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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by tommorris »

ufmace wrote: post #884
tommorris wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is politically unviable because it would basically take away the current benefits from straight married couples to further a libertarian pipe dream. Politics is the art of the possible: extending marriage benefits to gays and lesbians is a lot easier than clawing it away from all straight couples in order to satisfy a desire for libertarian ideological BS.

I'd say that the proper libertarian solution is not to eliminate those benefits, but to detach them from marriage. Handle inheritance, hospital visitation, benefits sharing, and other such things directly, instead of linked to marriage. I think it would solve what the gay marriage proponents say they want, and probably a lot of other edge cases too. Who knows how many other people out there the current options aren't…

Civil unions are "separate but equal" which means separate but not equal.

And stuffing a few homophobes is good. They have been persecuting LGBT people for millennia so fair turnabout.

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

#962

Post by XorNot »

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…

Any relationship grouping that is greater then 2 requires very extensive legal changes before it becomes practical to implement. The law is incapable of addressing the possibility of a marriage which can outlast all it's original participants, for example.

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

#963

Post by XorNot »

skywhopper wrote: post #856
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" is the term under which those rights are defined. Marriage is not a religious construct. Rather, religion and culture are deeply intertwined, but you seem to be accepting the Christian Right's assertion that it alone can define marriage. But I reject that claim. They are free to place their own restrictions on marriages their churches will endorse, but they are not free to define my marriage. Turning the w…

Religions don't have a monopoly on words. The government, and the people, have a right to name things whatever they want. If the only thing holding your institution up was it's name, then you had other problems to start with.

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

#964

Post by JakeAl »

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…

I'd say in the laws the government should simply recognize all unions as civil unions, leave marriage to your "religion" but I still agree that discrimination based on relationship status is wrong. Every individual should be able to specify who can visit them in a hospital, who is entitled to be the beneficiary of any social security benefits etc. Social Security and health care is dooming this nation and there's a clear timeline for it's demise unless the way they are handled changes, so maybe inheriting government benefits should go away and everyone should only be entitled to what was deducted from their own checks or willed to them by others. The US is looking at austerity in 10 years max, 5 years minimum and the people are too busy sticking up for their favorite party like sports fans on a bus arguing about astroturf and logos while the bus goes over a cliff.

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

#965

Post by XorNot »

Jimmy wrote: post #177
dublinben wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polygamy is a deeply troublesome arrangement, with a storied history of abuse. It has been steadily abandoned and outlawed as societies grant more legal rights and self-determination to women. There is simply no way to legally recognize poly* relationships under the law in a way that resembles binary marriage.

"Polygamy will further the deterioration of society!" "Polygamy has a history of abuse!" And where have we heard precisely these arguments before? People are great.

You mean polyamory.

Polygamy is 1 man to multiple women. Polyamory is between more then two people of any gender or combination of genders.

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

#966

Post by iovrthoughtthis »

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 am relieved that this is the top post on this thread.

I feel like this is another case statement in the giant switch that is government legislation and that the god class that is government could do with factoring out the freedom for individuals to voluntarily associate.

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

#967

Post by DanBC »

XorNot wrote: post #965
Jimmy wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Polygamy will further the deterioration of society!" "Polygamy has a history of abuse!" And where have we heard precisely these arguments before? People are great.

You mean polyamory. Polygamy is 1 man to multiple women. Polyamory is between more then two people of any gender or combination of genders.

Grand parent comment is talking about one man many women marriages as having higher rates of abuse, so your quibble here seems out of place.

But you're also wrong! Polygamy refers to any marriage that has more than two partners, gender identity is irrelevant.

One man many women is polygynyz one woman many men is polyandry. Polyamory is multiple partners.

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

#968

Post by airza »

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…

The answer is yes, as someone does this already! See:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/up-for-pol...

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

#969

Post by coldtea »

rodgerd wrote: post #671
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 suspect that religious marriage existed long before nation states Do you have any actual evidence? Because here in reality-land, the evidence shows that the English legal tradition considered marriage a civil institution long before the churches tried to claim it.

Englang went from pre-history into history in 42 A.D. when the Romans came there. It didn't even have written history before that [check Wikipedia if you don't believe this].

Hardly the place to look for the origin of ancient traditions...

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

#970

Post by lukeholder »

sytelus wrote: post #869
guelo wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scalia says striking down campaign finance laws passed by congress and supported by the people was vital but striking down discriminatory marriage laws is extreme judicial overreach. There's no principle there, it's just the politically expedient argument for his ideological battles.

It's surprising that a person with such a strong bias is part of supreme court panel. I'm not saying all judges must be atheists but are people ok with a fundamentalists types from any religion in the supreme court panels? Scalia is a devout traditionalist Catholic, and his son, Paul, is a Catholic priest.[109] Uncomfortable with the changes brought about following Vatican II, Scalia regularly attends the Tridentine…

> I'm not saying all judges must be atheists

So your saying you don't mind if people are a little bit religious as long has they are not fully devout to the principles of their religion?

Post reply on HN