-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ireland has first-in-world national referendum on gay marriage [Update: Yes Wins]
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
This. It's such a simple concept that people have to make into something dramatic.
Over 60% is fairly good
Doctor Ninja
Sphincter Speaker
Man what a great day to be Irish 
Also -- it may take a while before you see any gay couples marry. Oireachtas needs to decide when the amendment will go into affect, and it takes three months to register a wedding -> when you can get married.
And my guess is the campaign to repeal Ireland's 8th amendment (abortion) would start in earnest sometime soon, though that's going to be a much tougher nut to crack.
And my guess is the campaign to repeal Ireland's 8th amendment (abortion) would start in earnest sometime soon, though that's going to be a much tougher nut to crack.
What planet are you on? A 62% turnout is amazing, and beats previous referendums that were about things that would affect everyone rather than just a minority. The fact that 62% of people went out to vote on a minority issue is bloody uplifting.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think that it probably is genuinely quite emotionally upsetting for someone who is staunchly Catholic to allow gay people to marry. I would be surprised if there was a single act even possible at all that didn't have negative repercussions on someone, somewhere. That's not a very useful definition. You've also not justified why that is the correct definition - who are you to decide what is and isn't a right over anyone else in a society? Why is someone who thinks that human rights should be based in biblical scripture wrong?
It's just disappointing to see so many people that didn't care either way (even if we take into consideration people that were physically unable to vote whatever reason).
Shorty11857
Member
It's up about 50% on the last one
You've got to keep in mind there's a number of people who have left the country or work away from where they're registered to vote
Sweeney Tom
Banned
The US hasn't had 60% turnout in an election (at least presidential) since '68. The turnout here was phenomenal in comparison, and the result astounding.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Yeah, I think thats an impressive turnout.
Why's that? Is that seen as more taboo than gay marriage?
I'm no one. That being said I'm certainly more qualified than straight people seeing as they're not affected by gay marriage at all.
Because they're deciding the rights of other people based on a fairy tale. It's not complicated.
I would imagine, given the qualms people have with killing a person/ an organism with the potential to be a person. The abortion debate transcends various ethnic/political/ and sexual groups.
Hopefully that amendment is repealed.
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
Congrats Ireland!
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
Jesus christ you are miserable. lighten up, today's a good day
Amazing turnout. Huzzah. There will be some party in town tonight.
I'm have some wine with wifey and watching Eurovision to celebrate.
Very proud of how the vote went.
No pleasing some people...
I'm have some wine with wifey and watching Eurovision to celebrate.
Very proud of how the vote went.
No pleasing some people...
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
And fifty years ago, it wasn't a fairy tale and was the genuine truth; and if you'd entrenched that conception of human rights, acheiving gay marriage now would be even more difficult, which is my point. Society is almost always more progressive *now* then it was *then*, so entrenching human rights and leaving them to courts staffed by aging, white male, wealthy judges is only going to harm your cause in thirty years time when those human rights aren't the ones you want now and when the general population is more liberal than those judges.
Clearly it is fairly complicated, or you'd have understood this.
Both systems are bad, but I still think yours is worse. I just don't trust the majority enough to put my faith in them that they wouldn't completely fuck me over.
I saw it reported that it's the highest turn out for any referendum since the foundation of the state.
Unfortunately the EU court of human rights say marriage is not a human rightand the Irish courts have constantly ruled that under Irish law a Marriage was between a man and a woman and changing the law would not be good enough. Hence the constitutional amendment. Now there is protection that no court or legislature can take away in Ireland.
So what would you have liked us to do? Not have the vote? Leave things as they were?
I take it you don't pay attention to the turnout at most votes. Again, this was good.
New map, pending Slovenia's possible referendum to block their gay marriage law:
(Dark blue = marriage, light blue = civil unions or something similar, red = constitutional amendment banning gay marriage)
Surprised at Germany to be honest, there's widespread support for same sex marriage (and Germany in general has very pro LGBT laws, if I remember correctly civil partnerships were introduced there in 2001) over the last two election cycles the Realpolitik of coalition has meant that same sex marriage legislation has taken a back seat not to rock the coalition boat.
The majority has just proven they will care about a minority's rights - especially as it is gay rights in a massively Christian country. Why not give them some credit and celebrate a win for human rights rather than debate hypotheticals in a thread that is about a majority doing the opposite of what you fear?
Well that clearly needs to change (although you could have linked to an article that actually used proper pronouns).
You couldn't have done anything differently in this situation. The problem was getting to this situation in the first place. There should have been a way to amend the constitution for this without a vote.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Grats to ireland! Ive kinda been following this since one danny o dwyer from gamespots talked about it, but its good that you guys voted yes!
Shake Appeal
Member
That's extremely complicated, and it involves multiple qualitative/normative judgements on the part of some some state-appointed body.
Lord Morairty007
Member
Congrats to Ireland.
Unfortunately, that is how most social change happens.
People don't necessarily become enlightened and change en masse. The older, more bigoted, generation dies of, and the young, slightly more enlightened generation takes their place.
No. That's exactly the point. The people have to decide what changes happen by a majority. It is one of the most powerful protections we have against idiot politicians and senile judges.
I trust the people over those lot any day of the week.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
But you already do put your faith in a majority - the majority is just the majority from thirty/fifty/hundred years ago when whatever rights your country's constitution provides were enshrined, and the majority of a judicial board that will be more white, male, wealthy, and elderly (and thus less liberal) than the population at large.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Congrats, Ireland. Should have just passed the legislation without a referendum, but that's still progress at least.
If they're emotionally upset at something that doesn't affect them in any way, why should anyone care that they're upset?
Holy shit. Are you serious? O_O
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
People are upset about things that don't affect them all the time, and it's important that they are. I'm upset that in the United Kingdom, there is a huge inequality gap and an entrenched system of class privilege. Now, that definitely doesn't affect me (I'm on the wrong side of it), but it certainly upsets me. People aren't islands.
I don't think that rights should be based on that, but many people do. You need a better argument than "well, it's obvious, duh", when millions of people do not share your view. This is the entire reason that this *should* be a matter for referenda, or at least the legislative - it encourages that argument, and means that arguments in favour of the LGBT community are made to the public as a whole in a way they're normally not. That's incredible for the development of LGBT acceptance.
metalslimer
Member
Glad America is just going to go through the courts for this one although it would probably pass a nationwide vote.
Shake Appeal
Member
Can you explain how your courts are not, at base, an expression of majority will?
metalslimer
Member
Because if public perception changes the supreme court at least can't be recalled?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
When was the last time public perception went sufficiently *backwards* on a social progress issue that, if it had not been for the Supreme Court, an issue would have been pushed backwards?
When was the last time that public perception was in favour of something *before* the Supreme Court ruled in favour?
Might want to think about both of those.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
But this actually harms people in real ways, and not just "I'm emotionally upset about it".
How about the fact that the Bible endorses slavery? Come on.
metalslimer
Member
Huh? I was only responding to why the courts don't necessarily reflect public opinion. Didn't say whether it was a good or bad thing.
Either way I'm glad the courts are handling it because its cleaner that way. Also the public doesn't deserve to vote on human rights which thankfully our courts have decided marriage is a right.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
If you want same sex marriage to have the same standing as marriage between straight couples then a change to the Irish constitution is needed.
If you want to make a change to the Irish constitution you need to have a referendum.
I saw this posted on Twitter.
15 July 2014:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...d-for-restricted-abortion-access-9607517.html
23 May 2015:
https://twitter.com/NickyMorgan01/status/602174110685335553
15 July 2014:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...d-for-restricted-abortion-access-9607517.html
23 May 2015:
https://twitter.com/NickyMorgan01/status/602174110685335553
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You're missing the point entirely, like, clean over your head entirely. You're starting from the point "slavery is bad", then seeing "Bible endorses slavery", and therefore concluding "Bible is wrong". That's good, I agree with you. Not all people agree with you. Some people start with the point "Bible is right", then see "Bible condemns homosexuality", and therefore conclude "homosexuality is wrong". There were more of these people 30 years ago than there are now. This is almost *always* true - people are more socially progressive later than they are earlier. This means any system of rights that you try to implement will inevitably be less progressive than the system of rights that people will want in the future. And that shittiness of it doesn't stop there, because the people you have to appeal to are also less progressive - judges are more conservative than the general population.
Opinions about rights, on what rights are, are not absolute (which is what I'm trying to get across); there's no real way to make them absolute because as far as we have discovered to date, there is no way of 'proving' moral arguments. People's ideas about what rights other humans are due change over time, and they almost inevitably change to be *more* liberal, not less. Relying on courts to enforce the rights of the past makes progress a) slower, and b) has a much smaller impact on bigotry at large.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I see. The definition of marriage is written in the Irish constitution, then?
So what? I don't care about moral relativism garbage and no modern society with a focus on civil rights would either.
[Citation needed]
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked