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

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

#971

Post by JoeAltmaier » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 2:12 PM UTC

lukeholder wrote: post #970

sytelus wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Lets be open-minded, and allow religious people to perform their public duties without consciously projecting their religion on everybody else. Read Jimmy Carter on the subject. He was as devout as they come, but understood the separation of his own beliefs from his public trust.

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

#972

Post by mreiland » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 2:50 PM UTC

baakss wrote: post #30

In my lifetime, I think this is the social issue that has seen the most positive change. As a kid, gay people were practically lepers. Eleven Years ago, Dave Chappelle just outright said "gay sex is just gross, sorry it just is", and it was considered funny and acceptable. (Not harping on him specifically, just pointing out what it was like in 2004) Seven years ago prop 8 passed, if barely with some caveats about lac…

DADT was in 1994 IIRC? This idea that gay people were lepers 10 years ago is false, 21 years ago the military was already doing everything it could to put off the pressure of allowing gays in the military (and DADT was their compromise).

This is a generational thing, this latest is but 1 victory in a long procession of victories. To pretend otherwise is balderdash.

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

#973

Post by pluma » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 2:58 PM UTC

octatoan wrote: post #953

My goodness, the barely-concealed hate in this is shocking. It's a very, very sad thing these people do. And I can't help but find "black robes" a bit telling, although maybe that's just some sort of bias or psychological effect. http://www.afa.net/the-stand/government/rainbow-jihadists-of...

That website is so many levels of fucked up. Glad the SCOTUS is less insane than these sites make the US seem.

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

#974

Post by imaginenore » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 2:59 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…

Modern marriage in the US is a civil union that has nothing to do with any religion, and the rights are already defined.

Notice that you have to apply to get married in the government office. Whether you have your ceremony in some church or elsewhere or not have it at all is your choice, and affects absolutely nothing.

What you're suggesting is that we rename "marriage" into "civil union" and do the same with all the laws and precedents. It's an expensive and stupid proposition, all in the name of dealing with some hurt feelings of religious fanatics that try to get their hands into the government business.

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

#975

Post by imaginenore » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 3:01 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #934

drcube wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not legally you won't. Your "marriage" will be equivalent to "monogamous relationship", that's about it. No visitation rights. No tax breaks. No inheritance rights. No pension rights.

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

#976

Post by ElComradio » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 3:27 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #943

ElComradio wrote: post #866

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are always exceptions so I don't fee the need to explicitly call that out. But I do submit that it's more like most than many. Can you clarify how your second paragraph is connected to the first?

You start with the mental model of sexuality of three seperate and distinct groups - straight, bi, and gay. You then use that mental model to make a statement "any straight guy will avoid". But because your mental model is wrong that statement is also wrong. You have absolutely nothing to support your statement apart from your own gut feeling.

Oh right. The whole everyone is a little bit gay thing.

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

#977

Post by asddubs » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 3:28 PM UTC

Nadya wrote: post #820

asddubs wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your reasoning is yours alone and the anecdote can be easily hand-waved away: perhaps you're bisexual or lean more heavily towards homosexuality than most heterosexuals, thus find it less repulsive. As for not believing in sexual repulsion - is this in regards to gender or in general?

I don't think there's sexual repulsion. Either you are repulsed by something or you are not, whether it's sexual has nothing to do with it. And what we are repulsed by is often conditioned

And no, I am not bisexual.

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

#978

Post by vehementi » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 4:00 PM UTC

DonHopkins wrote: post #920

csallen wrote: post #881

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We didn't say "Oh black people should have rights, but let's postpone that until we can come up with the best possible way to write it in legislature" Yes we did. Black people were legally discriminated against for almost 100 years until the Civil Rights Act. And before that, we were slaves until the 14th Amendment. Similarly, women weren't allowed to vote until the 19th Amendment. I'm all for civil disobedience in…

No, it's not worrisome that gay marriage is wrong from a legal perspective, it's worrisome that the laws are wrong from an equality perspective.

Well said - and the non-understanding of this point betrays people's thoughts that this is an addition rather than a critical fix of something broken.

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

#979

Post by Retra » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 4:06 PM UTC

enjo wrote: post #618

yellowapple wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is that OP wants the current rights from marriage to be part of civil unions instead, not for said rights to be eradicated outright. The former sounds like a more reasonable position and would address your (and the parent commenter's) concerns.

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.

It doesn't really matter what it has historically been. What matters is what it should be.

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

#980

Post by Retra » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 4:14 PM UTC

millstone wrote: post #889

bcheung wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equally the government should not discriminate based on whether you are married or not for tax purposes. They need to treat everyone the same in the eyes of the law.

What would this look like? My wife has no income because she is raising our children. Should she be eligible for welfare? Do I owe gift tax if she orders a pizza from our joint checking account?

Well, naturally, that only implies the welfare laws and taxes should change as well.

For instance, whether you get welfare or not shouldn't simply be determined by your income, but by an actual analysis of your circumstances: it should be provided based on actual need, not numbers.

The problem here is that it is a very major change, and it may cost a lot and take a long time and a lot of consideration, and that might make it politically untenable.