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.

Comments

This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

There are exactly 0 valid reasons why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get married, that's it, zero reasons, as in absolutely none. Any country or region which bans gay marriage or has to ask if it should be allowed it just a bunch of uncivilized hicks who need to grow up. Marriage is a union of two people who love each other and that is all it is, period. It's not a milestone when gay marriage get "approved" it's really just , "About time", and for anyone who doesn't think gay marriage should be legal, again go back to the 0 valid points. If you really think you can make one, go ahead, you'd be the first person in human history to do so.

Re: This isn't a question

[Tomahawk]

Well said.

To add to the story above, this vote was to enshrine this equality in our constitution. So no law can be changed to remove this right.

This truely is a fantastic day for Ireland, and for the world as a whole.

Re: This isn't a question

[timmyf2371]

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.

Re: This isn't a question

[Tomahawk]

The gay aspect doesn't come into it. The age limit for marriage is set in law (as is the whole legal definition of marriage). And there are 0 reasons not to let any gay person get married, in accordance with law.

Re: This isn't a question

[Tomahawk]

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.

Re: This isn't a question

[Tomahawk]

Goats are not legal entities, don't have the capacity to understand marriage, don't have the capacity to comprehend the (do you take this person) question, don't have the ability to answer the question.
Marriage is a contract that is entered into willingly by both partners. A goat cannot willingly enter into a contract (lack of comprehension. etc), this cannot get married.

Maybe, one day, when goats evolve sufficiently... But certainly not today.

Re:This isn't a question

[raque]

In the broadest scope I've never understood why there has to be laws concerning marriage. It's a private contract. There shouldn't be a question of can two people of the same sex get married - the question should be why we need to regulate this at all. If some regulation is found to be useful, what should it be? I'm not happy about "The State" getting that far into my business.

The lesson for the US in this is one that New York, a very Irish and Catholic City and State, learned. You do this by legislative authority, not juridical. The use of judicial fiat just creates anger and inhibits the building of consensus. It isn't something WE did, it's something THEY forced on us. Ireland agreed with itself on this. The way the US is doing it isn't about agreement, it's about power.

This is why I find myself supporting same sex marriage in NY but hoping the US Supreme Court rules against the suit. In the US this isn't a Federal Case - it is something the States have to deal with. The NSA has given me all the evidence I need to not trust to Federal Authority to solve subtle problems. I can't help but worry that the court case isn't about Justice, it's about finding a shortcut around the slogging of the Legislative process.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

That's discrimination and you're a closed minded person.

My goat loves me and wants to share the rest of her life with me. I don't care what anyone else says or thinks because they're just wrong. In a ritual recognized by my tribe, the chief married my goat and I. Things have been great; she keeps the lawn trim while I maintain the house and hunt for my own food. We can't have babies together; but that's ok because our tribe is very open about sexual relationships and I hooked up with one of our tribe's (former, wink wink) virgins last weekend.

Re:This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

i would simply argue that id rather see the government out of marriage completely.

Why should 2 people get tax incentives simple because of "love"? How about we take the government out of all marriages as far as tax and property reasons are concerned so that single people have the same rights as those lucky enough to find love

Re:This isn't a question

[PopeRatzo]

The way the US is doing it isn't about agreement, it's about power.

Well, maybe. It could also be about the fact that money has made the US electoral system no longer an accurate reflection of the will of the people.

And it's not even about referendums, because referendums don't even make it to the ballot without big money getting behind them. And candidates? Forget about it. There's a money primary that happens before you even get to find out who's running.

Today I was reading an article about how statistically, the positions of Bernie Sanders most accurately reflect the opinions of the American people. His position on each issue going down the line are supported by more Americans than any other candidate from either party. You think he's got a chance to be elected? Not as long as the superPACs are allowed to finance the elections.

To be honest, I'm not sure any US election will ever again be a reflection of the will of the people. Elections are just more reality television now. No matter who gets elected from either party, most Americans are going to hate them because that candidate has nothing to do with the will of the people.

Re: This isn't a question

[BarbaraHudson]

So YOU'RE this guy, the one who the tribe force him to marry to a goat after being caught having sex with it! No wonder you post anonymously here!

Re: This isn't a question

[Tomahawk]

The law effectively defines the terms of the contract. It's actually easier that way.

If you like, you can enter into a contract with your partner and leave the state out of it. But you'll run into issues with, for the sake of example, of your other half is incapacitated - the hospital solicitor/lawyer would need a copy of your contact to see what agreement is in place with regard to your next of kin rights, and your rights to make decisions about their treatment.
Having a state defined contract means that everyone already knows what rights you have, this speeding up access to treatment.

Re: This isn't a question

[Tomahawk]

Which church? Which religion?
One religion's rules have no binding any anyone not in that religion, especially other religions.
Of someone founds the Church of Homosexual Christians and decide to marry same sex couples, they are as within their right to do that as your church is to deny these unions.

Re: This isn't a question

[easyTree]

Let? This seems to be a big misunderstanding amongst humans - the idea that rights are given to us by some higher authority. Nuh-uh, existence grants our rights. The best our entitled humans may do is refrain from removing them by threat of force. Have a nice day =D

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

I'm trying to think of something to say that you'll comprehend, but the truth is that you're probably a religious follower and therefore unable to talk about right and wrong. Marriage has nothing to do with a man and woman, it has to do with two people in love, that's it. Now grow up.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This isn't a question

[easyTree]

Haven't you heard, in history the church had power of veto over everything. Want to do something? Ask the church.

These days that role has been eclipsed by governments and their corporate sponsors.

Re:This isn't a question

[sumdumass]

Years and years ago, marriage was generally a church matter. Some societies had laws or rules dedicated to strengthening the society like procreation edicts and such. The more citizens you have, the more chance of surviving raids and such. Then some European king made it a state matter in a scuffle over power with the church. This is where the "if anyone knows of a reason they shouldn't be married line came from", if either spouse was in violation of church laws or the laws of the kingdom, the church wouldn't allow the marriage and the kingdom would sometimes allow or disallow it (but you needed to get special permission) . You had a lot of people who were then just living together. This had problems with inheritance and such which lead into the entire women not owning anything and such. Eventually a perk of government involvement was tying inheritance to marriage which encouraged it even where the church didn't support it. This eventually gave way to women having rights to own land and so on. Common law systems ended up interpreting people living together for long enough times as being married for practical purposes and eased some of this.

Now, where people expect things from the government, their employer, and many other groups of people, proving you are part of a family unit is important as benefits and privileges are bestowed or limited to people based on familiar connections. This origination of government involvement became entrenched and just transferred into most systems out of historicity and ease of implementation. The only way to be added to a family is to either marry into it or be adopted. To establish proof of this, legal documentation is sometimes required. Otherwise, you and I could collaborate that the old rich widow was your wife in common law (or you were her adopted brother) so you inherit all her belongings and will split it with me upon the agree terms after she died with no known heirs.

The reason government is still involved is because people expect things from other people and from government. The government also expects things from people and the degree of expectations is all based on family connections (levels of taxation and so on). Gays want to be married because they want this same benefits that others have when they are essentially common law married. Some of it might be in it just to force others to look at them the same as anyone else, but I find that most people who do not try to appear different already do get looked at the same as everyone else.

that's a short and definitely not comprehensive reason why government is involved. It boils down to tying benefits, legal rights, and inheritance to family relations.

Re:This isn't a question

[SgtAaron]

You seem to be a retard who can't think for himself. Every civilization in the history of mankind has condemned sodomy and never define marriage as anything but between a man and women.

Every civilization in the history of mankind? I don't know why you're calling someone else a retard.

So-called "sodomy" in many ancient societies hasn't always been seen as condemning someone to live eternity in hell. Ancient Greek and Roman societies, for example, were pretty loose in that regard.

You want to claim every people in history were a bunch of fools, be my guest. But, only other fools will believe you.

It was the same then as it is now; in any random group of humans, at least 1 in 10 are homosexual. And others were born with a gender but in their mind they *know* they are a different gender. I'm happy to be comfortable in my male skin, but small-minded people like you just can't grasp the concept.

It's always been this way and it always will. Get over it.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

1) Don't rape children - like God said to, he's a dinky
2) Don't abuse others - like God said to, he's still a drinky
3) Use common sense and don't believe without evidence - Unlike God said.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

It's a private contract.

So long as the government is expected to arbitrate the terms of contracts, there is no such thing as a private contract. I can't privately contract myself into slavery, of for sex for hire, or a large number of things, for various reasons. Private contracts don't exist, until such time as the government abolishes all human rights, so they aren't expected to step in for unfair, coerced, or otherwise illegal contracts.

Also, in this case, the public contract has been around so long that many laws have been written assuming it. "Family" law assumes and is built around government-approved marriages. To change marriage would change thousands of laws, with unknown and untested consequences.

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

There is a Gay Agenda. Those Gays want to be able to walk the streets without being tied to the back of a pickup and dragged until dead, or left for dead, just because someone is offended by their manerisms. That's an agenda. I think that rather than "hide" the agenda, the gays should own it. "Yes we have an agenda, we want to e treated like humans."

Re:This isn't a question

[dwywit]

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.

Re:This isn't a question

[fustakrakich]

Naa-a-a-a-a-hh!

Re:This isn't a question

[Ol Olsoc]

Can a goat grant consent?

No, it can't. I have no idea why gay bashers keep bringing bestiality up.

Oh wait, yes I do. They are projecting their wishes to fuck a goat. That's sick.

Fundies spend a lot more time thinking about gay sex than gay people do.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

And every society has also made meat a topic of control.

The primitives did so because they knew that eating pork made you sick. They didn't know what food poisoning was, so they asserted that the meats or animals were mystical.

Sodomy with an infected person is a transmission risk for almost all diseases.

There's nothing "moral" in the reasons. Other than the governments asserted so when declaring it.

You want to claim every people in history were a bunch of fools, be my guest. But, only other fools will believe you.

There are many good pieces of advice in the many historical and religious books handed down. They stumbled on many things. The Bible says pi is 3, which isn't a bad estimation for someone building a well by hand 3000 years ago. But that doesn't mean that there is a math proof in the Book, or that the Book is wrong because those who wrote it down didn't understand the meaning. Someone noticed the pattern, and put it in the Book. Like the rules on crops, fabrics, and cleanliness.

They weren't fools. They were just ignorant. Now that we have germ theory, we can understand what they were seeing, and how it would look to those without a germ theory, who attributed everything unknown to God. But that doesn't mean they did what they did for intelligent and fully-informed reasons.

Re:This isn't a question

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

Just like the bible, Because my book says so, verse one:

In the beginning was the sock and not God, God came about 2 minutes later.

So that is pretty hard evidence.

Re:This isn't a question

[Ol Olsoc]

In the broadest scope I've never understood why there has to be laws concerning marriage. It's a private contract.

It is what undid the gayhate movement. Instead of using the ever dubious moral aspect, the fight was lost over the equal protections under the law aspect. For same sex couples to be denied the rights and obligations of heterosexuals in marriage was found to be unconstitutional.

And the seal was that marriage is quite codified in the legal system. As such it is a civil, not a religious matter. Churches perform weddings, they do not perform marriages. The marriage part of the wedding is not definable by religion, as that would mean that any marriage performed outside of a church would be considered invalid (as the catholic church does - without legal standing,

tl; dr version. Fundamentalist Christians did not invent marriage, so they cannot define it.

Re:This isn't a question

[I'm New Around Here]

Marriage pre-dates religion.

Proof?

Or do you define religion as "the Catholic Church"?

Re: This isn't a question

[MightyMartian]

Up until recently beating the shit out of your wife and forcing sexual intercourse on her against her will (spousal rape) was considered lawful and appropriate. Some traditional views just plain suck and we should welcome their demiwey.

This has nothing to do with Marxism, any more than throwing out laws banning miscegenation had anything to do with Marxism.

Re:This isn't a question

[drinkypoo]

OK nutter, but reduce the argument to a reasonable one — you should be able to designate someone to come see you in the hospital whether you're married or related or not — and we return to there being absolutely no valid reason to not permit you to define the small pool of people who are permitted to see you if you are in the hospital. Speaking for myself, I vehemently do not want my mother permitted into my hospital room for any reason.

Re:This isn't a question

[drinkypoo]

I recall reading about this experiment. Kids were left free to play with any toys they wanted... and, surprise, they still chose the traditional ones.

The majority of them do, yes. That's fine for them to do. Some of them don't. It's not fine for the majority to force them to do so. It's not fine for the parents to force them to do so. They may be ignorant and out of control tiny little humans, but many adult humans are also ignorant and out of control and we still let them dress how they want and in most states and countries, even fuck who they want given consensuality.

Re: This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

all the more reason to simply fix that problem with the law, rather then bringing in a new protected class

Re: This isn't a question

[MightyMartian]

Extrensing marital rights to gay couples is no more creating a new class than overthrowing anti miscegenation laws created a new class. From my point of view, allowingf same sex marriage in fact creates fewer classes.

Re:This isn't a question

[Ol Olsoc]

i would simply argue that id rather see the government out of marriage completely. Why should 2 people get tax incentives simple because of "love"? How about we take the government out of all marriages as far as tax and property reasons are concerned so that single people have the same rights as those lucky enough to find love

Because of insurance for families, because of inheritance aspects, becvause of divorce, Next of kin, legal documents Lot's of legal reasons.

Re:This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

so the government can enforce a contract between consenting adults. why cap it with only 2? why not treat it more as an incorporation in the eyes of the law???

Re:This isn't a question

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The devil, however, is in the details. What responsibilities does marriage imply

Whatever responsibilities you agree on.

(as a minimum, there are tax issues in most places)

If this contract is treated specially, it should be treated as such based on specific, rational concepts, not a generic "X and Y are 'married'". So, give people tax breaks if they have kids; give them tax breaks if they give each other power of attorney; give them tax breaks if they take on legal liability for each other etc.

and what privileges does it grant (among others, there are medical issues most places - your spouse can make medical decisions on your behalf if you are incapable, for instance)?

Why shouldn't I be able to give anybody that right? Why should my spouse be the default or have any special status in that regard?

What are the limits on marriage (so, why limit it to two people, for instance)?

Once you decompose marriage contracts into its components, you get limits on each component, based on some rational analysis of the actual purpose of that component.

there are very few that consider the religious ceremony legally binding in and of itself

Whether it is legally binding is not for churches to decide, it is for the legal system to decide. But most churches do, in fact, perform legally binding marriages, since church officials are empowered by the state to do so.

Re: This isn't a question

[C0R1D4N]

No, but you might be able to emigrate.

Re:This isn't a question

[Uberbah]

Well, the marriage benefits are intended to help with child rearing.

You know gay people can have biological kids as well as adopt, right? This was always a red herring from homophobes anyway, as you never had the same Concerns over post-menopausal women or elderly couples marrying.

question of why we're extending benefits for no reason should be asked.

You should be asked if you've ever heard of the word "inheritance". How about the right to make medical choices for your partner in the event of his or her incapacitation.

Re:This isn't a question

[C0R1D4N]

That isn't something gay parents specifically do though. I am a gay man, I have a pretty masculine job (zookeeper) and when I go through the surrogacy process to have kids (hopefully soon) I hope they grow up to like toy guns, action figures, dirt bikes, etc (assuming I have boys)

Re: This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

the thing is though MY solution would cover everyone now, and offend no one. it literally is a win win for all. instead of chipping away at it one step at a time, lets make it crumble, and make it equal for all

Re:This isn't a question

[demonlapin]

Thus the parable of Solomon, the baby, and the two claimant mothers. Family law is among the oldest parts of the law.

Re:This isn't a question

[sumdumass]

So when did they first exist?

It's irrelevant to any point I made. Most of the rest of your comment is irrelevant too.

But your summary was based on flawed premises. You should have tried harder to be more accurate.

There is no flawed premise. Ireland gets it's laws from English law not roman laws. Nothing it flawed, as I already said, what I gave was not a comprehensive history of marriage. It's even in the first post. You gain nothing by trying to inject what I left out as I left it out on purpose. BTW, what is it you think you are going to gain by arguing what was never said?

But it did try to change things to suit its needs. Why does the Church get to dictate what it wants?

Because at one point in time, the church had the power to do so. It's fucking history, you can find books about it. I suggest you pick on up.

You didn't limit your comments specifically to Ireland, the UK or the US, you should have started with that caveat, but no, you'd still be wrong in your summary if you didn't note how the Church attempted to subsume existing marriage practices.

You do not need to limit anything as long as it is within the context of the article and GP post. FFS are you that daft that you cannot take that into consideration?

You mean right after Ireland was forcibly conquered by English forces?

Yep, and that would make it the history that is important because it actually happened and is what is influencing modern day Ireland. Wow, for a minute there I though you were a complete imbecile but evidently, you do get it. You just don't want anyone to know it.

As role models go, I'd pass on that.

I'm not sure anyone asked you to make it a role model. If you think I did, I'm sorry your English is so screwed that you got that impression. The history is the history, it is just what is. You do not need to worship it, look up to it, just know about it and decide if you want to repeat it or not.

Re:This isn't a question

[Smauler]

Until fairly recently in human history, marriage was largely a religious and private issue.

Until fairly recently in human history, religion was not a private issue. The secular state did not exist (with a few notable exceptions, like the Mongol empire).

Re:This isn't a question

[dryeo]

I think that a representative democracy needs parts that can't be simply fired so they have some independence from the mob.

Re:This isn't a question

[ultranova]

Because it is one of the very few institutions found in all human cultures. Any legal system that doesn't deal with marriage in some fashion is profoundly deficient.

That's just not true. Until fairly recently in human history, marriage was largely a religious and private issue.

Until fairly recently in human history, religion was the law, and no issue could be both religious and private.

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

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.

Re: This isn't a question

[euroq]

Disclaimer: I'm a gay man married to another man.

When you say "special rights" I think of inequality and favoritism. In reality, gay marriage isn't that (or at least I don't expect it to be that). The main things I want from the law/government regarding my marriage is: medical decisions when the other cannot make them, inheritance decisions without me explicitly writing down that my husband co-owns my assets, the ability to make decisions for our children, and... well I think that's it. I don't consider these natural rights, I really just consider them a government recognition of companionship. This has nothing to do with fucking.

Re:This isn't a question

[dotancohen]

I can think of one: Gay parents pushing their social agendas onto their (likely) straight adopted children are more likely to cause self esteem and relationship issues. This isn't much different than the stereotype of the belt wielding father who tries to beat the gay out of his son.

This also reminds me of those articles in the times about 'progressive' parents raising their boys as 'gender neutral', but really, they just force them to wear girls clothes and play with dolls.

Like you I'll get modded Troll for defending you, but I won't do it anonymously. You are about half right: there _are_ people who teach gay behaviour, and it is right now not politically correct to say so because the whole issue is very sensitive to people on both sides.

I have no more problem with gays than I have with Muslims, Jews, blacks, Beiber fans, or pot smokers. Each one wants to live his life as his morals, upbringing, and internal inclination direct him. Some feel the need to preach their way of life to others, some feel the need to coerce others to live as they live, and some say "live and let live". I'm really only comfortable with that last category, the first two are sometimes problematic.

So I have no problem that my haircutter is gay, nor that two of my childhood friends were gay, nor that I have gay neighbours. I do have a problem with assuming that everyone is gay until proven otherwise, and raising children "gender neutral" through deliberately gender-confusing means. I don't buy my daughters toys, dolls or airplanes, until they _ask_ for them. They get both, dolls and airplanes, when _they_ express interest. If my baby to be born next month is a boy, he'll be _allowed_ to play with both dolls and airplanes, but he'll decide what to ask for. Just as if he were a girl. He'll _probably_ learn to prefer airplanes over dolls if he sees other boys playing with airplanes, and that's fine. He might prefer to play with girls, and he'll have two older sisters to learn from, so he'll probably express an interest in dolls as well. But none of that will come from parents' agendas.

Some people have a problem recognizing that outliers are just that: outliners. They exists, and we should treat them as we treat anybody else. But don't confuse the existence of a few outliers with the fact that the bell curve is heavily weighted towards the norm. Like it or hate it, the norm is that boys want to play with airplanes and grow up wanting to fuck women. Likewise, the norm is that girls want to play with dolls and grow up wanting to fuck men. If 0.1% or 1% or 10% of the population is gay, there is still an extreme bias towards straightness. That doesn't mean that gays are any worse than tall or short people, smart or stupid people, fat or skinny people. I wouldn't even consider then "not normal" at 0.01% of the population. But children, adopted or birthed, should not be deliberately pushed off the edges of the bell curves of normal behaivour in any of the above cases. I'm sure quite a few /.ers will tell of how pushing children to be 'smarter' has hurt them, the same is true for pushing them to be dumber, fatter, skinnier, straighter, or gayer.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Can you give an example of a negative outcome?

A step-parent relationship is legally the same as an adoption here. The only reason to perform a step-parent adoption is to block birth-parent visitation. So step parent adoptions are rare. But, marriage to the parent of a child is the equivalent. One is the legal guardian of the children in the relationship, regardless of blood. So, if the birth parent in the married couple dies, the child's care is uninterrupted. The surviving parent is sole guardian, and legally the parent, unless the other birth parent had some formal custody, or wishes to pursue it.

But living together without marriage? The child of a sole-custody arangement is an orphan the same as if both parents died, and the non-married non-birth parent is treated as if a neighbor walked up after a car crash that killed both parents, and offers to look after the new orphans.

I am speculating that you think there are negative consequences to laws such as family law due to same-sex marriage

You should not rush to judgement.

Re: This isn't a question

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The main things I want from the law/government regarding my marriage is: medical decisions when the other cannot make them,

What does that have to do with who you marry? It shouldn't be necessary to marry someone to give someone that power, nor does everybody who marries someone else want their partner to have that power.

inheritance decisions without me explicitly writing down that my husband co-owns my assets

If you have any significant assets, you better think about inheritance decisions and make a will, because otherwise you are going to leave everybody with a mess. Marriage and the inheritance laws that go along with it actually greatly complicate that, arising out of historical assumptions about stay-at-home moms.

the ability to make decisions for our children,

And why should that require getting married? Why should that come in a bundle with all the other responsibilities?

and... well I think that's it.

No, that's not actually it. You also need to get married in order to bring your partner into the country as an immigrant. And there are lots of other consequences.

Disclaimer: I'm a gay man married to another man.

I'm a gay man too, and sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Marriage as an institution isn't working for half of straight people either. The problem isn't that all the components of marriage may be useful on their own, it's that it's an all-or-nothing approach. It isn't working for many people, gay or straight, which is why many do not intend to get married. And the root problem is that you accept that government can intrude into your life in this way.

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Based on Slashdot comments, the Texas mother that targeted a minor with a known mental issue, committed fraud to gain her confidence, then pushed her to suicide, anyone who would commit suicide is unfit to live, and the murdering mother did the world a service.

Re:This isn't a question

[Dog-Cow]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with polygamy. You look like an intolerant shit-face when you group it together with slavery or human sacrifice.

Re: This isn't a question

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The simplest change would be (as I said) simply to strike the term "marriage" from the laws and replace it by "civil union"; that wouldn't change anybody's rights, but it would get rid of the stupid discussions around the state redefining religious marriage.

Converting marriage into a private contractual arrangement and unbundling it is harder. Nevertheless, what you are worried about isn't a big problem: old marriages would simply be deemed equivalent to a specific modern contract.

Finally, your reasoning about "two classes of citizens" is so bizarre and scary that I'm not sure I want to live on this planet anymore.

This is how organized religion dies

[plover]

This is how organized religion dies -- to thunderous applause.

As they fade into irrelevance day after day, and people discover that they actually value the freedoms their churches have been suppressing, I expect people will abandon them at an even faster pace.

Re: This is how organized religion dies

[ganjadude]

its not about if they can marry, its about the rights one has being single vs the rights one have being married.

the "gay people can get married to any woman he wants" has also been true for a very long time and that didnt cut it,

the way I see it now there are 2 protected classes, instead of stripping one protected class, we are simply granting special rights to more groups.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[serviscope_minor]

but having multiple lovers is even more widespread than homosexuality

Multiple lovers maybe, but multiple primary partners? I doubt that, personally. I don't think mere lovers need to be recognised in law. I don't see the case for it.

yet nobody is in any hurry to generalize marriage to support both polyandry and polygyny

That's because it's far, far too complicated. Marriage between a couple is simple: one dies, the other gets all the stuff with no tax (actually it's complicated enough if the dying partner leaves a bad will). Having the same thing in the case with multiple primary partners is more or less impossible to resolve in a sane manner.

But if you have an idea of how to fix that, I'm all ears.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[vlueboy]

Hi, antiperimetaparalogo

I am sorry for the bad responses you are getting here. It is the symptom of a larger problem you're not going to see resolved. Many outspoken Slashdotters treasure worldly freedom and intelligence. Remember the warning that "We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one" (1 john 5:19).

On this forum you always hear celebration about "choice" and multiple distros and "voting with your wallet," and making "informed decisions" and so on. The latter point naturally leads away from God for the wrong reasons, because it takes the right kind of willing heart, a lot of time and scriptural instruction given the spiritually-lacking state of willing separation from God starting with the first human marriage of Adam and Eve. Most people will label the choice to follow God here as barbaric and ignorant. The scripture from earlier confirms to those of us who trust in the promise of God's kingdom --and who see dozens of bible promises already fulfilled-- that few things will be clear of Satan's hand until He does away with Satan in the coming judgement.

Now, some more common traits here are hubris (slashdotters won't disagree on that) and lack of abundance of worldly"wisdom" that will lead many to a life without God. Just as the belief in this thread that lack of religion is a freedom (because so many religions were corrupted to disobey God and have shown great horrors that rightfully separate many otherwise God-curious candidates) they feel is a discovery that will free them. They'll encourage others to adopt that same atheist 'freedom'. The trap is that after successes against the practice of racism in recent history, all efforts to promote "equality" feel "right" in man's eyes even if the practice is condemned in God's. Leviticus 18:22 and 23 condemn homosexuality and bestiality and many other reminders are peppered in hebrew scriptures (old testament) and greek scriptures (new testament). Most people here celebrate as the world adopts Satan's thinking more and more as the end the bible promises arrives to wipe this current order.

Genesis 2 verse 18 onwards reminds us that the man being alone without a complement is something that God had a plan for. It shows the creation of the first woman from man and uses the word "marriage" in the original sense. It also says that the first man, Adam, replied that man would leave father and mother to become one with his wife. Man had not sinned yet and things quickly became worse. Man's law and God's law are not the same, and we must know which to obey. We can't dictate law, but be trained by the bible and be in the right decisions as all of God's will becomes unpopular between now and the coming new world.

Make efforts to keep obeying God's word without letting the growing obfuscation of man's law and counterfeitreligion, and know that there is a lot of spiritually bad company here, despite these same people holding dear "tech" values that we learned to cherish.
You don't need to try to convince opposers in online arguments or be moderated high, because that is a lot of nonsense when it comes to God's promises for those to prove to be his faithful followers when the end comes. Cheers.

Re:That's IT. I've had it with the politics on /.

[BarbaraHudson]

I guess you failed to notice the last sentence - the growing influence of social media allowed the YES side to publicly show that there was a lot of support, as opposed to the church just preaching to the choir.

If people don't know that others feel the same way they do, they're less likely to express their own views. Thanks to the Internet, those days are gone. Just another way that tech is affecting our society, so it IS news for nerds, stuff that matters.

what I found most surprising

[sribe]

The graciousness and politeness of the losing side. Their statements of congratulations are certainly not what you'd see from the religious right here in the U.S.

Re:That's IT. I've had it with the politics on /.

[plover]

If 10% of people are gay, then this impacts 10% of nerds. I don't run Apache, but I don't bitch when they put an Apache story on the front page. Get over it.

Re: Why is this "news for nerds"?

[Tomahawk]

A lot of nerds care about this stuff...

funny part

[slashmydots]

Since their constitution is also written in Gaelic, they got the grammar wrong on the first draft then corrected it. It stated that ONLY same-sex couples could get married.

To the willfully obtuse

[Uberbah]

Why don't you guys demand the same equality from the moslem countries?

Why do you think they aren't?

If you guys really want equality why do you do it in the West?

Because that's where they live, dumbass. Same reason why you spent more time dealing with the laws where you live than what they are in Bumbfuckistan.

Doesn't belong here

[Skarjak]

This is good news but has nothing to do with technology. Why is this here?