6 ms·

Same-sex marriage never achieved enough support to be legalized [0][1]. It was voted against throughout the country including liberal states such as California.

by zcid 7y ago

Same-sex marriage never achieved enough support to be legalized [0][1]. It was voted against throughout the country including liberal states such as California. Same-sex marriage was legislated by a small number of judges. I'm not making an argument for or against so please don't debate me on the merits of this issue. I am merely pointing out that the people did not decide this issue. A very small number of elites did. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States#Efforts_to_ban_same-sex_unions_by_constitutional_amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutio...

greglindahl 7y ago
Same-sex marriage rights were obtained in several states via a vote in the legislature. And Americans overwhelmingly support the US Constitution and court system. So "the people" were involved in both of those paths.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  In some states, sure. But where I live in Indiana, the strongly Republican state hates gay people (government and much of the citizenry). Remember that one of the cases in northern Indiana was the 'Gay Cake lawsuit'. Our state only allowed gay marriage because SCOTUS ajudicated it so. Also, the decision also affected me directly because women could legally change their name in marriage for free. But men doing so (I am one of them) had to pay a bunch and go in front of a judge and ask permission. The Gay Marriage decision removed this form of sexual discrimination as well.
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    The point that I'm getting at is that even in states where a majority dislikes gay people, there's not much of a move to abolish the 14th Amendment. People complain about "activist judges", and there's been one significant recall (Iowa), but that's it. FWIW California was about the same as Indiana in how marriage equality was achieved: a popular vote against followed by a court ruling for. It's popular now, but it wasn't at the time of the court ruling. It's extremely rare that minorities get 14th Amendment rights in a referendum.
    - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
      Also unrelated question.... Are you the Master whom runs http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/ http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/ ? I'm Ld Vincent O'Cosnachain of Mynydd Seren (Urraca Yriarte's shire) I'd just like to thank you for running one of the best and most amazing SCA music archives in the Known Worlde!
      - greglindahl 7y ago
        Of course (my real name is rare) and you're welcome! I've known Mistress Urraca forever!
glennpratt 7y ago
You are wading into the complex web of how democracy works in the US. Denigrating the "elite" Supreme Court and ignoring all the other elites and distortions involved in any state legislation seems disingenuous. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Post-Obergefell_v._Hodges https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_m...
- casefields 7y ago
  Opinion polling is fickle. How about actual voting on the issue such as super liberal California saying no to same sex marriage: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_...
  - gautamnarula 7y ago
    That was also in 2008, when the majority was opposed to same-sex: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/change-doesnt-usually-come-this-fast/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/change-doesnt-usually-c... The link only goes to 2015, but polling had already changed 15-18 points in favor of marriage equality by then. California had 48% vote against prop 8 in 2008, which was still ~8 points above the national level of support for same-sex marriage. It's also worth noting that "super liberal" MA, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2004 via a state Supreme Court decision, failed multiple times in its legislature to ban it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massach... and multiple opponents of it were defeated in elections and replaced with proponents.
fzeroracer 7y ago
Can you explain to me the intent of your argument? Never mind that there were many states that voted in favor of same-sex marriage, it seems rather disingenuous to claim that it was simply a 'small number of elites' as well as claiming your argument is somehow not debatable.
adamsea 7y ago
A) By what process were those “small number of judges” appointed? By what process were the appointers appointed? B) Define “support”.
CamperBob2 7y ago
It was voted against throughout the country including liberal states such as California. The relevant vote took place in 1868, when the states ratified the 14th Amendment. A very small number of elites did. And by "elites" you mean "Tax-exempt churches doing everything they possibly could to subvert, deny, and if possible eliminate peoples' existing rights." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dang 7y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20434037 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20434037.
- zcid 7y ago
  Can I ask why this comment was detached? I feel it was relevant to the point the OP was making concerning legislation vs popularity among the citizenry.
  - dang 7y ago
    It turned into a thread about same-sex marriage, which has nothing to do with the article. Whimsical tangents can be ok, but well-worn-political-debate tangents are off topic on HN. Keep in mind that when we moderate something like that, it's never just about the root comment (i.e. the one you posted). It's always about the subthread as a whole.

by zcid 7y ago

greglindahl 7y ago

Same-sex marriage rights were obtained in several states via a vote in the legislature. And Americans overwhelmingly support the US Constitution and court system. So "the people" were involved in both of those paths.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago
In some states, sure. But where I live in Indiana, the strongly Republican state hates gay people (government and much of the citizenry). Remember that one of the cases in northern Indiana was the 'Gay Cake lawsuit'. Our state only allowed gay marriage because SCOTUS ajudicated it so. Also, the decision also affected me directly because women could legally change their name in marriage for free. But men doing so (I am one of them) had to pay a bunch and go in front of a judge and ask permission. The Gay Marriage decision removed this form of sexual discrimination as well.
- greglindahl 7y ago
  The point that I'm getting at is that even in states where a majority dislikes gay people, there's not much of a move to abolish the 14th Amendment. People complain about "activist judges", and there's been one significant recall (Iowa), but that's it. FWIW California was about the same as Indiana in how marriage equality was achieved: a popular vote against followed by a court ruling for. It's popular now, but it wasn't at the time of the court ruling. It's extremely rare that minorities get 14th Amendment rights in a referendum.
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    Also unrelated question.... Are you the Master whom runs http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/ http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/ ? I'm Ld Vincent O'Cosnachain of Mynydd Seren (Urraca Yriarte's shire) I'd just like to thank you for running one of the best and most amazing SCA music archives in the Known Worlde!
    - greglindahl 7y ago
      Of course (my real name is rare) and you're welcome! I've known Mistress Urraca forever!

glennpratt 7y ago

You are wading into the complex web of how democracy works in the US. Denigrating the "elite" Supreme Court and ignoring all the other elites and distortions involved in any state legislation seems disingenuous. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Post-Obergefell_v._Hodges https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_m...

casefields 7y ago
Opinion polling is fickle. How about actual voting on the issue such as super liberal California saying no to same sex marriage: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_...
- gautamnarula 7y ago
  That was also in 2008, when the majority was opposed to same-sex: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/change-doesnt-usually-come-this-fast/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/change-doesnt-usually-c... The link only goes to 2015, but polling had already changed 15-18 points in favor of marriage equality by then. California had 48% vote against prop 8 in 2008, which was still ~8 points above the national level of support for same-sex marriage. It's also worth noting that "super liberal" MA, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2004 via a state Supreme Court decision, failed multiple times in its legislature to ban it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massach... and multiple opponents of it were defeated in elections and replaced with proponents.

fzeroracer 7y ago

Can you explain to me the intent of your argument? Never mind that there were many states that voted in favor of same-sex marriage, it seems rather disingenuous to claim that it was simply a 'small number of elites' as well as claiming your argument is somehow not debatable.

adamsea 7y ago

A) By what process were those “small number of judges” appointed? By what process were the appointers appointed? B) Define “support”.

CamperBob2 7y ago

It was voted against throughout the country including liberal states such as California. The relevant vote took place in 1868, when the states ratified the 14th Amendment. A very small number of elites did. And by "elites" you mean "Tax-exempt churches doing everything they possibly could to subvert, deny, and if possible eliminate peoples' existing rights." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dang 7y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20434037 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20434037.

zcid 7y ago
Can I ask why this comment was detached? I feel it was relevant to the point the OP was making concerning legislation vs popularity among the citizenry.
- dang 7y ago
  It turned into a thread about same-sex marriage, which has nothing to do with the article. Whimsical tangents can be ok, but well-worn-political-debate tangents are off topic on HN. Keep in mind that when we moderate something like that, it's never just about the root comment (i.e. the one you posted). It's always about the subthread as a whole.