
Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules - _hv99
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?emc=edit_na_20150626&nlid=63565976&ref=headline&_r=0
======
curiousgeorgio
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, at least not as the cultural/religious thing that it is.

In a nation where we care so much about the separation of church (broadly
defined to include ideologies that may not be formal religions) and state, I
don't understand why we're seeking to only expand that connection.

What _should_ happen is the government should stop defining marriage of any
form (leave that to religion or personal tradition), and simply define all
these rights under civil union (or a similar phrase with no significant
religious/cultural attachment).

~~~
nostromo
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. Wouldn't that be interesting?

~~~
brownegg
I can't upvote this hard enough. OP is right in my mind, but....

I'm straight (and divorced), and we got married for many of the same reasons
that LGBT folks want to--it makes sense. Visitation rights, inheritance, tax
treatment, etc.

It's unlikely that marriage would be removed as something of concern to
lawmakers--has that kind of thing ever happened anywhere, any time, any way?

I respect OP's opinion, but it's ivory tower and we're talking about real
people right now.

possibly unnecessary edit: just want to reiterate that I think OP is _right_,
it's just not practical, and I'll sacrifice rightness for a rather-large
"quick and dirty win".

~~~
giaour
France has done so. When you get married there, it has to be performed by a
government official (usually someone representing the mayor's office). You can
have a big church wedding if you want, but the state doesn't recognize it.

Later, France created a very powerful form of non-marriage civil union (the
PACS) and saw it become incredibly popular with straight couples.

~~~
olalonde
What? That's exactly the opposite of what parent is suggesting (if I
understood correctly): marriage should be a private or religious matter and
not a legal institution. Also, non religious marriage has been going on for a
long time in many countries (e.g. China) and I don't think France is a notable
pioneer in that area.

~~~
OJFord
Well the point is that the state has to do _something_ since some sort of
legal status is required for many purposes in most countries.

The described scenario in France means that you can have a religious marriage
if you so wish; an official contract-signing 'event' out of necessity.

Makes sense IMO - not a government's job to tell a church who is or isn't
allowed to marry under their religion.

~~~
cbr

        since some sort of legal status is required for many
        purposes in most countries
    

The idea here is that you get rid of those "many purposes" and treat a married
couple like any other people who have decided to spend their lives together.

~~~
vasilipupkin
that is what "married" means. Two people who have entered into a legal
contract to spend their lives together and bear certain responsibilities with
respect to each other and those in their custody. The religious interpretation
of what it means is irrelevant for legal purposes in the US

------
mkr-hn
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 disability on gays
and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal
Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified
infringement of the fundamental right to marry." (page 22, from the coverage
on SCOTUSBlog)

For others, the opinion also reasserted that people who are really mad about
this can continue to be mad and vocal about it, as guaranteed by the First
Amendment.

"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to
religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction
that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First
Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper
protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so
central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to
continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of
those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who
believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a
matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who
disagree with their view in an open and searching debate." (page ~32)

The full majority opinion [PDF]:
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf)

~~~
quizotic
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](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 resolved by the states? Why is this class of license inequity
different than other classes, where the states' right to license something is
not resolved by SCOTUS?

~~~
lisper
> 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 of
them that if (when) they congregate they can form majorities in a number of
states. And so the federal government needs to step in and dope-slap these
people from time to time.

~~~
madmax96
I think that gay marriage should be legal, but I disagree with this. Beware of
the fallacy of analogy! There is no economic incentive for a state not to
allow gay marriage, there was an economic incentive for states to keep slaves.
Also, it wasn't the supreme court that ended up freeing the slaves...

~~~
lisper
There was no economic incentive to ban interracial marriage either. That
didn't stop many states from doing it. And there are economic _disincentives_
to racial discrimination. That didn't stop it from being institutionalized for
decades.

And I didn't say the supreme court needs to step in, I said the federal
government needs to step in.

~~~
madmax96
I could agree with the federal government stepping in, just not the court.

------
samatman
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 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.

What the polygamists of the nation lack is a powerful lobby. <shrug> One may
hope that nonetheless, reason and freedom will prevail here as well.

EDIT: nation, not world. Worldwide the situation is different. America is
suffering from its Christian legacy here. Most Christian countries are adamant
about denying this right to their citizens.

~~~
sgnelson
One problem I have with Polygamy is that I have never seen a 1-woman, multi-
husband community. Sure, I've seen a few relationships in which this was the
case, but when you look at the historic aspects in the US, it seems a very
rare thing. That makes me wonder if there is a severe power imbalance in the
relationships and what is truly occurring.

It's well known that in some modern US polygamy situations, there is a great
deal of abuse of power, both in terms of controlling the wives, as well as
controlling and abusing the young men who will not be allowed to have a wife.
This further increases the societal costs and leads to more abuse of power,
which is not what we need.

edit: I should add: It's a numbers game. Given that on average, there tends to
be just slightly more women born than men, what happens with all the extra
unmarried men (or women, though this is rarer)?

~~~
adventured
That same concern already equally applies to traditional marriage, in which
some % are abusive. If you have a problem with polygamy on that basis, then
you've got a drastically larger problem with the already existing system of
marriage, in which millions of instances of abuse occur annually.

The best solution is to bring polygamy out into the open, legalize it fully
nationally.

The government has no business dictating who can get married, or what the
structure of marriage looks like, so long as the people in question are of
sound mind and adults.

If I want to form a ten person marriage, with five men and five women, whose
business is it to control us and stop us? There are only bigoted 'answers' as
to why that shouldn't be allowed.

~~~
lisper
Not that I necessarily disagree with legalizing polygamy, but I think there is
one non-bigoted answer: logistics. Our financial system in general, and our
tax system in particular, has N=1 or N=2 hard-coded into it. There are other
practical considerations as well. Suppose, for example, you have an N=5
marriage and three of them want to break away and take the kids. Resolving
situations like that would be much more complicated than what we have now, and
what we have now is already plenty complicated.

~~~
MajorLOL
While true, it's not a valid reason for preventing progress on the
deconstruction of marriage.

'Our system is messy and complicated, so if we add more variables, it will be
an even bigger mess!' \- so make the system less messy and enable more
variables.

Can you imagine if someone came and said add this function/feature to the
program and in response you said "the program is complicated and the code is
long, no need to confound it any further with features."

~~~
lisper
I don't claim this argument is valid, only that it is non-bigoted (and
defensible).

~~~
adventured
On what basis would you argue it's defensible, when child custody isn't
premised on marriage (or the lack thereof) to begin with?

I don't see what would change such that it would introduce any new complexity
on that side of things.

The exact same complexity already exists today: step-parents. It's mostly a
non-issue and is well defined. Step parents acquire no custody rights over the
child inherently. If my wife remarries, and we had a child together, the
parental rights are retained in myself and her. The same would be the case in
a three-way break away on that ten person marriage; there would be (in this
scenario) a two person custody of the child, eg the biological parents.

~~~
lisper
If I'm married and my spouse has a child then I am presumptively that child's
parent too. That is, of course, not the only way I can become a child's
parent, but it's one way. Polygamy complicates that. If one member of a N-way
relationship has a child, do all of the other members become the child's
parents

Again, I'm not saying this argument is valid or should carry the day, only
that it is defensible and non-bigoted.

~~~
adventured
It doesn't complicate it, because the answer is: no.

Nothing changes about the legal custody system of children due to N-way
marriages.

If two people in the N-way marriage have a child, it's not the N-way marriage
that acquires custody, it's the two biological parents.

Marriages do not define custody, period. That is not how it works in the US.

Keep in mind that presumptively is not definitively. If there is a paternity
test that later says otherwise, eg if your wife or husband cheated on you,
then that other person can typically acquire parental custody, because they
are the biological parent. All things being equal (not involving abuse or
danger to the child), biology is the first line of legal custody.

What about adoption? The most sane thing to do near-term, would be to keep it
the same - adoptions are max two people legal scenarios. If the system is
cleaned up, simplified, or otherwise adjusted for N-way marriages, then
perhaps later there could be N-way adoptions as well (and scientifically, we
may eventually see N-way biological custody too).

------
BurningFrog
I'm glad we'll have full gay marriage now.

But the idea that "the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage"
is pretty laughable.

Does anyone really believe this right was in the Constitution for 250 years,
only to be discovered recently? In reality public opinion and culture changed,
and 5 justices decided to change the law.

~~~
seszett
> _Does anyone really believe this right was in the Constitution for 250
> years, only to be discovered recently?_

That seems to be the case to me. I'm not completely familiar with US history,
but don't you think the right of black people to be free and equal to the
other people was already written in the constitution 250 years ago, for
example? Or women's suffrage. It just took a while to actually recognize it.

Homosexuality was legalized in France in 1791 according to the same set of
ideals, during the same movement that gave birth to the US constitution.
Slavery was abolished as well, and women's suffrage was discussed, because it
was well recognized that these were all questions of equality. It isn't a
stretch to think that the US constitution would also fundamentally allow
homosexuality and forbid discrimination according to sexual orientation (and
therefore allow gay marriage as well).

~~~
Homunculiheaded
I'm not disagreeing with your general premise that the fundamental right for
equality is the basis of the constitution and therefore equal marriage is
implied by it. But to your points:

"the right of black people to be free and equal to the other people"
(specifically the abolishment of slavery) Is made explicit in the 13th
amendment[0]

And "women's suffrage" is the 19th amendment[1]

So for both of your examples, these things are explicity added to the
constitution.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

~~~
sliverstorm
Making something explicit makes it clear for everyone, but you could easily
argue the rights of black people and women were written into the Constitution
from the start- just in less obvious ways.

That's one of the court's jobs, after all, to evaluate complex or difficult
situations and laws where it is not immediately clear what the law says. It
reminds me of especially tortured and opaque code. You can't see on the
surface that foo=bar, but after a long and arduous process of evaluation you
discover- lo and behold- foo=bar all along. Or even more difficult, you
discover that foo=1 implies bar=2.

------
baakss
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 lack of
understanding.

And now? SCOTUS upholds gay marriage and it's socially reprehensible to mock
homosexuality. It's a strange and very positive feeling watching a country's
world view shift like this.

~~~
taytus
Dave Chappelle is a comedian, they say stuff like that all the time, it's part
of their job. If you are going to quote somebody (specially on these issues),
I'd recommend not to quote a comedian.

~~~
aedocw
Quoting a comedian as a means of reflecting what's popular or at least
socially acceptable is an appropriate and accurate way to say "at one point in
recent history, it was socially acceptable to say demeaning things about gay
people."

Michael Richards is a comedian, and made anti-Semitic remarks that resulted in
a significant backlash. Again, looking back this is a good indication of
someone saying something that was NOT popularly acceptable.

~~~
taytus
I think it all depends on the context. A comedy show is a comedy show. People
are always looking for ways to feel offended.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
In this case, the quote omitted the context of archetypes and specific people,
namely George W. Bush, that Chapelle was very obviously satirizing. I say very
obviously, because it wasn't a nuanced depiction: the skit was literally
described as him being black Bush, and he was in a suit behind the POTUS
podium, addressing the media.

Removing the context from that and hitting Chapelle for it is just a
convenient target.

------
agd
Great decision. It's amazing how quickly gay rights have advanced in the
western world.

Unfortunately it's still legal in many states to discriminate against
employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Hopefully that's next to be
fixed.

~~~
toomuchtodo
You eat an elephant one bite at a time.

EDIT: I did not mean to cause a trainwreck below this comment. It was the
quickest way on mobile to communicate "all big problems are tackled one task
at a time".

~~~
ionforce
Are you calling me an elephant? Now I'll never fit in my wedding dress!
/runsaway

(guys, it's a joke)

~~~
corysama
Please note that the HN community takes a rather strict approach when
moderating comments that contribute noise to the conversation. "Nice article!"
comments are routinely downvoted. As is sarcasm, witticisms, memes, references
and other styles of comments that occur frequently but do not add information
to the discussion. It's a knowingly doomed attempt to hold back the flood of
noise that covers Reddit.

------
jscheel
I've never really given credence to the people that suggested a ruling would
be a slippery slope. However, after reading the opinion for myself, I can see
how the court's stance on marriage (opposite-sex and same-sex) can now be
extended to polygamy and incest. I understand the need to define it as a
fundamental right within the context of this ruling, but it seems that some of
the wording opens the way for other marriage relationships that are not
explicitly defined in the court's opinion.

~~~
FlannelPancake
Incest - maybe. There's a clear harm involved there (inbreeding depression)
that's much more substantive than anything used to argue against gay marriage.

Polygamy - We probably _will_ revisit our stance on polygamy in decades to
come. Historically it's been used in a way that's profoundly imbalanced
towards women (i.e. almost exclusively polygyny), but it's not hard to imagine
a future where that's not the case.

~~~
matt-attack
> There's a clear harm involved there

You conflation of marriage with breeding should be rethought. I suppose
infertile couples should be allowed to marry since they cannot bear children?

~~~
raisedbyninjas
Also brothers, sisters, mom and daughter, nephew and uncle

------
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!

------
sytelus
One of the interesting thing is how severe disagreements are between the
supreme court judges[1]. You might think these judges are debating with cold
logical arguments and finally either understand other person's argument or be
able to convince others of theirs. Instead what we are seeing is judges
literally and personally attacking other judges in same panel and accusing
them to derail the very constitution and democracy they are expected to
protect. Can they make any ore serious accusations? It's also very interesting
that judge votes were highly predictable based on their political leanings and
which administration appointed them. This just boggled my mind. First, why we
should allow any person strongly conforming to any political ideology as a
supreme court judge? Why a political leader who almost always have represented
as head of certain political ideology be able to even appoint a supreme court
judge?

1\. [http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/marriage-
same-...](http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/marriage-same-sex-gay-
supreme-court-dissent-20150626)

------
MrZongle2
I'm a straight conservative (more fiscal than social, and sure as hell not
Republican any more), and my reaction to this is: "meh". The writing has been
on the wall for a while now, and anybody surprised by this hasn't been paying
attention.

Any social conservatives on HN -- that is to say, both of you -- should keep
in mind that if you're worried about how this affects the sanctity of
marriage, that institution has long since been sullied by a) allowing
government to get involved with it, b) easily-obtainable divorces and c) that
whole Henry VIII business. Same-sex couples can't _possibly_ do any more
damage than that.

Of the threats to American culture or even Western Civilization as a whole,
the SSM boogeyman pales in comparison to a feckless electorate, unaccountable
government with Big Brother aspirations, crushing debt and even Islamic
extremists.

That's why my reaction is "meh": as a "problem", SSM isn't even on the radar.

~~~
jrs235
I guess we found each other. The things that irritate me the most is that
people believe that marriage is a right. It is not. It is a government granted
legal status privilege. The privilege grants those recognized as married
numerous benefits. Now, with that said, I can't see why allowing any two
consenting adults who wish to extend the government recognized benefits to
each other should be infringed. One question though is, what benefit does the
state/government gain from [recognizing] marriage? I think the quickest and
easiest answer is that a) two people sharing and taking care of each other is
beneficial [to society] and b) should a divorce occur, the state can get
involved ensuring that a[n ex-]spouse is treated fairly and taken care of.

ADD: Also, people keep mixing love and marriage. While the two often go hand
in hand that isn't always the case.

~~~
jrs235
Marriage is not about love. It is about property. The government/state doesn't
give two flying ducks about whether two people get married because they love
each other, are in love (infatuated) with each other, or just like each other.
Love is not required to get married.

Marriage involves determining and transferring property rights (before,
during, and after a marriage).

A marriage license and a state recognized marriage is a three party agreement.
It's an agreement between the two spouses and the government. It gives consent
to the government to arbitrate marital issues and in return the government
gives benefits to the individuals getting married.

ADD: Due to a marriage being a three party agreement, state recognized
polygamy gets really complicated really fast, especially when multiple states
might be involved.

~~~
Raphmedia
About polygamy: If I can share a company with two other founder, share its
money and profits, share the building, etc. why can't I do the same thing with
my private life if I want to? Instead of dividing by two, you divide by three,
four... sixteen... why not?

~~~
jrs235
My best response is, because currently one of the parties (the state) to the
original agreement doesn't want to nor currently agree to allow that? So I
suppose if the state changed their laws and allowed it then it would be
possible. My assumption is that the first state that is party to the first
marriage would, in its best interests, require that all subsequent additions
to the marriage be under that state and only that state.

ADD: Adding a joint tenant to an agreement can get complicated. Some current
joint tenants (the state?) might not wish to dilute their rights?

ADD: More thoughts. The ADD above is poor reasoning. You can currently setup
an organization with many people as you describe above. With marriage, what's
different about a marriage than a company or business? Perhaps the state
doesn't care to get involved in trying to determine paternity for children
when/if things dissolve. To prevent potential future complexities the state
opts to avoid them.?

~~~
Raphmedia
Makes sense when you remember that the first point of mariage was for
children. Whose children is it if there are 4 people in the mariage? The
biological parents? What if the biological parents split up and you end up
with only the two remaining non-biological parents. Do they keep the child? If
they were all equal as parents except... argh. I give up. My head hurts. I am
happy not to be the one who makes laws.

This is a very interesting topic.

------
malkia
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals
of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital
union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the
petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may
endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it,
respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.
Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of
civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of
the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

~~~
Al-Khwarizmi
Does this formally mean that gay marriage has been legal in the US since the
18th century, but no one noticed until recently? (half-serious question)

Congratulations to Americans and to gays worldwide for this great step
forward.

~~~
ninkendo
Strictly speaking it means the laws against gay marriage were themselves
illegal. (As with any law deemed unconstitutional.) It's a matter of word
choice to say "gay marriage was always legal" versus "anti-gay marriage laws
were always illegal". There's some semantic difference between the two, but
I'm not sure what the difference is from a judicial standpoint.

------
fweespeech
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 rights, immediately expanding the number
> of states with same-sex marriage to 24, along with the District of Columbia,
> up from 19.

> Largely as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision not to act, the
> number of states allowing same-sex marriage has since grown to 36, and more
> than 70 percent of Americans live in places where gay couples can marry.

~~~
rayiner
> 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.

I'm a strong supporter of gay marriage, but I'm glad the Court waited until
the consensus was clear. At bottom, this isn't a right flowing from the
dictates of the Constitution. Nobody in 1789 would have said that gay marriage
is a fundamental right. We acknowledge the right today for the same reason we
acknowledge many other rights we did not acknowledge then--society as a whole
has agreed to recognize the right and bind itself to enforcing it. It is
important that the Court not act ahead of society.

I'm also a strong supporter of abortion rights, but I can't help but wonder if
in the long run abortion rights wouldn't be in a stronger position today had
the Court waited a bit longer for public consensus to catch up before
dictating a result.

~~~
sigzero
The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to
decide if it is legal or not. If it is not, send it back to Congress to fix.
While I agree with the ruling, this court has been doing things clearly
outside its purview.

~~~
gherkin0
> The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to
> decide if it is legal or not.

This is a really bad idea, you're basically describing an oligarchy. The
Supreme Court is really a consensus-enforcing machine, for the most part.

~~~
lmm
The Supreme Court is a literal oligarchy - it's 9 people who are accountable
to no-one. The Senate is a more democratic body, since they can be held to
account by voters.

~~~
ebiggs
I don't know if this was meant to be a joke but it's rather preposterous.
Justices do not make laws, they interpret and apply them, and must do so while
being rationally bound and yes accountable to laws and precedent under the
framework of common law. Judicial activism is a pejorative term for good
reason: they're not there to create or destroy laws. If they did start abusing
their power to interpret laws they would be impeached: they actually ARE
accountable to congress same as the president.

Also, if the equal protection clause was misinterpreted by the judicial
branch, the legislative bodies of the federal and state governments have the
power to revise and make it clear that the law was never to be interpreted
that way.

------
slayed0
Great news. Glad this won't be an issue going into the next presidential
election. There's been so much time wasted on this issue when, at the end of
the day, any 2 consenting adults should have all of the same rights as any
other 2 consenting adults (barring felony conviction, poor mental health eval,
etc).

~~~
talmand
I agree, I'm tired of hearing about this topic and the time wasted on it.

Although, I'm waiting for the 3 consenting adults lawsuit, that will be
interesting.

EDIT: since the world is full of reactionaries that love to take things out of
context; my public disclaimer on this is that I have no issue with this
ruling.

~~~
vidarh
Though sometimes it can be entertaining. In the UK the debate included one
lord embarrassing himself by "warning" that gay marriage might lead to a
lesbian queen giving birth to a future monarch through artificial
insemination, as well as musing about how it could allow said lord to marry
his son to escape inheritance tax [1]

I'm already looking forward to reading some of the tripe that will be written
about this SCOTUS decision...

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/21/tebbit-gay-
ma...](http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/21/tebbit-gay-marriage-
lesbian-queen)

~~~
talmand
I'm failing to understand how a lesbian queen and a queen giving birth through
artificial insemination is even related. That's just weird. Was the guy
suggesting if a queen married to a man, say with sperm issues, who chose to
use artificial insemination would somehow produce a child that wouldn't be
considered royalty? Even despite being born of the queen? What an idiotic
comparison.

Although, I like the father/son marriage thing. That's an interesting thought
exercise concerning modern laws. Kind of silly, but interesting nonetheless.

~~~
vidarh
He was just trying to come up with the most offensive sounding (to his
conservative constituency) examples to shock.

The father/son marriage thing of course could not happen for the same reason
we don't have father/daughter marriages today: the laws have restrictions on
close relatives marrying.

~~~
talmand
Kind of late on this, but as recent events have shown, such laws can be
changed.

------
tosseraccount
If love is about ignoring race,class,gender,age shouldn't it be about ignoring
numbers, too?

Polygamy is the next hurdle for society.

The judges should declare all consenting marriage legal !

~~~
Lawtonfogle
>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.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Polygamous/polyamorous relationships can easily be supported from a property
rights standpoint using corporate entities (LLCs). I see it as the ultimate
social/political hack for a right.

~~~
tanderson92
Could you elaborate, or point to some material which expounds on this hack?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Any property to be shared by the relationship is owned by the LLC, with people
in the relationship being owners of the LLC.

Here's a great article on the subject:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/up-for-
pol...](http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/up-for-polyamory-
creating-alternatives-to-marriage/283920/)

------
pavanky
As a non american, does the US Government have an official definition of
marriage that is going to change today?

I understand the social consequences. But what _legal_ rights have been
granted now that did not exist previously ?

~~~
teraflop
There are a ton of legal ramifications, including tax benefits (it's
advantageous for a married couple to file income taxes jointly), immigration
(spousal visas etc.), inheritance, and so on.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States)

~~~
vinay427
I believe immigration and federal taxes, which are handled solely by the
federal government, are not affected as the US (on a national level) already
recognized same-sex marriages after the DOMA overrule.

~~~
teraflop
That's true, but couples were still required to either live in or travel to a
state where same-sex marriages were able to be legally performed.

------
tptacek
Congratulations to everyone who worked on this. A truly epic win.

------
troycarlson
Hopefully this whole "issue" will just go away soon...so many more important
things that deserve the public's attention.

Edit: To clarify, I support marriage equality and believe this is great news
that deserves celebrating.

~~~
ebbv
Spoken like a straight person who has never been denied the ability to do
something straight people take for granted.

~~~
feld
I don't think he meant it like that. I echo the sentiment: it shouldn't have
come to this. It should not have been a social, political, or legal issue.
There's so much hate and bigotry in this country that needs to go away.

edit: at least I hope he didn't mean it like that :(

~~~
ebbv
Whichever way he meant it, his comment shows a very dismissive attitude toward
the massive work that was involved in accomplishing this.

It's true it shouldn't have been a fight, but it was.

And the idea that there are so many "more important" issues, is also
incredibly dismissive to how important the right to marriage equality is.

~~~
talmand
Just because you see it as dismissive doesn't make it so. You don't get to
decide the intent of the statement. You can state your opinion about it and
ask for clarification, but you don't get to define it for your own purposes.

~~~
ebbv
I don't think you understand how reality works. You get to say whatever you
want, and intend it however you want. Then the rest of us get to interpret
your meaning and decide what it means for ourselves. You don't get to tell
everyone else what to think of what you said. You just get to say whatever you
want. You don't get to restrict how other people interpret what you say.

~~~
troycarlson
While you're technically correct that intent and interpretation are entirely
independent, if you throw away all context of the statement and frame it in
your own pedantic and literal interpretation...why are you even engaging in
communication? You obviously aren't putting forth any effort to understand the
speaker's intent and that seems to be at the heart of conversation and debate
alike.

~~~
ebbv
My point is not to throw away the speaker's intent, my point is that the
speaker's intent is only one factor in how people will interpret what is said.

For example if I say "She sure is smart for a girl." I may not be intending to
be a misogynistic asshole, I may be intending it as a compliment. But most
people are going to read it for what it is; a comment that shows my own
bigotry and means nothing outside of that.

~~~
talmand
Not when your interpretation seeks to define the other person's statement to
fit your viewpoint. You can respond with:

"You seem to be saying this, and I think that's wrong. Is that what you're
saying?"

versus:

"You are saying this, and you are wrong."

It's called communication. It's a two-way street.

If the speaker intends a statement as a compliment but states it badly, why is
your reaction that much more important because you take it as an insult? Why
do you get to redefine the intent and totally dismiss the statement
altogether, which means you are also dismissing the intended compliment?

That type of reaction actually increases the misunderstanding and makes the
problem worse in the long run.

------
jfaucett
I'm sad to see this happen, not because LGBTs can marry, in my personal
opinion I think they should be able to. I just dislike systems in general that
force any global mandate and prefer those in which entities can freely compete
against one another to decide between one another what works and what doesn't.
The two party, winner takes all system the USA has right now, is already too
totalitarian IMHO, this just seems like another step in that direction.

I think in the long term all less efficient, less happiness producing systems
will loose out anyway. All you need to do is ensure that your system protects
the minority enough so that they can freely compete and coexists with all the
rest.

But I'm a libertarian, so I think all laws regarding sexual relations between
consenting adults should be repealed whether gay or straight...

------
amyjess
I'm really happy about this.

Not just because I'm a lesbian (I'm happily single, so no marriage for me
regardless), but because it's a fundamental right that shouldn't be denied to
anyone. It really warms my heart that everyone can finally marry the people
they love.

------
Lawtonfogle
Is there a general summary of the arguments made by the dissenting 4?

~~~
tptacek
Don't get the tl;dr summary of Scalia's dissent; actually read it. Scalia is
obnoxious and mean-spirited (and in fine form this time), but he's a really
good writer, the fun- to- read kind.

IIRC, he wrote a book on writing with Brian Garner, of usage dictionary fame.

~~~
rfrey
I respect Scalia as a scholar and philosopher. But I couldn't find anything in
his dissent that couldn't equally apply to desegregation.

~~~
peteretep
Scalia is like reading The Spectator. Well-argued, cogent, urbane, but wrong.

~~~
rfrey
I think he's often right. But unlike tptacek, I just can't muster any
admiration for this dissent. It seemed so petulant, and more grounded in
sophistry than law.

~~~
tptacek
I don't like the logic, at all. Just the writing.

------
braythwayt

      > Lawyers for the four states said their bans were justified by
      > tradition and the distinctive characteristics of opposite-sex
      > unions.
    
    

Reads like they dusted off the old arguments in favour of slavery and/or
segregation and remixed the recipe for marriage.

Take a dollop of “tradition says it should be so,” and sprinkle on
“distinctive characteristics” to taste.

~~~
thisisdave
"distinctive characteristics" reminds me of "The peculiar institution of the
South---that, on the maintenance of which the very existence of the
slaveholding States depends"

[http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/340/calhoun2.html](http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/340/calhoun2.html)

------
chippy
I seem to find it funny when people talk of things killing "marriage". Divorce
kills marriages, not more marriages! Let there be more happy marriages!

------
mjhoy
The oral arguments are worth a listen, from back in April.

[http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_14_556](http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_14_556)

Mary Bonauto argued it perfectly, I thought.

------
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Murphy_Delirious)

------
bcheung
Just my 2 cents.

The government should not enforce marriage contracts, they should enforce
legal contracts. Marriage is a private matter, not a government matter.

They shouldn't officially recognize marriage at all, nor should they
discriminate on marital status for tax purposes. All people should be equal in
the eyes of the law.

People should be free to enter into legal contracts with whomever they want.

------
empressplay
Hopefully Australia's next!

~~~
Lancey
Best of luck!

------
PebblesHD
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.

------
cpursley
Fantastic. Now the next step is to get government out of the marriage business
completely (which was the case before the 1900s). Free people should not need
to obtain a license from governments to enter a voluntary social contract.

------
DonHopkins
This is going to mean a lot of jobs for database programmers!

[http://qntm.org/gay](http://qntm.org/gay)

15 years ago we solved the Y2K problem. Now we've got to solve the SQL2Gays
problem!

------
trhway
as it is a technical nerds forum lets throw in a bit of technology aspect of
it - today's ruling lays groundwork for protecting the interests of children
which will be "born", or more specifically - created - using something like
the DNA mix-up of the 2 same-sex parents (with, at least at the initial stages
of the technology, may be throwing into the mix a biologically minimally
necessary of bio-material from an opposite sex donor)

------
interlocutor
Given this ruling, what do you now teach children? Do you tell your 5-year-old
that "when you grow up you marry either a man or a woman"? Are both choices to
be equally preferred? Or do you say, "by default" you marry someone of the
opposite sex, but if you choose someone of your own sex that's OK? Is it OK to
teach that being straight is "the default"?

~~~
delecti
Being straight has always been significantly more common, and will continue to
be so.

You teach them that when they grow up, they can marry someone they love.
Which, now, is now true no matter whether you're talking to a kid who happens
to be gay or not.

~~~
interlocutor
>>> You teach them that when they grow up, they can marry someone they love.

That's avoiding the question. Do you, for example, show kids pictures of
gay/lesbian couples and straight couples in equal proportion? Or do you show
them mostly pictures of straight couples, and gay/lesbian couples only
occasionally? Is it bigoted to teach kids that being straight is the
"default"?

~~~
aeturnum
I think I would avoid describing any social distinction as, "the default," to
children. Do you tell them people are poor or rich by default? Happy or sad by
default? The whole dilemma is predicated on looking for a world view that fits
into simple binaries.

I would tell children what marriage is, as an idea, and when they ask who can
get married you can say, "adults, or children with their parent's permission."
It seems like you're concerned with fostering bias or bigotry in children. You
will, we all will - our children will generally inherit our prejudices and
politics. Part of raising children is working to create an environment where
they understand how you feel, but also that disagreement is ok and questioning
is ok.

------
Pxtl
As ecstatic as I am about this, I'm disappointed that it had to come from the
Supreme Court instead of the American voters. I do believe that gay marriage
is an obvious extension of the non-discrimination clause, so it's perfectly
appropriate for the Supremes to act on this. I guess I'm just more
disappointed in the voters than anything else.

------
jayess
My partner and I are discussing getting married, but the federal income tax
"marriage penalty" is giving us serious pause.

~~~
ryandrake
Marriage penalty? My taxes went way down when I got married. Additionally, all
of the income limits where benefits phase out go up when you're married, so
for instance, you might qualify for a Roth IRA when you're married filing
jointly, but not if you're single. In my experience, getting married is one of
the best things you can do for your tax bill.

~~~
differentView
Not everyone marry someone who make much less than them.

------
ForrestN
On my birthday in April, my partner Andrew proposed to me in a Minion mascot
costume, handing me a solid gold Ring of Power from Lord of the Rings, which
was set into a Chicken McNugget, while a live vocalist sang "I Say a Little
Prayer for You." When we get married I will feel so grateful to have fallen in
love in the present.

~~~
octatoan
That's beautiful :)

------
moioci
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.

------
mason240
I for one am glad that we got the opportunity to show, state by state, that we
supported supported same sex marriage.

An earlier SCOTUS decision would have taken away our ability to show consensus
on the issue.

I'm glad that I was able to personally vote "No" to an amendment in MN that
would have banned marriage rights.

------
Liquix
"A recent Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans – an all-time high –
support extending the same rights and privileges to same-sex marriages as
traditional ones."

only 60% of US citizens support same-sex marraige? in my area it is more like
90-95%, this was surprising and sad for me to hear

~~~
giarc
When you say "in my area it is more like 90-95%" are you referring to your
perceived thoughts on what the rate would be, or are you referring to an
actual poll?

If the former, than your area is probably not 90-95%, your social community is
90-95%. People tend to surround themselves with people with similar views. So
it seems like in your town everyone is for gay marriage, when in fact it's the
people in your town that you interact with that are for gay marriage. You
don't know the opinion of those in your town who you don't associate with.

For example, if you asked me what percentage of the population smoked
cigarettes, I would say 5-10%. That's because very few people I hang out with
smoke cigarettes. If I were to walk into a bar (well... outside the bar) in a
different neighbourhood, I might be surprised to see that 90% of people there
are smoking.

~~~
evgen
An additional factor is that opposition to gay marriage is heavily skewed
toward the elderly. I doubt the OP has a large social circle among the
medicare crowd, but that is where the pool of opposition remains the
strongest. We are just going to have to wait for them to die off.

------
malkia
Came to work today, opened the internal web page and saw this - #ProudToLove -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSiehK2asbI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSiehK2asbI)

------
sbt
America continues its slow march forward. Congratulations.

------
jakeogh
Why is the gov in the business of approving who is married anyway? There is no
reason to need "licenses".

------
danceswild
this is great! congratulations US!

------
dataker
Beyond YAY!'s, the state is saying it will 'let' you love someone of the same
sex.

Can someone sense the creepiness in this? It tells you how/who/why you should
love.

It still doesn't include certain groups and it could revoke such 'rights' in
other circumstances.

~~~
kstenerud
It doesn't tell you how/who/why you should love. It simply states the kinds of
unions that gain property sharing rights.

You're free to love who/how/why you want, but don't expect special property
rights or tax credits unless the government has recognized them as such.

------
acd
I'm happy for this decision, way to go!

------
3zzy
Honest question: Do gay couples have to commit adultery to produce children? —
OR — Rely on straight couples to produce children whom they can adopt?

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

~~~
3zzy
So polygamy is illegal, and adultery is a misdemeanour, but "open marriages"
are fine? So with gay marriages everything else becomes legal too?

------
Cyberis
So, shouldn't plural marriage, intra-family marriage and inter-species
marriage be made legal as well?

~~~
parwell
Plural and intra-family, yes. Inter-species no, because animals can't sign a
contract or give informed consent.

------
WorldWideWayne
Gay Marriage is a controversy that is constantly used to to distract people
from much bigger problems.

The ruling that had vastly more wide-reaching effects this week is that they
upheld the the terrible "Affordable" Care Act. This act is a capitalist
abomination of much more well thought-out socialist single-payer plans. Now
that health insurance companies have a state granted monopoly, there's no
reason to bring prices down or change anything.

~~~
ceejayoz
> This act is a capitalist abomination of much more well thought-out socialist
> single-payer plans.

It was what was possible - it barely passed as-is, and only via some technical
processes that let it slip through Congress - and I think history'll show it
to be a first big step towards single-payer.

> Now that health insurance companies have a state granted monopoly, there's
> no reason to bring prices down or change anything.

How so? Before the ACA, there were a number of insurance companies that had to
compete between each other. After the ACA, there are a number of insurance
companies that have to compete between each other. ACA just removed the "I
won't buy any and use the ER when I get cancer" option.

------
innguest
Gay people finally earned the right to have their relationships meddled with
by the government. Let's see if they remain "gay" (happy). Watch the parades
dwindle!

------
brudgers
The title of the post is incorrect.

~~~
coldpie
Yeah. Technically gay marriage bans were struck down. Whatever.

------
once-in-a-while
What's next? I would like to marry myself!! When will I finally be able to do
that?

Do I have to wait another century?

------
daily_dose_420
This has nothing to do with technology.

~~~
dang
Please read the HN guidelines:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
There is no need for stories here to be about technology.

------
anti-shill
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 affordable housing)...you know, the issues
that matter to all americans, the issues that used to occupy leftists before
they got sidetracked with The Most Important Issue Of All Time.

~~~
api
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.

~~~
anti-shill
the readers here are young and educated, which for practical purposes
translates to being fascist.

Fascism is best defined by the degree to which the overclass controls the
youth of a nation by propaganda. Because the youth of today have been pushed
into college, that means they are highly propagandized.

And of course the overclass loves it when they can force the youth of the
nation to focus on an issue such as gay rights. Not only is it a natural wedge
issue, making it harder for the people to unite against the overclass, but by
leading youth into social issues leftism and away from hardcore economic
leftism, this is a win-win for the overclass.

Anyway, this dynamic in play here with gay marriage is a perfect window into
american fascism.

~~~
yeahdude
What's ironic is how condescending and formulaic your writing is, considering
your hatred of the 'overclass'.

------
urda
I'll tell you it upsets me to see so many homophobes here on Hacker News
attempting to argue that those in same-sex situations should be denied the
right to marriage.

Hacker News you disappoint me.

------
michaelsbradley
A sad day for our country, our highest court and much of our culture has
succumbed to social insanity. For my part, I will never under any
circumstances recognize by word or deed that any so-called marriage can be or
has been established between two persons of the same sex. No government on
earth has the power or authority to do that, anymore than a legislature could
repeal the law of gravity or a judge could declare a human person to be a
toaster oven. With kindness and charity, but with firm resolve, persons of
good will should give civil disobedience to this court ruling and all that
flows from it.

~~~
rmxt
What "social insanity" is it to recognize and legalize a completely natural
phenomenon? Or are you going to tell me that all those ducks and bonobos are
sinners too?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)

And, if you're a fan of beating people over the head with that book that tells
you to primarily love others (e.g. turn the other cheek, see the beam in your
own eye, etc.), here's a good money quote (Matthew 19:11-12)

"Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it
has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are
eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to
live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can
accept this should accept it.”"

~~~
beauSD
Should we legalize and support through marriage all naturally occurring sexual
desires and acts?

I think that questions almost answers itself, but you never know after a
ruling like this.

~~~
rmxt
That's a red herring, almost concern troll-esque, argument. This ruling isn't
a slippery slope towards moral depravity and chaos, no matter how much
religious authorities will attempt to paint it as such. We can definitely know
that civilization as we know it will not collapse because two guys/girls are
allowed to kiss, hold hands once in a while, and receive acknowledgment from
civil authorities that they share tax returns.

An important distinction between gay marriage and other human taboos that I'm
guessing you're referring to (pedophilia, cannibalism, etc.) is the presence
of mutual consent and respect. The ability to consent derives from the
uniquely (adult) human ability to reason about the future and one's self-
existence to an unusually sophisticated level. Children lack the experience
necessary to reason about such things, hence why pedophilia is such a long-
standing and widespread taboo.

If two fully consenting adults want to do something that celebrates their
shared bond between each other, who or what is anyone else to tell them they
shouldn't do that?

~~~
beauSD
You're right, it's not a slippery slope. It's a gate we've opened and said
that whatever your sexual compulsion is, no one else has a right to tell you
that it's wrong. That is a very dangerous gate to open and you don't get to
close it after gay "marriage" is approved - others will want the freedom as
well.

It's not a red herring because you already have people on HN, and I'm sure
many many other places, asking when polygamy will get to share in the same
"civil rights".

And to play devil's advocate (and that language is intentional) who are you to
say that a child or an animal can't consent to a sexual relationship or
marriage with another child or an adult? How closed-minded of you.

We are already giving children under 18 the right to access birth control
(without their parent's consent) and the freedom to decide that they are not
the gender that they were "assigned" \- so why can't they decide who to
"love"? And who are you to say an animal doesn't have the same rights,
feelings, and ability to give consent as a human? I think PETA and many others
would actively disagree.

If you pay attention, I haven't mentioned religion. What I've mentioned is the
reasoning and appeal you gave for allowing what is "natural". Who decides what
is "natural" and acceptable for human beings? The animal kingdom? You
personally? These are not troll questions, these are important questions and
it matters gravely how we answer them.

~~~
yeahdude
> You're right, it's not a slippery slope. It's a gate we've opened and said
> that whatever your [thoughts, feelings and behaviors about X are], no one
> else has a right to tell you that it's wrong. That is a very dangerous gate
> to open and you don't get to close it after [X] is approved - others will
> want the freedom as well.

This isn't an insult, but you're a nitwit? The argument you're making is the
prototypical "slippery slope" fallacy.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)

~~~
Nadya
I'd advise you to actually read the article you are linking to.

 _> in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from
another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the
inevitability of the event in question._

His argument is not a fallacious one. The reasoning used to justify applies to
other scenarios. Polygamy is the main one brought up on this thread: Why are
we telling adults who and how many people they can marry?

If you legalize [x] because [y] and [y] also applies to [z] then [x] and [z]
are equivalent for reasons [y]; therefore [z] should be legalized if [x] is
legalized unless [x] and [z] are demonstrably _not_ equivalent for reasons
[y].

I'd also like to note that the cutoff for being an adult should be 25, not 18.
Therefore people shouldn't be able to be married until they are 25. The age of
18 is arbitrary and in many places that age is 16. In some places that age is
14. When exactly is the cutoff? Well it's based on an individuals mental
maturity, which is not equivalent to their age. I've met 12 year olds who are
more rational and mature than 30 year olds.

Furthermore:

Hebephilia and pedophilia are often merged concepts when people speak. For the
people speaking on this subject, can you clarify which you're talking about?
It's difficult to tell which people mean, but it usually gets clarified to the
13-16 year old ranges. At that age, I'd argue most children understand
marriage, can be educated on the government-related issues to marriage, and
understand sexual relations and pregnancy. The idea that they can consent to
sexual relations of other minors, but not of adults, is some form of double-
think. Note that in this context it doesn't seem _marriage_ is what is being
brought into question: just sexuality.

Note that I'm not defending it: I think people shouldn't be able to have sex
or get married until at least age 25 unless they can demonstrate the ability
to proper care and provide for a child with a stable income.

~~~
yeahdude
Can you name one other kind of marriage that will necessarily get legalized
because we legalized same-sex marriage?

Can you name one other kind of marriage that is demonstrably more likely to
get legalized because we legalized same-sex marriage?

If there's any kind of slippery slope, it's the slippery slope from man-woman
marriage to adult-adult marriage. Well, we've slid down it, and now we're at
the bottom.

~~~
Nadya
Polygamy & Incest

We haven't slid to "adult-adult marriage" yet until the above are legalized
across the board. So please don't misrepresent man-man and woman-woman as
being adult-adult (or adult - n adult)

Since marriage does not imply reproduction, an incestual couple can refrain
from having kids, adopt, use a surrogate/donor, etc. so there is no "but
imbreeding" argument. Which is an argument about genetics... Isn't choosing
who can reproduce a form of eugenics? We don't stop people with known
hereditary complications from choosing to have kids, why should we stop
siblings? If they choose to accept the risks, why should society have any say
in the matter?

~~~
yeahdude
Are there any other reasons why incest is considered bad?

~~~
Nadya
It's a social taboo and imbreeding are the only given reasons of why it is
"bad".

Some could argue a failed relationship can lead to issues in a family
household but I don't think that has any real merit. Dating a family member's
best friend and it going sour can have similar consequences.

------
nlake44
I'm happy for the gay community. At least the Supreme Court is not fully
corrupted.

------
octatoan
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...](http://www.afa.net/the-stand/government/rainbow-jihadists-of-scotus/)

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

------
anon4327733
What a crappy ruling. Yes the answer they got was right, but they never
bothered to rule that sexual orientation is a (partial) suspect class. Now we
have to wait for another ruling to get that resolved. Stupid lazy evaluation
of courts.

~~~
anon4327733
Great job. Don't read more than the first sentence before voting.

