You're right, and I'm contributing to this mess. Sorry, I'll stop now.Im so glad crab is taking a positive thread and leading it down some pedantic hellhole.
I see. The definition of marriage is written in the Irish constitution, then?
Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.
and it takes three months to register a wedding -> when you can get married.
[Citation needed]
There are 18 countries which currently allow gay marriage at a nation-wide level (17 if you exclude the UK because of Northern Ireland, but that's a pretty complicated issue in and of itself). Of that 18, 15 did so via the legislature, and 1 did it by referendum (Ireland itself). Only two countries had success using the courts, Brazil and South Africa. In some of those 15 countries, that courts actually *opposed* the bill at first - Belgium's supreme court the Council of State ended up delaying gay marriage by almost two years.
Meanwhile, in the United States, gay marriage is still not a nation-wide phenomena *despite* the fact the majority of the public supports it; because the fight has to take place in the courts rather than being a legislative matter.
The complaint about judges deciding such matters, rather than voters, misses the point that going to court—stating one’s case and testifying for it—is a part of democracy. It’s also a misunderstanding of how rights are realized in the United States. We have a constitution, in part, so that the majority cannot abuse a minority. We also have a constitution that, for a long time, promised more than our political system was willing to deliver. Even after amendments were passed that gave women and racial minorities equal rights in theory, it took lawsuits and, as with the Voting Rights Act, legislation to get those rights acknowledged in a practical sense. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his speech in Washington in August, 1963, compared the commitments of the Constitution to a check that had, in the past, “come back marked ‘insufficient funds.’ ” The time had come, he said, to cash it.
Same-sex couples have come to the Supreme Court for the same reason, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment should be a guarantor of marriage equality in all fifty states. A decision is due next month. If those couples weren’t able to get their day in court earlier, it was because they had to live in a shadow; homosexual sex was criminalized for a long time in this country, too, in some states as late as 2003. If Ireland votes Yes it will, as Kenny said, be a joyous and momentous day—and the Irish should be proud. But that shouldn’t leave America with an Ireland-referendum inferiority complex. We can get to equality our own way.
To all the comments saying this should not have been done by popular vote, you need to consider the the nature of the Irish legal system.
The pre-referendum constitution explicitly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Any change to the constitution must be voted on by the people according to Irish law and there is no way around that. A referendum to the constitution is the only way to guarantee protection for same sex unions. If you just legislate for it instead, then there is no protection that the high court could threaten it in future and it only takes some assholes to get into government to try to overturn it. With a referendum, this is a permanent and irrefutable change - it cannot be changed without ANOTHER referendum.
Note that the ammendment makes marriage essentially genderless; ‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex’; the implication is marriage equality for everyone.
Its feckin' fantastic that a majority of a national population resoundingly votes in favour of giving equal status to a minority.
Yeah, I get why. I just wish it didn't have to come to this.
As an Irishman I believe that this decision being taken by referendum was a fantastic thing.
The law is the law and constitutional change must be voted by the people.
Secondly, because it is a decision by the people there can be no claim of it being forced upon the people against their wishes.
The first country by popular vote to make this choice, a proud moment for the nation.
There are 18 countries which currently allow gay marriage at a nation-wide level (17 if you exclude the UK because of Northern Ireland, but that's a pretty complicated issue in and of itself). Of that 18, 15 did so via the legislature, and 1 did it by referendum (Ireland itself). Only two countries had success using the courts, Brazil and South Africa. In some of those 15 countries, that courts actually *opposed* the bill at first - Belgium's supreme court the Council of State ended up delaying gay marriage by almost two years.
Meanwhile, in the United States, gay marriage is still not a nation-wide phenomena *despite* the fact the majority of the public supports it; because the fight has to take place in the courts rather than being a legislative matter.
So we just need everyone in America to be Irish for a day...
Do you feel like these things "must be voted by the people":
- Letting women vote?
- Letting black people own property?
Absolutely disgusting that Australia has yet to do anything on this subject. We still hold religion on a pedestal in a time where it is pointless and just getting in the way of those wanting to enjoy their respected lives as any human being would want.
It won't happen any time soon with Abbott the bat in charge, and especially with how religion is so seeded in our country. The fact a known paedophile can be let back into the churches in this country is shameful and disgusting.
Yeah, I see that making the rounds today, it's nice to see.Don't know who this guy is, but this may be of relevance:
http://www.tonyburke.com.au/ronaldmiz3n/statement_24_may_2015
This referendum is changing minds. First national popular vote being so 'yes' sends strong message that this isn't just some liberal elite thing.
Do you feel like these things "must be voted by the people":
- Letting women vote?
- Letting black people own property?
Do you feel like these things "must be voted by the people":
- Letting women vote?
- Letting black people own property?
The best part of it is the huge Yes votes in the working class parts of Dublin.Don't know who this guy is, but this may be of relevance:
http://www.tonyburke.com.au/ronaldmiz3n/statement_24_may_2015
This referendum is changing minds. First national popular vote being so 'yes' sends strong message that this isn't just some liberal elite thing.
If Germany would be so kind to move it's arse. I mean, we're close, it's not bad for homosexuals, but we're still not there. And I think the most push against this comes from Bavaria.Times are looking up, at least in Europe.
If Germany would be so kind to move it's arse. I mean, we're close, it's not bad for homosexuals, but we're still not there. And I think the most push against this comes from Bavaria.
Germany’s opposition parties have demanded that Berlin’s grand coalition follow Ireland’s example and legalise same-sex marriage.
Friday’s vote, and Saturday’s result, generated huge interest in Germany – topping the main evening news and shattering many dearly-held if dusty cliches about the “grüne Insel” or green isle.
Green Party leaders lead the charge yesterday, warning Chancellor Angela Merkel that she “can’t just sit out” the growing calls for marriage equality across Europe.
“It’s time, Frau Merkel,” said Mrs Katrin Göring-Eckardt, co-leader of the Greens in the Bundestag and an influential figure in Germany’s Lutheran church.
The Irish vote was a “great signal: the same love deserves the same respect”, she said, adding she was confident that Germany would soon follow Ireland’s example.
The surprise and delight in Germany at the Irish vote was laced with a tone of impatience. Where Germany once lead the way on gay rights in Europe – introducing same-sex civil partnerships in 2001 – it was now, many fumed, lagging behind.
“Ireland is possible in Germany, if it only dared” - that was the message of Germany’s leading Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper to its readers after the Irish marriage equality vote.
Preparations will begin within days to pass a law to give effect to the Constitutional amendment and allow same-sex couples to marry for the first time.
The resounding Yes vote will result in a new sentence being added to Article 41 of the Constitution. It reads: Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex. The Irish version, which takes precedence, reads: Féadfaidh beirt, gan beann ar a ngnéas, conradh pósta a dhéanamh de réir dlí. It means that a marriage between two people of the same sex will now be recognised by the State and will have the same status under the Constitution as a marriage between a man and a woman.
To give effect to the amendment, the Oireachtas will enact the Marriage Bill 2015, which will state in law for the first time the principle that being of the same sex is no longer an impediment to marriage. Officials in the Department of Justice will begin drafting the legislation next week. A spokesman said the Bill would be prioritised with a view to it being passed by the Oireachtas before the summer recess.
The law will set out the practical changes to come. When it comes into force, two people getting married will declare that they accept each other as husband and wife or as spouses of each other. It will also state that a change of gender will have no effect on marriage.
There will be no new civil partnerships from the day the law comes into effect. Existing civil partners will retain that status and the rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities that go with it unless they choose to marry, but there will be no automatic upgrade from partnership to marry.
Whether civil partners marry is up to them. If they do, their civil partnership will be dissolved.
The law will also make clear that religious solemnisers will not be obliged to solemnise the marriage of a same-sex couple, and that the same prohibited degrees of relationship will apply to same-sex marriages as to opposite-sex marriages.
When the Marriage Bill has been drafted, it will go to Cabinet for a formal sign-off. It will then be enacted by the Oireachtas - probably in July - before practical work is done on changing marriage forms and procedures. Finally, the Minister for Justice will sign a commencement order.
A three-month notice period for civil marriages means that, all going to plan, the first same-sex marriage in Ireland could take place before Christmas.
What about Africa and Middle East?
Never doubt the stupidity of Abbott, but I think once the US has gay marriage legalized next month (and following the Irish referendum), he's going to be pressured to allow a free vote on the issue.
And then Northern Ireland will be alone...
The younger generation can always change. Whereas religious doctrine takes a bit longer.
However, I agree with your belief that those two regions are very anti-homosexual.
For the latter, I really want it to be sooner than later. Then again, as much as I'd like to say we can't be as bad as Australia in regards to this, I then remember that, hey, the DUP is in charge.
*sigh*
Marriage equality as fully legalized in Canada by their court system.
The US could handle the issue through legislation, but Congress has been broken for the last 7 years. A functional congress could have amended the constitution, but as I said earlier that won't happen. The only reason this is a court battle in the US and not being handled through legislation is congress being a dick.
This is a "sort-of":
- Courts, province by province, legalized SSM on constitutional grounds.
- 9 of the 10 provinces did so (Alberta was the exception) and I believe at least one of the territories.
- The federal government asked the Supreme Court to consider, hypothetically, the subject (we can do this in Canada--standing rules are different). It did so to essentially delay having to act because they could see which way the wind was blowing but wanted polling to improve before they'd have to take a divisive stance.
- The court eventually gave back an advisory ruling that suggested if the government did not adopt substantive equality for same-sex couples the court would strike down existing laws if they were challenged
- Parliament eventually passed SSM
- The issue immediately became a dead-letter afterwards despite protests by conservative groups about judicial tyranny and having a revote and rah-rah-rah.
- Canada doesn't have any easy path for a ballot measure/referendum in any province or federally, so that was never really on the table conceptually.
So Canada is sort of a vindication of both the court strategy and the legislative strategy.
Then what about those people who said that their marriages would be diminished? I very much doubt if married couples all over the country woke up yesterday, looked at each other and said: Oh darling, I feel so much less married to you today. I never believed in this parsimonious, dog-in-the-manger approach. I am with Daniel OConnell, the great apostle of Catholic emancipation. When some mean-minded members of the Protestant ascendancy suggested that giving freedom and dignity to their Catholic fellow citizens would diminish their own position, OConnell replied that freedom and dignity were not finite resources. Paradoxically, by giving them to other people you actually increased the general sum total of these virtues and of the public welfare.
It is all over now, as the Rolling Stones used to sing, and I forgive and forget the No campaigners. But I am immensely grateful to my heterosexual fellow citizens who went out of their way to vote Yes. Without them we could not have won. I will always be grateful, having been voted by a majority of the citizens of the Irish Republic to be at last a free and equal member of society.
The Irish Times reckons the first weddings could be in September.
Also, a really great piece from David Norris today, running through some of the history:
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/remarkable-journey-from-criminal-to-equal-citizen-1.2224305