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

931–940 of 1001 posts

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

#931

Post by sytelus »

quizotic wrote: post #200
mkr-hn wrote: post #17

For me and a lot of friends and family, marriage equality. Yay. "It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality . . . Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this…

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…

Scalia is the same clown who opinionated that corporations are people and politicians can accept all the money lobby throws at them anonymously. When he gave this ruling, he never thought his Court was a threat to the democracy or he grossly misinterpreted constitution or completely disregarded founders original intent or violated deeply held belief of most Americans. But apparently gay marriage does all of that for him. His other dissents includes things ranging from teaching creationism in schools (yes, he supported that) to environmental law cases. In all of those dissents he openly accused his colleges for relying on their "private" opinion instead of actually adhering to their job of interpreting constitution. If you look at how he himself did his job so well to interpret constitution so that corporations have same rights as people even years before gay people can dream of, you see how his twisted view of the world is.

Overall, I would expect justices in supreme court have display some level of courtesy, dignity and respect to their own colleges on the same bench. Accusing them as being unprofessional, incompetent and even intentionally so malign to declare them threat to nation every time they disagree with him - all these is clear indicator that Scalia is not fit for the bench. Unfortunately people have to suffer through him because of the rule that he can't be replaced til life.

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

#932

Post by jrs235 »

jivardo_nucci wrote: post #677
enjo wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if all we're doing is just changing the name.. then who really cares? Marriage isn't historically a religious institution, it's a civil one.

Yes, the civil and legal ramifications are important: - my inheritance: my spouse can get my SS income when I die, my wife inherits my goods by default, etc. Now gays get the same treatment. - taxes: are different for married and non-married folks. Now gays get the same treatment. IOW "follow the money". This ruling will change how much money the government pays to its citizens and how money is passed among its citiz…

"Now gays get the same treatment."

Actually now ANY TWO people can get the same treatment. Two straight males can get married. If I was single and I had a friend with good benefits, I'd make a case to get married... The savings on insurance and taxes we'd share. Now if millions did this, the cost of those benefits will go up drastically.

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

#933

Post by humanrebar »

vacri wrote: post #908
vehementi wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peop…

> This issue has been stolen from the democratic process! This reminds me of the Tea Party slogan "No Taxation Without Representation!", the chanters seeming to have forgotten that they have representation. An elected official who represents them. Just because the chanter wasn't in the voting bloc that won doesn't mean that democratic process wasn't followed...

But this was voted on many times. The Supreme Court ruled that the democratic process was unconstitutional in this case.

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

#934

Post by humanrebar »

drcube wrote: post #573
edko wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was almost no difference between government and religion when marriage originated, so it makes little sense to argue who invented it. Was Moses a political or religious leader? Were pharaohs political rulers or gods? Etc. What is very clear is that, in our society, civil and religious marriage are two different things that share a common name, and that one should have no influence over the other.

It doesn't matter who invented it. It matters what it is. And marriage is fundamentally a government institution. It concerns laws and legally granted privileges. If there's a sacred component, let the churches keep that part, but that's not what the SCOTUS ruled on, and it's not what millions across the country have been demanding for decades.

> And marriage is fundamentally a government institution.

That's nonsense. I'd stay married to my wife even if it were illegal.

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

#935

Post by chx »

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…

Marriage as an institution dates from the Neolithic. Nothing to do with religion. Source: http://www.econ.ku.dk/okojwe/filer/MEHR/adshade_kaiser_10_08...

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

#936

Post by humanrebar »

chralieboy wrote: post #314
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…

The opinion goes into strenuous detail on the history of marriage cases before the court. This decision was not tearing down "what is marriage?", but pivoted (for Justice Kennedy, who was the deciding vote and wrote the majority opinion) on providing equal dignity. In essence, they found that the core aspects of marriage were upheld in gay marriages and as such they were due equal protection. Your question — whose di…

> This is malleable and in the US Constitution is reinterpreted as views change.

This is the rub. What is the point of writing down laws and constitutions if the words don't stay put? If their meanings are ephemeral and open to interpretation, we are governed by men (executives, bureaucrats, judges, prosecutors, police) and not by laws.

There are states out there that make no pretension and are ruled by fiat. The U.S., in contrast, is supposed to be a nation of laws. The laws being checks against individuals and special interests. The legitimacy of the U.S. hinges on it sticking to the rules of governance that were set in place and upheld over the years.

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

#937

Post by donatj »

drcube wrote: post #573
edko wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was almost no difference between government and religion when marriage originated, so it makes little sense to argue who invented it. Was Moses a political or religious leader? Were pharaohs political rulers or gods? Etc. What is very clear is that, in our society, civil and religious marriage are two different things that share a common name, and that one should have no influence over the other.

It doesn't matter who invented it. It matters what it is. And marriage is fundamentally a government institution. It concerns laws and legally granted privileges. If there's a sacred component, let the churches keep that part, but that's not what the SCOTUS ruled on, and it's not what millions across the country have been demanding for decades.

theres really nothing to it that couldn't be replaced by a contract.

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

#938

Post by __z »

jedberg wrote: post #160
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The judges should declare all consenting marriage legal ! If it is truly consenting, taking into account the modern defined limits on who can give consent, why not? A polygamous relationship is already legal in practice (adultery and extra-marital sex are not crimes). The paperwork and law changes aren't going to be simple, but besides for that I don't see a justification in continuing the ban.

> adultery and extra-marital sex are not crimes It's still illegal in 21 states[0]. Those laws however are rarely enforced. [0] http://www.theweek.co.uk/62723/adultery-laws-where-is-cheati...

It is also against the UCMJ.

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

#939

Post by donatj »

unfamiliar wrote: post #626
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…

You don't need permission from the government to marry, you can do it yourself in the woods. But if you want all the benefits of a government sanctioned marriage then you have to be married in the eyes of the government.

That's why the government version shouldn't be called marriage.

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

#940

Post by __z »

masklinn wrote: post #134
fweespeech wrote: post #12

Yeah, I'm still slightly pissed they basically waited until the majority was clear before they'd rule on the matter. Its another clear sign our Judiciary is really just as political as the politicians are, even if no one says so openly. > As late as October, the justices ducked the issue, refusing to hear appeals from rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states. That decision delivered a tacit victory for gay r…

They really waited until they had no choice: they refused to hear all cases until there was a circuit split, then they had no choice but to resolve the split.

RGB specifically addressed why the supreme court wasn't previously hearing marriage cases at that time - they don't generally hear cases when the circuit courts are in agreement. Once the circuit split then they addressed the issue, but only then. In fact the dissent in DeBoer v. Snyder (which is one of the four cases that was combined for the Supreme Court) said "Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens."
Post reply on HN