Ireland votes to legalize gay marriage

[Borgholio]

I figured this deserved it's own thread rather than going into the general gay marriage thread due to how historic this event is. Ireland has voted to amend it's constitution to legalize gay marriage, making it the first nation in history ever to do so.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32858501

The Republic of Ireland has voted overwhelmingly to legalise same-sex marriage in a historic referendum.

More than 62% voted in favour of amending the country's constitution to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

It is the first country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage through a popular vote.

Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny said it was a "small country with a big message for equality" around the world.

The referendum was held 22 years after homosexual acts were decriminalised in the Republic of Ireland.
Atmosphere

Same-sex marriage is now legal in 20 countries worldwide.

BBC Ireland correspondent Chris Buckler said the atmosphere at Dublin Castle, where thousands of people gathered to watch the results being announced, was more like a festival than a referendum result.
There was a carnival atmosphere as the results were announced

Counting began at 09:00 BST on Saturday, and the final result was declared shortly before 19:00 BST.

Cheers and applause greeted the announcement of the results by the returning officer Ríona Ní Fhlanghaile.

The turnout was more than 60%, and the outcome seemed clear a short time into the count, with prominent "no" campaigners declaring defeat early on.

The Republic of Ireland has a written constitution which can only be changed by referendum.

Now that the proposal has been passed, a marriage between two people of the same sex will have the same status under the Irish constitution as a marriage between a man and a woman.

They will be recognised as a family and be entitled to the constitutional protection for families.

Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal in Ireland since 2010, giving couples legal protection which could be changed by the government.

However, married gay people will now have a constitutional standing that can only be removed by another popular vote.

In total, 1,201,607 people voted in favour of same-sex marriage, while 734,300 voted against.

Out of 43 constituencies, only the largely rural Roscommon-South Leitrim had a majority of "no" votes.
'Cultural divide'

Many people returned to the Republic of Ireland from abroad to cast their votes.

Minister for Health Leo Varadkar, who earlier this year came out as the Republic of Ireland's first openly gay minister, said the vote showed that the "traditional cultural divide" between rural and urban areas had vanished.

"This is really Ireland speaking with one voice in favour of equality," he told Irish broadcaster RTE.

Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, said if the referendum was an affirmation of the views of young people, the church had a "huge task in front of it".

Large crowds gathered in Dublin as the results of the referendum were announced

"I think really the church needs to do a reality check," he told RTE.

"I appreciate how gay and lesbian men and women feel on this day, that they feel this is something that is enriching the way they live. I think it is a social revolution."

Voters were asked whether they agreed with the statement: "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex."

In 2010, the Irish government enacted civil partnership legislation, which provided legal recognition for gay couples.

But there are some important differences between civil partnership and marriage, the critical one being that marriage is protected in the constitution while civil partnership is not.

Catholic churches will continue to decide for themselves whether to solemnise a marriage.

The leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Eamon Martin, has said the church may look at whether it continues to perform the civil side of solemnisation if the change comes in.

[Iroscato]

Fantastic news.
I was watching a very smug minister(I think) of some sort on the news the other night, he was adamant it wasn't going through. Hehehe...

[SpottedKitty]

[mr friendly guy]

This fantastic news. I didn't even know they had this until I saw this yesterday on Youtube via one of my subscriptions. In your face Catholic Church.

[bilateralrope]

I only heard about this vote happening a few days ago.

Have there been any interesting responses to the result from people opposed to gay marriage ?

[CaptJodan]

I only heard about this vote happening a few days ago.

Have there been any interesting responses to the result from people opposed to gay marriage ?

Well, for those who believe in God, there was a striking double rainbow in the skies of Dublin that seemed particularly appropriate.

I doubt that's really what those opposed to gay marriage wanted to see. They prefer it if there are earthquakes and tornadoes, so you can blame those weather patterns on the gays.

[mr friendly guy]

They need to give a parliamentary speech like this Kiwi politician.

[Ahriman238]

And somehow, Ireland hasn't yet fallen into anarchy or been destroyed by a pillar of fire from the heavens. Perhaps it's because they only have 4 million people, or aren't as special as we are, because I know of dozens of people who will sear up and down God's Wrath or moral decay will swiftly destroy the US if we follow suite.

[mr friendly guy]

We all know from the book of Judges that Ancient bronze age civs can stymie the Lord Almighty if they just field enough "chariots of iron." So many tanks does Ireland have?

[Ace Pace]

I only heard about this vote happening a few days ago.

Have there been any interesting responses to the result from people opposed to gay marriage ?

Yes, specifically the Irish Catholic Church.

One of Ireland's most senior Catholic clerics has called for the Church to take a "reality check" following the country's overwhelming vote in favour of same-sex marriage.

The archbishop told the broadcaster RTE: "We [the Church] have to stop and have a reality check, not move into denial of the realities.
"We won't begin again with a sense of renewal, with a sense of denial.
"I appreciate how gay and lesbian men and women feel on this day. That they feel this is something that is enriching the way they live. I think it is a social revolution."

The archbishop personally voted "No" arguing that gay rights should be respected "without changing the definition of marriage".
"I ask myself, most of these young people who voted yes are products of our Catholic school system for 12 years. I'm saying there's a big challenge there to see how we get across the message of the Church," he added.

[Borgholio]

"I ask myself, most of these young people who voted yes are products of our Catholic school system for 12 years. I'm saying there's a big challenge there to see how we get across the message of the Church," he added.

In other words, "How did we fuck up this badly???"

[Lord Pounder]

Just before I moved over the boarder to Republic of Ireland I was warned that it was a strict catholic theocracy that wouldn't welcome me. In my time there i voted for David Norris to become President (he came third), radical changes to abortion laws are in motion and now marriage equality. By contrast in Northern Ireland I can't even go shopping on a Sunday and a bakery had to be taken to court for refusing to make a cake supporting marriage equality.

I love the irony that the DUP lead North is no more Catholic in ideology than its neighbour.

[cmdrjones]

"I ask myself, most of these young people who voted yes are products of our Catholic school system for 12 years. I'm saying there's a big challenge there to see how we get across the message of the Church," he added.

In other words, "How did we fuck up this badly???"

There are volumes that could be written about how the Catholic Church screwed up.
In any case, no one reasonable, even I who generally oppose the idea of equating "gay marriage" with "marriage," woudl think that God would smite people for exercising their free will to be unwise.

The facts stand, A =/= B, and gay marriage =/= marriage for the simple reason that we add a qualifier to it.

Does that mean I think we should treat one group of citizens poorly because of thier life choices? Far from it.

Do I think anyone on this blog, or most liberals will accept my position? Not a chance in hell.

For the same reasons the LGBT community rejected the 'civil unions' compromise. Because no compromise was ever possible. They want A = B and those in oppostion don't see the need to be a party to a lie.

one of the guys in my platoon is very pro-LGBT, out of, I believe, certain sense of compassion and he said: "SFC Jones, don't you think that someone who has been through the surgery, the hormones, the paperwork etc etc and calls themself a woman should be treated as a woman?"

I said: "No, you're born either XY or XX and no amount of drugs, or surgery, or paperwork will change that, and to encourage people in that vein I believe is being party to a lie, a possibly very harmful lie, and I can't do it. No matter how much they may want me too."

To his credit he didn't bitch me out or anything, he just turned to someone else and we agreed to disagree.

As far as Ireland goes, I wish them well. This issue will be settled, I think, long after we are all long gone. The future belongs to those who show up for it.

[salm]

It´s creating some waves which are hopefully high enough to get the same thing done in Germany. We´re pretty pathetic.

[Simon_Jester]

There are volumes that could be written about how the Catholic Church screwed up.
In any case, no one reasonable, even I who generally oppose the idea of equating "gay marriage" with "marriage," woudl think that God would smite people for exercising their free will to be unwise.

The facts stand, A =/= B, and gay marriage =/= marriage for the simple reason that we add a qualifier to it.

We used to have to add a qualifier to "interracial marriage," because the whole point was to say that it should be legal to have marriage between races.

Now we don't say that anymore. We don't say "Bob and Susan got interracially-married." We just say "they got married."

Likewise, once the right to gay marriage is in place, there is no need to say "Bob and Steve got gay-married."

It is intellectually dishonest to blame people for using an adjective to describe a specific kind of marriage that is currently forbidden by a specific law. For every category of marriage that is banned, there has to be some word for that category.

Does that mean I think we should treat one group of citizens poorly because of thier life choices? Far from it.

Do I think anyone on this blog, or most liberals will accept my position? Not a chance in hell.

Do you consider it irrelevant that people disagree with you? Or do you care about the reasons why they do so? If you do not care, why not simply leave?

For the same reasons the LGBT community rejected the 'civil unions' compromise. Because no compromise was ever possible. They want A = B and those in oppostion don't see the need to be a party to a lie.

My opinion is that your idea of a "lie" is based on a very silly semantic quibble. It's like having some schoolchild who hears "I assigned the homework yesterday" and says "TECHNICALLY yesterday was SUNDAY and you assigned it FRIDAY so you're a LYING LIARPANTS!"

It says more about the childishness of the person calling you a liar, than it does about your own position.

one of the guys in my platoon is very pro-LGBT, out of, I believe, certain sense of compassion and he said: "SFC Jones, don't you think that someone who has been through the surgery, the hormones, the paperwork etc etc and calls themself a woman should be treated as a woman?"

I said: "No, you're born either XY or XX and no amount of drugs, or surgery, or paperwork will change that, and to encourage people in that vein I believe is being party to a lie, a possibly very harmful lie, and I can't do it. No matter how much they may want me too."

Does it affect your opinions that we now have documented cases of people with XY chromosomes who, with no surgery/hormones/whatsoever look biologically female to every medical test, and who are in fact fertile and give birth?

Chromosomes aren't the equivalent of God putting a little floating tag on people's heads saying "is female no matter what" or "is male no matter what."

[Iroscato]

The facts stand, A =/= B, and gay marriage =/= marriage for the simple reason that we add a qualifier to it.

*Sigh* God help me...
And why exactly does gay marriage not equal marriage in your opinion?

[salm]

The facts stand, A =/= B, and gay marriage =/= marriage for the simple reason that we add a qualifier to it.

*Sigh* God help me...
And why exactly does gay marriage not equal marriage in your opinion?

Because we add a qualifier to it. It´s like brick houses are not houses.

Subcategories don´t exists.

[cmdrjones]

The facts stand, A =/= B, and gay marriage =/= marriage for the simple reason that we add a qualifier to it.

*Sigh* God help me...
And why exactly does gay marriage not equal marriage in your opinion?

Because we add a qualifier to it. It´s like brick houses are not houses.

Subcategories don´t exists.

Apple is a subcategory of Fruit...

Gay marriage could be a subcategory of marriage, but first we have to find out where it came from and what it contains.... so, who invented marriage?

[cmdrjones]

There are volumes that could be written about how the Catholic Church screwed up.
In any case, no one reasonable, even I who generally oppose the idea of equating "gay marriage" with "marriage," woudl think that God would smite people for exercising their free will to be unwise.

The facts stand, A =/= B, and gay marriage =/= marriage for the simple reason that we add a qualifier to it.

We used to have to add a qualifier to "interracial marriage," because the whole point was to say that it should be legal to have marriage between races.

Now we don't say that anymore. We don't say "Bob and Susan got interracially-married." We just say "they got married."

Likewise, once the right to gay marriage is in place, there is no need to say "Bob and Steve got gay-married."

It is intellectually dishonest to blame people for using an adjective to describe a specific kind of marriage that is currently forbidden by a specific law. For every category of marriage that is banned, there has to be some word for that category.

Have there been examples of "interracial" marriage before the term was invented?

Does that mean I think we should treat one group of citizens poorly because of thier life choices? Far from it.

Do I think anyone on this blog, or most liberals will accept my position? Not a chance in hell.

Do you consider it irrelevant that people disagree with you? Or do you care about the reasons why they do so? If you do not care, why not simply leave?

No, Yes. Caring is the reason I do what i do.

For the same reasons the LGBT community rejected the 'civil unions' compromise. Because no compromise was ever possible. They want A = B and those in oppostion don't see the need to be a party to a lie.

My opinion is that your idea of a "lie" is based on a very silly semantic quibble. It's like having some schoolchild who hears "I assigned the homework yesterday" and says "TECHNICALLY yesterday was SUNDAY and you assigned it FRIDAY so you're a LYING LIARPANTS!"

It says more about the childishness of the person calling you a liar, than it does about your own position.

"DISQUALIFY!" All kidding aside, if you don't believe that lying is a problem, well, then I guess you shouldn't enter into contracts with people. Lying about something as basic as how the world works is a terrible thing to do to someone, especially the young and vulnerable (who tend to be a large part of the LGBT community) let's trot out an example:
Should young LGBT persons be told that A. Thier lifestyle choices are 'normal and healthy' and B. That no one should ever judge them based on their chosen sexual identity or orientation?

one of the guys in my platoon is very pro-LGBT, out of, I believe, certain sense of compassion and he said: "SFC Jones, don't you think that someone who has been through the surgery, the hormones, the paperwork etc etc and calls themself a woman should be treated as a woman?"

I said: "No, you're born either XY or XX and no amount of drugs, or surgery, or paperwork will change that, and to encourage people in that vein I believe is being party to a lie, a possibly very harmful lie, and I can't do it. No matter how much they may want me too."

Does it affect your opinions that we now have documented cases of people with XY chromosomes who, with no surgery/hormones/whatsoever look biologically female to every medical test, and who are in fact fertile and give birth?

Chromosomes aren't the equivalent of God putting a little floating tag on people's heads saying "is female no matter what" or "is male no matter what."

I remain somewhat skeptical, but anything is possible. AS far as that person is concerned, I wouldn't urge them to mulitate themselves to become 'male' either. Depending on how many of these cases there are, I'd hazard a guess that we could file this under 'the exception that proves the rule'

[Borgholio]

Gay marriage could be a subcategory of marriage, but first we have to find out where it came from and what it contains.... so, who invented marriage?

The idea of bonding a couple together is a fairly old one. Marriage goes back to the BC-era at least. In those days it was often a private matter that did not even require government approval to be recognized. Gay marriage went back almost as far, and as expected there were laws in some places that made it punishable by death.

[Elheru Aran]

Have there been examples of "interracial" marriage before the term was invented?'

Yes. People just tended to call it 'miscegenation' (that actual term is not all that old, having been invented in the 1800s), 'mixing' (Spanish 'mestizo'), or whatever. Biblically we have a couple of examples even, with the Jewish Esther marrying Persian Ahasuerus/Xerxes and (this one is admittedly a bit of a stretch on the racial front) Ruth the Moabite and Boaz the Jew. Of course, race was a much different concept back then.

In more recent history, I'm not finding many examples, but they probably existed-- interracial marriages were being forbidden by the French in the early 1700's, which indicates that they were happening. Interracial relationships have also been happening in the African, Arab, and Asian worlds for a long time as well, although again, race is a modern concept that may not have mattered as much to the various cultures involved.

Homosexual relationships are a bit more nebulous because there's far less historical record available upon them, but they did happen, and in some cases were solemnized.

[Lord Revan]

Have there been examples of "interracial" marriage before the term was invented?'

Yes. People just tended to call it 'miscegenation' (that actual term is not all that old, having been invented in the 1800s), 'mixing' (Spanish 'mestizo'), or whatever. Biblically we have a couple of examples even, with the Jewish Esther marrying Persian Ahasuerus/Xerxes and (this one is admittedly a bit of a stretch on the racial front) Ruth the Moabite and Boaz the Jew. Of course, race was a much different concept back then.

In more recent history, I'm not finding many examples, but they probably existed-- interracial marriages were being forbidden by the French in the early 1700's, which indicates that they were happening. Interracial relationships have also been happening in the African, Arab, and Asian worlds for a long time as well, although again, race is a modern concept that may not have mattered as much to the various cultures involved.

Homosexual relationships are a bit more nebulous because there's far less historical record available upon them, but they did happen, and in some cases were solemnized.

with Homosexual front we also got formal relationships that were defacto marriges even if that term wasn't used.

[Zeropoint]

Should young LGBT persons be told that A. Thier lifestyle choices are 'normal and healthy' and B. That no one should ever judge them based on their chosen sexual identity or orientation?

A. Yes, and B. Yes.

Because their lifestyle "choices"* ARE normal and healthy, and no one SHOULD ever judge them based on their "chosen"* sexual identity or orientation.

* All available evidence indicates that these things are NOT choices. Did you "choose" to be straight? Was there a point where you realized that your sexuality was awakening, and now you had to make a hard decision about who you were going to be attracted to?

[cmdrjones]

Should young LGBT persons be told that A. Thier lifestyle choices are 'normal and healthy' and B. That no one should ever judge them based on their chosen sexual identity or orientation?

A. Yes, and B. Yes.

Because their lifestyle "choices"* ARE normal and healthy, and no one SHOULD ever judge them based on their "chosen"* sexual identity or orientation.

* All available evidence indicates that these things are NOT choices. Did you "choose" to be straight? Was there a point where you realized that your sexuality was awakening, and now you had to make a hard decision about who you were going to be attracted to?

Then why did Tyler Clementi kill himself? Why was he ashamed of his activities?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi

In this day and age, and especially considering his upbringing and where he went to school, he should have simply shrugged at his roomates rudeness and did the same as some dudebro who was filmed at one of his own sexual conquests and said something like: "thanks assholes!"

but, he seems to have been filled with unreasoning horror and suicidal depression...

Now you may say that he should never have been subjected to that abuse and that society/his roomates/whomever was acting terribly towards him, and yout would BE RIGHT... however, to tell Tyler that this kind of thing could never and should never happen to him, is the kind of lie I am talking about. Homosexuality IS a deviation from the norm, and if everybody adopted it, the human race would swifty go the way of the dodo. Now, that being said, I am for the best outcomes for the most people. IMHO, the homosexual lifestyle (which is the choice I am referring to) is a difficult row to hoe, to put it mildly. Lost of places are MUCH more hostile to gayness than the enlightened west, so I may be a bit more circumspect about supporting it than you, that is all.

[TimothyC]

I remain somewhat skeptical, but anything is possible. AS far as that person is concerned, I wouldn't urge them to mulitate themselves to become 'male' either.

NIH paper outlining exactly what Simon_Jester was talking about.

Seeing as health services generally don't karyotype healthy, fertile people, we don't know how prevalent it is.