorce by allowing the remaining people to buy out the shares of the person leaving. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be a start. I'm personally not poly in any way, but it's a fun thought expe…

In the midst of reading this I was struck by the question "If corporations are persons, can corporations marry?"

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

#699

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 7:16 PM UTC

Homunculiheaded wrote: post #497

seszett wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Homosexu…

I'm not disagreeing with your general premise that the fundamental right for equality is the basis of the constitution and therefore equal marriage is implied by it. But to your points: "the right of black people to be free and equal to the other people" (specifically the abolishment of slavery) Is made explicit in the 13th amendment[0] And "women's suffrage" is the 19th amendment[1] So for both of your examples, the…

[deleted]

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

#700

Post by mahyarm » Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 7:16 PM UTC

nathan_long wrote: post #590

kefka wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Asking gay people to wait for a unicorn is bullshit. Please don't be That Guy. Ideological purity is so often the enemy of making the world better. But, why not? I'm a male. And I'm bisexual and polyamorus. I understand, and accept if a family wants to have 3 adults. Or 4 adults. I'm even OK if children are raised in that atmosphere. Right now, there are rules and restrictions on polygamy (which is a subset of poly…

> I understand, and accept if a family wants to have 3 adults. Or 4 adults. I'm even OK if children are raised in that atmosphere. Do you think that it serves the interests of the rest of society to offer special benefits and protections to 3-4 person unions? If so, what? Is there a size limit on such unions? And under what conditions do they begin/end? If one person leaves the union, is the entire union abolished? W…

You make a corporate charter, issue shares and have vesting schedules!

Joking aside, you'll notice a lot of parallels between a business partnership structure and marriages in general. Including the liability parts!

"Personal liability is a major concern if you use a general partnership to structure your business. Like sole proprietors, general partners are personally liable for the partnership's obligations and debts. Each general partner can act on behalf of the partnership, take out loans and make decisions that will affect and be binding on all the partners"