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

[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

[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

[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: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.