Slashdot Mirror
Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage
BarbaraHudson writes: Reuters is reporting that the citizens of Ireland voted overwhelmingly to legalize same-sex marriages. While it's also legal in 19 other countries, Ireland was the first to decide this by putting the question to the citizens. "This has really touched a nerve in Ireland," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain said at the main count center in Dublin. "It's a very strong message to every LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) young person in Ireland and every LGBT young person in the world." Observers say the loss of moral authority of the Catholic church after a series of sex scandals was a strong contributing factor, with priests limiting their appeals to the people sitting in their pews. In contrast, the "Yes" side dominated social media.
Ireland needed to ask the question via a referendum, as their constitution (which requires a referendum to modify) defines marriage as between a man and woman.
A unilateral edict by the Government of the day would not have been sufficient.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Actually, there was no mention of marriage being between a man and a woman in either our constitution or our laws. However, the vote was needed in order to protect the rights of same sex couples to marry, and prevent possible future reinterpretations or changes in law from denying them the right.
Every civilization in the history of mankind has condemned sodomy
Tell that to the ancient Greeks. Next time learn a bit of history before making blanket statements.
Milestone might be the wrong word, but this result stands out. The citizens stood up to the catholic church, and reminded the clergy about the principle of separation of church and state.
The church's arrogance has come back to bite it, as people now see through the hypocrisy.
Well done, my (distant) Irish relatives.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Sure I know about the roman marriage laws. I even know about Nero claiming to marry a male ex slave and a boy he castrated and roman law forbidding it at the time. But that is all sort of irrelevant as to why government is still involved in marriage. Even in Rome, the church controlled what could and couldn't count as marriage starting around the 4th century when Rome converted to Christianity. But I didn't want to write a complete history of marriage, just a short summery to why government is involved today.
Also, the church or churches was involved in marriage long before the Council of Trent. The reformation set certain things into cannon but didn't start it. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term Church and instead said a religious matter. In English law which is important here because of the connections to Ireland and the US, the laws of old Rome are somewhat removed. The Marriage Duty Acts on the late 1600s (1694 and 95) is likely where the start of government interference in Ireland and the US in modern day marriage started.
Lots of reasons. Because polygamy generally involves powerful men taking lots of wives, and sometimes forcing young men out of the community so they have their pick of women. And no, it's not going to even out of a few Marisa Mayers take on a few "brother husbands."
Because it creates an inherent power imbalance in the relationship - if you call your wife Sue a fat bitch she can stop speaking to you until you've done a few weeks of groveling. But if you're a polygamist, you can tell Sue that if she doesn't get over it, you'll just be fucking your second wife, Molly.
Because it takes issues that are otherwise straightforward and turns them into a mess if there is no will. If you get in a car accident and end up in a coma, your wife can make medical decisions for you. If you die, she inherits everything and has custody of the kids. But if you're a polygamist who adopted, who gets the kids...Sue or Molly? Who gets the house? Which one makes the call to keep you on a feeding tube while you're in the coma?
Think about it for a minute - what actual, tangible, benefit do gays achieve by being able to call their relationships a marriage?
Do you want a list of the thousands of rights that come with marriage? The rights of survivorship are ignored by almost all, at least until their spouse dies suddenly, and they have to take over the life. When my dad died, I could have sued his partner for her house. They weren't "married", but had lived together for 10+ years, and lived as man and wife. As he made tangible improvements to the property, and as I'm his son, I have a right to whatever holding he had in that property. Since he wasn't married, I could claim against that as his heir. If they had been married, then I'd have had no claim. It would have passed to his wife without claim or ability for incident.
That's one of the thousands of rights that married people take for granted. In most cases, even a written living will is trumped by the "marriage" card. Though, that's changing. But a non-married partner will be ignored by all. And that's not changing.
of course most have little interest in real human rights - just ask around here about people's views on abortion for example.
Since someone doesn't agree with your fascist declaration of when life begins, you assert that their value of life is different. Nah, you are just a fascist aggressor who hates people.
Learn to love Alaska