Hacker News Reader

Comment by fixxer | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, no issue with gay marriage in my view. The issue is where the decision needs to be rendered. I argue Federal rulings on X create a premise for rulings on Y and while you might really like the idea of X, it doesn't really matter to your life and it invites a negative impact from Y. Let X=gay marriage and Y=a state's self-determination of immigration law.

View on HN

Immigration law is a matter of non citizens rights in the US. The federal government has the responsibility to protect citizens constitutional rights. Any law that discriminates against one person because of another persons religous beliefs is prima facie unconstitutional.

Should the states have had the right to keep laws against miscegenation because someone objected to interracial marriage? What about states right when it came to Jim Crow laws?

Maybe? I wouldn't want to live in those states and I think that would be pervasive. Ultimately, economics would drive progress.

All conjecture. If only social science was a real science and we could do independent trials.

To buttress what @fixxer stated: i do think it should be allowed for states to have horrible rules and laws (anti-miscegenation, anti-gay, anti-white, etc). People have, and will continue, to vote with their feet. More poignantly, companies will vote with their foot print. If a majority of people in Arkansas want to establish the state as a White Majority Zone, democracy dictates that it must be so. Ditto for any other region or color.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com