Heartland

Well done Ireland! Pity the North (or at least its politicians) is still 400 years behind.

Better late then never.

That there needed to be a referendum kind of angers me.

Pista wrote:That there needed to be a referendum kind of angers me.

Why?

Pista wrote:That there needed to be a referendum kind of angers me.

Yeah, me too. Still:

Hom_Corleone wrote:Better late then never.

It's kinda the way things are here; if it involves a constitutional change it needs a referendum. I'm not saying that's right, by the way, but I reckon one advantage is that it doesn't give certain types a chance to weasel out of it.

sultan2075 wrote:

Pista wrote:That there needed to be a referendum kind of angers me.

Why?

Well the way I see it, my (or anyone else's) sexual preference is my (& their) own business & I don't see that I should have to go & ask an entire country for their blessing. It has nothing to do with them.

Pista wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:

Pista wrote:That there needed to be a referendum kind of angers me.

Why?

Well the way I see it, my (or anyone else's) sexual preference is my (& their) own business & I don't see that I should have to go & ask an entire country for their blessing. It has nothing to do with them.

Sure. But what you're talking about here is more then just private sexual preference and private sexual activity, since the state is in the marriage business. The libertarian in me thinks that the state should probably be out of the marriage business altogether (and out of most private affairs). But if it is going to be in the marriage business, and the public understanding of marriage is going to be altered, then a referendum is probably the way to do it - if for no other reason than that a referendum will give the change a political legitimacy in the eyes of the people that it might not have otherwise (American abortion laws are a good example in this regard - the Supreme Court case finding a right to abortion [Roe vs. Wade] has been much more socially divisive than legislative action on the question might have been, because it has the appearance of being imposed by the court rather than a voluntary act of the people).

edited for word choice after I had my coffee

Well, put that way I can see your point, but it still irks me that the state needs to sanction same sex marriages.
It's like saying, "Hey you lot with the freedom of choice & speech etc. Yeah. About that freedom part...."
Still, at least the Irish people got it right.

sultan2075 wrote: (American abortion laws are a good example in this regard - the Supreme Court case finding a right to abortion [Roe vs. Wade] has been much more socially divisive than legislative action on the question might have been, because it has the appearance of being imposed by the court rather than a voluntary act of the people).[/size]

On the other hand IIRC the Roe v. Wade decision found that the right to an abortion already existed as part of the constitutional right to privacy under the due process clause.

The pro marriage equality argument in the States is (as I understand it) of the same kind; proponents argue that "equal protection under the law" already permits same-sex marriage, it's just that this permission needs to be enforced.

It seems to me that the "legislating from the bench" argument only ever gets thrown out by people who disagree with the courts' rulings.

But anyway, all that aside, well done Ireland

markfiend wrote:

sultan2075 wrote: (American abortion laws are a good example in this regard - the Supreme Court case finding a right to abortion [Roe vs. Wade] has been much more socially divisive than legislative action on the question might have been, because it has the appearance of being imposed by the court rather than a voluntary act of the people).[/size]

On the other hand IIRC the Roe v. Wade decision found that the right to an abortion already existed as part of the constitutional right to privacy under the due process clause.

The pro marriage equality argument in the States is (as I understand it) of the same kind; proponents argue that "equal protection under the law" already permits same-sex marriage, it's just that this permission needs to be enforced.

It seems to me that the "legislating from the bench" argument only ever gets thrown out by people who disagree with the courts' rulings.

But anyway, all that aside, well done Ireland

My point is simply that social changes are more stable when they arise from the bottom up, not from the top down. Hence SSM proponents in the US focused much of their energies on state legislatures and public persuasion rather than the Court in order to avoid precisely the questions about legitimacy that surround Roe vs. Wade (the argument of the majority there is not unassailable, either. One does not need to be an anti-abortion zealot to recognize such difficulties).

I think sultan's argument is fine in hindsight but I suspect Pista's real point (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that it should never have been illegal in the first place and society should never have got to a stage where it had a problem with same-sex relationships. It needed a referendum and legislation because of that (and not just in Ireland, of course), but it's sad that it ever should have.

sultan2075 wrote:My point is simply that social changes are more stable when they arise from the bottom up, not from the top down. Hence SSM proponents in the US focused much of their energies on state legislatures and public persuasion rather than the Court in order to avoid precisely the questions about legitimacy that surround Roe vs. Wade (the argument of the majority there is not unassailable, either. One does not need to be an anti-abortion zealot to recognize such difficulties).

OK that makes sense. I agree.

stufarq wrote:I think sultan's argument is fine in hindsight but I suspect Pista's real point (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that it should never have been illegal in the first place and society should never have got to a stage where it had a problem with same-sex relationships. It needed a referendum and legislation because of that (and not just in Ireland, of course), but it's sad that it ever should have.

Well it wasn't actually illegal prior to this. Civil unions had been recognised, but same-sex marriage actually had no legal status; similar to the current situation in Germany or Australia, for example.

The point that's been missed here is that the reason for a referendum was because a change to the constitution was being made, and changes to the constitution require a referendum in Ireland. Otherwise it could have been done without one.

The end result is not to legalize same-sex marriage, but rather to make any challenges to it be unconstitutional.

all i can say is its about f**king time.

Kerry's Nan: "Isn't it good that Ireland have given the vote to gay people?"

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:all i can say is its about f**king time.

yup, totally.

Still, kinda happy it happened on my birthday although next time they don't really have to wait for it

markfiend wrote:Kerry's Nan: "Isn't it good that Ireland have given the vote to gay people?"

pissing myself laughing, rolling around on the floor etc. (not going to be sarcastic or horrible about nans...i miss mine awfully. bless 'em)

Pista wrote:That there needed to be a referendum kind of angers me.

Basically, I fully agree - it's just ridiculous.
Though, a fact it is, obviously, and insofar a referendum is a good thing for the people in that country
and for other countries to learn HOW MANY ACTUALLY think the law oughta be changed (after centuries of paternalism).

& (rather predictably) the WBC get in on the act but with one minor error

Voltaire's prayer O Lord make my enemies ridiculous answered once again

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in the North (where the Abridged lives). Though I don't see us coming into the twenty-First century for a while yet sadly.

I understand that in NI Jeff Dudgeon is planning to sue for the right to get married.

Pista wrote:& (rather predictably) the WBC get in on the act but with one minor error

We're having large discussion now here in Germany, which is clearly a good thing.
PLUS, certain members of allegedly Christian-oriented parties make themselves so obviously look behind times ... a pleasure.