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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[C0R1D4N]

No, but you might be able to emigrate.

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

[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.

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: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.

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.

Doesn't belong here

[Skarjak]

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