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

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by dublinben »

gpvos wrote: post #762
leejoramo wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is largely true in the US. I can't speak for how it works in all states, but in most you need an official to marry the couple. The official can be either a religious minister or a government official (such as a Judge or Clerk). From the States point of view, it is not really a religious issue. There are actually "religious" organizations who for a small fee will give you a certificate to act as a minister to per…

That's the difference between France (and many other European countries such as the Netherlands) and the US: here, the official cannot be a religious minister. You first have to get married by an official from your municipality, and only after that is it legal to get a religious marriage (or anything else that carries the name "marriage" but is not the official government-recognized marriage). Because of the separati…

That isn't very different at all. The religious wedding ceremony is not legally binding in any way. You must file for a marriage license in your local jurisdiction, and have it completed by your officiant, whoever that may be.

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

#772

Post by api »

anti-shill wrote: post #35

good...now maybe the so-called "leftists" can put this issue aside and concentrate on issues that matter to more than about 1% of the population...I refer to these really "silly" issues like wages, single-payer healthcare (obamacare is a mess), trade, flooding of the labor supply, the drug war, worker rights and benefits, more time off and vacation, monopolies, regulatory capture, NIMBYized zoning/regs (aka affordabl…

Interesting how hard you got down voted.

I don't disagree with marriage equality at all, but I also believe that the whole "culture war" has been horribly destructive to our ability to address more pressing issues. It's been a fantastic divide-and-conquer tactic to con lower income (and usually socially conservative) people into voting against their economic best interests, and to prevent the formation of any meaningful progressive coalition on these issues.

Hopefully we can reach some kind of consensus here and put some of this to bed so we can move on to things that are, I hate to say it, much more important -- like the things you list.

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

#773

Post by caskance »

trhway wrote: post #622
baddox wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Marriage has always been a government institution. Religion co-opted it for themselves at a later time. I don't think that's the full story. I suspect that religious marriage existed long before nation states and most of the current legal distinctions associated with marriage.

>I don't think that's the full story. I suspect that religious marriage existed long before nation states and most of the current legal distinctions associated with marriage. I suspect that marriage - a man/wife pairing (or 1-to-N grouping) recognized by the tribe/village with respect to all those legal distinctions related to property, children, etc... - existed long before the religion.

That would require humans to have existed before religion, which is frankly quite ridiculous.

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

#774

Post by prewett »

lisper wrote: post #214
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…

> 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'm one of those who I think you would say "Just Don't Get It." Judging from your rhetoric, you clearly don't understand why some people do not think gay marriage is a good thing for the country. I don't think you have earned the right to say we "Just Don't Get It" and need to be "dope-slapped" until you actually get why we disagree with your viewpoint. If you can coherently argue for my position (even though you disagree), and you still don't think I'm being reasonable, then maybe you can use that kind of rhetoric.

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

#775

Post by vehementi »

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…

This is the critical thing for me and what makes that particular dissent so baffling ("This issue has been stolen from the democratic process!"). It is a crime and tragedy every day we go on where gay people can't marry. People are (were) suffering emotionally, materially and in principle - millions of people - because of that law. It's already been excruciatingly, unbearably, unjustly slow to get this far - and people should wait around for a better fix? No.

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

#776

Post by ajays »

Rant time.

This talk about "church's definition of marriage", etc. is a red herring, and just a couched way of saying "we don't like homosexuality and homosexual behavior".

I got married in India. In a ceremony presided over by a local priest. There was no "church" involved. But guess what? No Christian here (in the US) has ever doubted the authenticity of my marriage.

And then I got divorced in the US. The courts here had no problem recognizing my marriage, even though it was performed in some other country, by some unknown religious authority. The officials had no hesitation in breaking up this marriage. Why don't we require the Church's blessing to break up a marriage (I am aware that Catholics have a certain process of appealing to the Pope, but not all churches do)?

If you don't support the idea of the government getting involved in marriage, you shouldn't support the idea of government-approved divorces either! Go to your church and get a divorce!

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

#777

Post by jivardo_nucci »

Havvy wrote: post #754
jivardo_nucci wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's called a merger.

... and adopt and raise children, pass their SS to their spouse when they "die" (go bankrupt?), marry human "persons", marry horse, dogs, the subway train et al?

They have no SS? Absurd, why not?

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

#779

Post by yeahdude »

kstenerud wrote: post #764
yeahdude wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not when you consider the legal ramifications.

The legal ramifications are the same as well: Property rights under the union, taxation, child guardianship, visitation, protection upon dissolution, and wills.

So the child of a divorce has to move between more than 2 homes now? A wealthy man can split his income with more than 1 wife that doesn't work?

It's not the same, it's qualitatively and quantitatively different. Is there a limit to the number of members? Can you join a union halfway through? Can you leave a union without dissolving it? Those questions don't come up under 2-person unions.

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

#780

Post by habosa »

Pretty crazy to think how far America has come on this and related issues. America isn't so good at changing as soon as we should but we've made a lot of social progress in our short ~300 years.

The other day I was watching Eddie Murphy's "Delirious" special [0]. It's widely considered one of the best standup specials ever and it's Eddie in his prime. But he spends the first ~5 minutes just spewing anti-gay jokes. Not hateful stuff, but just saying over and over how he's scared of gay people, etc. And he was probably the biggest star in the country at the time and at the peak of his abilities as a comic. I don't think that would go too well now (even if it is comedy).

Anyway, congratulations to anyone who was previously unable to get married and can now do so. It's a real victory for the good guys.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Murphy_Delirious

Post reply on HN