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

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

#921

Post by vacri » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 1:57 AM UTC

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #435

bennettfeely wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nothing about marriage has anything to do with liberation or equality. That's a modern attitude. Marriage is associated with the treatment of a person as property and arrangements for political and financial reasons, even to this day. And yet here you are, saying one type of marriage is okay and the other kind that you're not particularly close to is associated with Mormons and Muslims and antiprogressivism, while la…

> Nothing about marriage has anything to do with liberation or equality. That's a modern attitude.

"Nothing about marriage has anything to do with liberation or equality, except in these modern times"?

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

#922

Post by vacri » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 1:59 AM UTC

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.

Bigamy requires being officially married whilst already being officially married. The state already has records, by definition.

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

#923

Post by vacri » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 2:05 AM UTC

3zzy wrote: post #790

Honest question: Do gay couples have to commit adultery to produce children? — OR — Rely on straight couples to produce children whom they can adopt?

Adultery isn't a problem if it's performed with the consent of the spouse. There are tons of open marriages out there.

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

#924

Post by aikah » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 2:09 AM UTC

swasheck wrote: post #806

aikah wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

marriage certainly predates Christianity. Therefore marriage shouldn't be associated with Christianity or Islam or whatever. Marriage is a social construct before being a religious one.

you're conflating "Christianity" with "religion" though. it was addressed above but it bears repeating, social and religious constructs were inextricable in antiquity. the concept of separating them is fairly modern.

fair point.

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

#925

Post by PebblesHD » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 2:48 AM UTC

I have nothing to say other than good. This is how it should always have been. To all the people who disagree, you are entitled to your opinion, and to all those who can now celebrate their love with all the peace and respect of any other person, congratulations and I wish you all the best.

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

#926

Post by mirimir » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 3:19 AM 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…

Yes, we want separation of church and state. But this decision says nothing about church. It affects only the state's role in marriage.

Here's a concrete example. Two people of the same sex want to marry. They get a marriage license. They find someone who's qualified and willing to marry them. They submit paperwork to the state, proving that they're married, and they become legally married.

The Supreme Court ruling doesn't require someone who's qualified to marry them, unless that qualified person is a state official. It doesn't, for example, require a Catholic priest to marry them. The Catholic church can still prohibit marriages between people of the same sex.

However, for purposes of employment, or involving government contracts, the Catholic church must recognize all legal marriages, including those between people of the same sex. But how much of a change does that actually represent? Before this decision, the Catholic church had to recognize legal non-Catholic marriages of all sorts for those purposes.

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

#927

Post by AndrewKemendo » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 3:22 AM UTC

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…

>While this is excellent news for my gay and lesbian friends, I see no progress on polygamy.

Isn't this literally the slippery slope that conservatives "warned" against?

I even just saw a politico article today saying basically the same thing:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-...

I'm all for polygamy but I think it's just funny to see this called for as the next step, literally the same day that gay marriage was passed.

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

#928

Post by moioci » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 3:23 AM UTC

Just wanted to point out that certain counties in Alabama have announced that they are getting out of the marriage license business. To avoid sanctioning sanctioning same-sex unions and avoid legal trouble, they won't issue licenses to any couples. That way they can't be accused of discrimination.

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

#929

Post by SwellJoe » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 3:24 AM UTC

ElComradio wrote: post #907

SwellJoe wrote: post #892

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, so, until we correct the misunderstanding gay people should be excluded from being able to share custody of their children, be beneficiaries of social security, medicare, insurance, retirement plans, and visitation of the partners when in the hospital, etc., all things that heterosexual married couples currently enjoy under the law? That's the wrong direction, and it is unconstitutional. The reality is that the…

Who is working to correct the misunderstanding? The majority of gays and their allies have the opinion that now government has blessed them, other groups can fight their own battles. Or worse and hypocritally throw up their own objections about how it's bad for society. I'm disinclined to celebrate an expansion of rights of a group that mostly relies on a "gotta get mine" mindset than one of true principles of libert…

"I'm disinclined to celebrate an expansion of rights of a group that mostly relies on a "gotta get mine" mindset than one of true principles of liberty."

That's absolute bullshit. That's "those people" kind of talk, lumping everyone who shares one characteristic into one group and dismissing their rights as meaningless because they aren't fighting for your preferred cause.

Among the most intersectional activists I know are queer people of color. They're the folks standing up for immigrant families in detention (which is a quite lonely activist area) at a much higher percentage than the population at large, for example. It's certainly not an issue I see white straight male libertarians get up about (I fit that description in many regards, but I'm frequently embarrassed by how self-involved and self-serving the so-called "liberty" movement is).

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

#930

Post by wtbob » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 3:26 AM UTC

glesica wrote: post #397

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? Marriage is a legal contract. 12 year olds can't enter into legal contracts (alone). Therefore, 12 year olds can't get married. This also takes care of pedophiles marrying children. Gay people are born gay. So this is different from polygamy. Animals can't enter into legal contracts. So this is different from bestiality. As an aside, my girlfriend just…

> Marriage is a legal contract. 12 year olds can't enter into legal contracts (alone). Therefore, 12 year olds can't get married.

Marriage is a formal relationship between two people of the opposite sex. Two men or two women are of the same sex. Therefore two men or two woman cannot marry.

You can do anything, if you redefine the meaning of everything.