Ireland's Historic Marriage Equality Referendum
Ireland may be about to make some history. At the end of this week, citizens of the Republic of Ireland will vote to either give same-sex marriages full and equal rights with opposite-sex marriages, or they will vote the idea down and continue the status quo of not allowing gay people to get married. If the referendum passes, Ireland will become the first country to vote for full marriage equality by means of direct referendum in the entire world. The "Yes" vote is currently polling better than 2-to-1 against the "No" vote, so the chances of passage at this point have to be seen as pretty good.
Before discussing the Irish situation in detail, I must digress a moment for my American readers. In America, the marriage equality argument has been moving so blindingly fast that what was considered a big victory a few years ago is now seen as not even truly a valid way of deciding the issue. In 2012, three states in America voted to approve gay marriage, which was seen as a tremendous victory for marriage equality at the time, since it was the first time any state had voted in favor of gay marriage (while almost 40 had earlier voted against gay marriage). But now the argument is a more fundamental one: civil rights should never even be put to a vote because they are constitutional rights, which should not be up to the majority of voters to approve. This is why the effort has moved more in the courts since 2012 then at the ballot box.
But there are two key differences when comparing the status of gay marriage here in America and on the Emerald Isle. First, when we say "constitutional," we are referring to the American Constitution, of course. Ireland has a different constitution (more on that in a moment). So a referendum is the best way forward, for them. Second, in Ireland (unlike America), once the issue has been addressed, that will be it. It'll be over, barring a second such referendum which overturns it. There is no state/federal divide to worry about, and the referendum itself directly amends the Irish constitution -- meaning even the politicians shouldn't be able to change it.
Getting back to Ireland, the issue is (as you can imagine) undergoing a lively debate. If the polling holds true and full marriage equality passes, it will be notable not only for being the first country in the world to legalize marriage equality at the ballot box, but also notable when you consider Ireland's recent past.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but until very recently Ireland was pretty indistinguishable from a Catholic theocracy. Abortion is still specifically outlawed in the country's constitution, for instance. Up until 20 years ago, so was divorce. And divorce was only allowed after a very close vote in 1995. The Church was not in direct charge of the government, but it held such power over the populace that Irish laws almost perfectly reflected the Church's viewpoint. This has changed since then, in large part because of the pedophile priest scandals (which became an enormous public issue in Ireland even before it did in America, it's worth noting). The Catholic Church does not hold as much sway as it once did, obviously when you look at the current polling on gay marriage.
While reading through the Irish Times (they have a good overview page for all their articles on the subject, any 10 of which you can view for free) to gauge Irish public opinion, I came across an extraordinary argument that shows how different the legal situation is in Ireland when compared to America. Here's one Irishman's opinion:
When I wed in 1983, I was thrilled to be with my wife but not really proud to be married. There were too many shameful things about Irish marriage.
As a man, I was, I hope, an equal partner to my wife. But as a husband, I was a sanctioned tyrant. For the first seven years of my marriage I had a legal right to rape my wife -- marital rape was not outlawed in Ireland until 1990.... Until three years before I got married, my wife's income from her job would have been automatically treated under Irish tax law as my "extra" income. And of course, for the first 12 years of my marriage, that marriage was indissoluble. Whatever happened to our relationship, even if we were legally separated and lived apart for decades, neither of us could ever marry again.
All of these things changed, and those changes profoundly altered the nature of the institution my wife and I had joined in 1983. It is worth remembering that the things that were changed were ancient, hallowed traditions, sanctioned by time and religion and social practice. My right to rape my wife was part of common law -- it had long seemed perfectly obvious and "natural" that the question of consent to sex simply didn't arise in a marriage. (In many parts of the world, indeed, this still seems "natural".) The idea that a wife was not a legally or economically separate person but a mere adjunct to her husband had very deep roots. Within my lifetime, even minimal changes to this idea were bitterly opposed.
As I said, an extraordinary point of view for an American to read, and an extraordinarily well-written article, worth reading in full. The author argues that his marriage has been radically altered since it began in 1983, altered "in a way that really did upend thousands of years of legal and religious traditions and that went against what many people still thought of as the natural order of things." But he obviously approves of these changes, arguing they are all for the better.
This is why Ireland's vote will be so historic. A country which was once almost ruled from the pulpit (priests would routinely tell their parishioners how to vote) is charting a new course away from such political dominion. The people pushing the "No" vote are sounding increasingly desperate, trying to distract voters with lots of side issues (most of which are simply not true), but without much visible impact so far. There has been a surge in voter registration in preparation for the referendum, which is probably also a good sign for the "Yes" side.
There are some parallels to American politics. While not in the Irish Republic at all, a recent ruling up in Northern Ireland (where a baker was fined for violating the rights of a customer who was trying to order a Bert and Ernie "Support Gay Marriage" cake) has not gone unnoticed in the marriage equality debate in the Republic. Perhaps the final frontier for marriage equality everywhere will be at the bakery counter, who knows?
Ireland has come so far so fast in finally separating church and state mostly because it had so far to go. Divorce was not legal in Ireland until 1995 -- that's a pretty stunning thing to contemplate, right there. But if they succeed in voting for full marriage equality this week, they'll have gone further ahead than any other country (at least as measured by the ballot box method of deciding the issue). That's a pretty impressive transition. As in America, this has mostly been driven as a generational issue. Irish or American, the younger you are, the more you don't see what the fuss is all about. In both countries, that bodes pretty well for the future.
[Full Disclosure: Although my wife is indeed Irish, since neither one of us currently resides in Ireland, we are not allowed to vote in this week's referendum. Just for the record: If I lived there and had a vote, I would be voting "Yes."]
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
It will be a lovely, lovely thing if it happens and I hope it does! Good news for a change!
. . . meanwhile JEB has decided to beat that dead horse. He'll continue the Bush family tradition of hating gay people to distract from the "mistakes" Bushes make.
. . . meanwhile JEB has decided to beat that dead horse. He'll continue the Bush family tradition of hating gay people to distract from the "mistakes" Bushes make.
Since you keep beating this dead horse, I'll keep asking..
Do you have ANY evidence that anyone in the Bush family hates gay people??
No???
Didna think so...
CW,
Which states citizens voted for gay marriage??
Michale
Michale
In 2012, three states in America voted to approve gay marriage, which was seen as a tremendous victory for marriage equality at the time, since it was the first time any state had voted in favor of gay marriage (while almost 40 had earlier voted against gay marriage).
What does THAT tell you???
It tells me that the vast majority of Americans are against gay marriage...
It has absolutely nothing to do with "hate"...
It has everything to do with christian values..
Now, I am NOT a christian and I don't share those values..
But I *AM* a tolerant person and, while I don't share the christian values I posi-loutly and abso-tively think that christians DO have a right to their values..
Apparently, I am the only truly tolerant person around here.. :D
Michale
Apparently, I am the only truly tolerant person around here.. :D
TOLERANCE 101
Joe SixPack:"I don't really like gay people.."
Michale:"That's kewl.. Let's go get a beer.."
Weigantian:"I don't really like Republicans.."
Michale:"That's kewl.. Let's go get a beer.."
Joe SixPack:"I really don't like gay people.."
Left Winger:" YOU INTOLERANT SCUMBAG!!! I AM GOING TO KILL YOU!!!!!"
Michale:That's kewl. But, before you kill them with your intolerance, let's go get a beer..."
Class dismissed...
:D
Michale
Like the US states, small nation states like Ireland serve as idea incubators. The Celtic Tiger likely to roar again, let's hope it goes better than the last one loses their house or has to emigrate (again).
M-5 Alcohol, the cause and the solution to all of the world's problems.... attributed to Homer S.
M-5 Alcohol, the cause and the solution to all of the world's problems.... attributed to Homer S.
Amen to THAT!!!
Mr Burns:"Homer... I want to be loved.."
Homer:"I see.. OK.. Wellllll... I'll need some beer...."
:D
Michale
M-5 Alcohol, the cause and the solution to all of the world's problems.... attributed to Homer S.
Amen to THAT!!!
Mr Burns:"Homer... I want to be loved.."
Homer:"I see.. OK.. Wellllll... I'll need some beer...."
:D
Michale
Double tap!!
DOH!!!! :D
Michale
M -4
"Apparently, I am the only truly tolerant person around here.. :D"
Also apparently the only person around here compelled to routinely remind all of us intolerant pogues of said fact. :) :)
Do you remember the "GM Mark of Excellence?" My old man used to get a kick out of that, especially when the wood grain trim fell off the family sled. :) :) :)
Also apparently the only person around here compelled to routinely remind all of us intolerant pogues of said fact. :) :)
To paraphase Crowley..
"{Modesty} is not one of my virtues."
:D
Do you remember the "GM Mark of Excellence?" My old man used to get a kick out of that, especially when the wood grain trim fell off the family sled. :) :) :)
heh :D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Which states citizens voted for gay marriage??"
Maine, Maryland, and Washington State all voted to legalize same sex marriage. Minnesota at the same time, voted against a ban on same sex marriage.
Michale wrote:
"What does THAT tell you???
It tells me that the vast majority of Americans are against gay marriage...
It has absolutely nothing to do with "hate"...
It has everything to do with christian values.."
It tells me two things. One, the vast majority of Americans are now in favor of gay marriage. Cultures can change over time.
Two: The constitutional "rights" of a minority should never be voted on by a majority in a popular referendum. That's why they are "rights" and not something else to begin with.
In 2012, 60 percent of the voters of Alabama voted against removing segregation from their state constitution, even though the language no longer as any formal force of law.
What does that tell you???
It tells me two things. One, the vast majority of Americans are now in favor of gay marriage. Cultures can change over time.
Really???
Allegedly TWO states for...
And FORTY against??
That to you equals "vast majority"?? On what planet?? :D
Two: The constitutional "rights" of a minority should never be voted on by a majority in a popular referendum. That's why they are "rights" and not something else to begin with.
If we were talking a constitutional right, then you would have a point..
But we're not so you don't.. :D
Michale
Study on gay marriage views retracted after allegations of fake data
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/science-retraction-gay-marriage-views-fake-data-118131.html
Once again, "science" is actually political ideology in disguise..
What IS it about the Left that constantly perverts "science" to further an unpopular agenda??
I saids it befores and I'll says it agains...
If your "science" is completely 1000% mesh'ed with your political ideology, then there is something wrong with your "science"...
Because science.. REAL science, is never so perfectly aligned with ANYTHING...
Michale
Michale wrote:
"If we were talking a constitutional right, then you would have a point..
But we're not so you don't.. :D"
The Supreme Court has ruled at least 11 different times so far now that marriage is a constitutional right. Do you really think Michale that they are going to rule any differently now???
Michale wrote:
"Allegedly TWO states for...
And FORTY against??
That to you equals "vast majority"?? On what planet?? :D"
What are you, stuck in a time warp Michale???
You do know that most of the states that voted against gay marriage originally did so almost 10 years ago now, and that no state has voted against it since North Carolina in 2012, and their ban lasted only 2 years? The outcome would be quite different today than it was 10 years ago.
The Supreme Court has ruled at least 11 different times so far now that marriage is a constitutional right.
"The word that keeps coming back to me in this case is millennia, plus time. ... This definition of marriage has been with us for millennia. And it's very difficult for the court to say 'Oh well, we know better.'"
-SCOTUS Justice Kennedy
Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman..
Ergo, a man and a woman wanting to get married is a constitutional right.
A man and a man or a woman and a rutabaga getting married??
Not so much...
Do you really think Michale that they are going to rule any differently now???
I only know what Justice Kennedy and Justice Ginsberg have stated for the record...
You do know that most of the states that voted against gay marriage originally did so almost 10 years ago now, and that no state has voted against it since North Carolina in 2012, and their ban lasted only 2 years? The outcome would be quite different today than it was 10 years ago.
That's your opinion and I respect that..
Doesn't make it so...
Michale
The Supreme Court has ruled at least 11 different times so far now that marriage is a constitutional right.
I assume you are referring to the EQUAL PROTECTION Clause of the US Constitution...
Tell me.. Does the EPC apply to everyone who wishes to marry??
Michale
I assume you are referring to the EQUAL PROTECTION Clause of the US Constitution...
The reason I ask is that I have read the US Constitution up, down and sideways six ways from Sunday and I cannot find a SINGLE mention of the right of a man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman...
The EPC is the closest thing I can find that MIGHT have some relevance...
Michale
Michale [3] -
I know Maine was one...[looks it up]... yep, Maine, Maryland and Washington state.
Michale [4] -
It tells me that the vast majority of Americans are against gay marriage...
Allow me to correct that for you... the verb should read "were"... there you go!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/20/support-for-same-sex-marriage-_n_7342790.html
60% and climibing...
TheStig [6] -
Mayor Quimby: "How long will it take you to flood this town with alcohol again?"
Fat Tony: "Four minutes."
Next scene begins with title text: "Four minutes later"...
Heh.
http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Homer_vs._the_Eighteenth_Amendment/Quotes
Michale [14] -
As John M said, cultures change. See first link in this comment. 60% and rising...
Yer fightin' a losin' battle there, pardner...
-CW
Yer fightin' a losin' battle there, pardner...
It's not "my" battle at all..
I am already married to the same lovely and beautiful woman for the last 33 years..
I am not interested in marrying a guy...
I am as religiously agnostic as is possible to be...
So this is, in NO way, shape or form, "my" battle...
My argument is, always has been and always will be against bullies who think they have the right to impose their beliefs on someone else who does not share them...
Think Like a Liberal--or Else
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/21/think_like_a_liberal--or_else_126675.html
When you look at it, "my" battle is your battle...
If a man can marry a man then there is no reason why a man can't marry several men (and/or women)...
And, taking our (yours and mine) argument one step further, there is no reason why a man (or a woman) can't marry their car or their hamster or their rutabaga.
That's the problem with slippery slope arguments..
They end up in the damnest places... :D
Michale
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/20/support-for-same-sex-marriage-_n_7342790.html
60% and climibing...
I can quote FoxNews and it will say something like 20%...
Would you buy that?? :D
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that it's not just "my" battle, even if it were my battle..
"The word that keeps coming back to me in this case is millennia, plus time. ... This definition of marriage has been with us for millennia. And it's very difficult for the court to say 'Oh well, we know better.'"
-SCOTUS Justice Kennedy
It's Justice Kennedy's "battle"....
Michale
It's also Justice Ginsberg battle as well...
Michale
Michale [23] -
Oh, please do quote a reputable poll (even one from Fox) that states that only 20% of the American public currently supports gay marriage.
I bet you 1,000 hard, cold Quatloos you can't. Not with the date on the poll reading "2014" or later...
:-)
Reality has changed. Them's the facts, Jack.
As for "millenia," please read that Irish article link. That was like 20-30 years ago, in a de facto Catholic theocracy. Marriage is redefined all the time. People get over it. Life goes on.
Polygamy has a history many millenia long, too. Sanctified in the Bible and everything. So should that be the law today in America?
You got to know when to hold 'em,
Know when to fold 'em
-Kenny Rogers, "The Gambler"
-CW
Michale -
Here you go:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/27/fox-news-poll-48-percent-favor-same-sex-marriage-51-percent-say-legalize/
Even FOX admits it's up to 48%. And that's saying something.
My virtual bank will be waiting for your automated Quatloo deposit in the morning... heh...
-CW
CW,
Oh, please do quote a reputable poll (even one from Fox) that states that only 20% of the American public currently supports gay marriage.
I bet you 1,000 hard, cold Quatloos you can't. Not with the date on the poll reading "2014" or later...
I was using that as a 'fer instance'... A FoxNews poll would not be acceptable form of "proof" of a position, correct??
As for "millenia," please read that Irish article link. That was like 20-30 years ago, in a de facto Catholic theocracy. Marriage is redefined all the time. People get over it. Life goes on.
It's not MY statement, it's Justice Kennedy's statement. Argue with him.. :D
Polygamy has a history many millenia long, too. Sanctified in the Bible and everything. So should that be the law today in America?
Polygamy STILL is a man/woma(e)n dynamic...
What ya'all are talking about ain't...
What's your position on a man marrying his hamster or a woman marrying her rutabaga??
I mean if marriage is a Constitutional right, then you simply HAVE to agree that a man SHOULD be able to marry his hamster...
Michale
Even FOX admits it's up to 48%. And that's saying something.
OK, so the HuffPoop poll is wrong. 60% of Americans don't support gay marriage...
More than HALF of Americans don't support gay marriage..
As I said, I don't give a....er.. rat's ass :D about gay marriage...
*I* hate bullies. And that's my only involvement in this issue...
Gay activists don't DESERVE this win...
They'll probably get it, you're right about that.
But they sure as hell don't deserve it..
Michale
This is the proposed Irish amendment..
“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”
So, what's wrong with this amendment??
“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two or more persons without distinction as to their sex.”
Or this one...
“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by one or more persons without distinction as to their sex and without distinction to the object of their desired matrimony.”
No one can answer that because no one wants to concede where this might lead...
It's easier to just ignore such questions with such bogus claims of, 'Oh THAT will never happen!!'
That's intellectual cowardice...
Michale
A sign of the times..
“In symbolic terms, it is also incredibly important because it says to Irish lesbian and gay people, especially young people, that they too can grow up in a country that values them,”
-Brian Sheehan, codirector of Yes Equality
Apparently, in Ireland, being valued for hard work and being a contributing member of society is not sufficient nor desirable....
To be valued SOLELY based on who they have sex with??
Now THAT is what's important... Jeeesh...
This is exactly why the debate is so stoopid...
Michale
This is the proposed Irish amendment..
“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”
So, what's wrong with this amendment??
“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two or more persons without distinction as to their sex.”
In all fairness to CW, he DID bring this up in a very good commentary a while back..
But he is the ONLY one who has addressed it..
Everyone else is afraid to address the issue because it totally negates their position and exposes the nekkid partisan agenda at work...
Just wanted to make sure credit was given where it was due..
Michale
please read that Irish article link.
I did..
Still, analysts caution that the margin of support has narrowed in recent weeks and the vote’s outcome is not certain. They suspect that some conservative voters might be shy about publicly saying they are likely to vote no.
The "shy voter", the voter who feels bullied will likely do in the Amendment proposal...
Just like the liberals in the UK were decimated by the "shy voter"...
So, I would caution on assuming a win, either in Ireland or with the SCOTUS...
Michale
Michale
If a person needs a piece of paper from society and to have society sign off on the fact that they love someone then I submit that the problem is NOT with society...
Michale
Michale wrote:
“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by one or more persons without distinction as to their sex and without distinction to the object of their desired matrimony.”
No one can answer that because no one wants to concede where this might lead...
1.) Actually Michale this HAS been answered over and over again, countless times. YOU just don't want to accept the answer you have been given.
Which is that your contention is totally without merit and completely ridiculous. When a rutabaga can verbally give its consent to marriage and is physically capable of signing its own name on the dotted line, you can get back to me. Until such time, stop with the totally absurd already!
Marriage is NOT defined as between a man and a woman. That's YOUR opinion ONLY. That's what the whole court case is about in the first place!
You forget Justice Robert's comment during the case on same sex marriage... He asked why it could not be argued as case of gender discrimination.... if a man could marry a woman, but could not marry another man...
The Equal Protection clause applies to same categories of people being treated differently from each other for no good reason. Banning two people from getting married to each other because they are gay, or of the same gender, when you allow opposite sex couples to get married, is discrimination.
Banning all people from getting married as a group, is NOT discrimination. It would only be discrimination if for example, you allowed a husband to have multiple wives, but you did not allow a wife to have multiple husbands.
For the life of me Michale, I don't understand why you can't follow that simple logic!
So, in your opinion gays don't deserve equality and are being bullies by wanting equality? How are Christians NOT being bullies by denying gays the right to marry? You said you were opposed to bullies, right? Then you should be just as equally opposed to Christians being bullies to gays, right???
The answer Michale, is that gay or same sex marriage will NOT lead to anything else. There is NO slippery slope and there never has been. That's just a tired, worn out old argument that has been tried countless times to be used by opponents against gay marriage, and has failed miserably repeatedly because it makes no logical sense whatsoever. Just as the marital union of two people is an entirely separate and distinct question from the union of more than two people.
If you want to continue to argue that the logical conclusion to gay marriage is that a man should also be able to marry his automobile as well, because that is only equally fair, then I hope you are happy in your straight jacketed rubber room all alone by yourself.
1.) Actually Michale this HAS been answered over and over again, countless times. YOU just don't want to accept the answer you have been given.
Because the answer given is a NON-ANSWER..
It's like you ask me how much is it going to cost to fix your laptop and I tell you, "It might rain today."
And you get bitchy and wonder why I don't answer your question and I get bitchier and tell you I DID answer your question. You just don't like the answer..
Marriage is NOT defined as between a man and a woman. That's YOUR opinion ONLY. That's what the whole court case is about in the first place!
And now you resort to blatant falsehoods..
Marriage IS defined as a man and a woman.. If it weren't then we would not be having this discussion and there wouldn't be ANY issue whatsoever..
You forget Justice Robert's comment during the case on same sex marriage... He asked why it could not be argued as case of gender discrimination.... if a man could marry a woman, but could not marry another man...
Funny how you latch on to CJ Robert's words, but totally ignore Justice Kennedy's words that state that marriage has been defined as a man and a woman for a millennia..
Agenda much?? :D
The Equal Protection clause applies to same categories of people being treated differently from each other for no good reason. Banning two people from getting married to each other because they are gay, or of the same gender, when you allow opposite sex couples to get married, is discrimination.
And not letting a man marry his porsche is ALSO discrimination..
And none of your non-answers has addressed this simple fact..
So, in your opinion gays don't deserve equality and are being bullies by wanting equality?
Gays HAVE equality.. Gays have MORE than equality considering that it's a lifestyle choice..
But gay activists/bullies don't WANT equality...
They want acceptance for their chosen lifestyle..
And THAT is just never going to happen. ESPECIALLY when it's coerced...
You said you were opposed to bullies, right? Then you should be just as equally opposed to Christians being bullies to gays, right???
There is no case of christians being bullies to gays..
If a gay guy goes into a bar and picks a fight with a bunch of bikers, are the bikers being bullies??
Of course not. The guy is being a jack-ass for knowingly going into a place and picking a fight where he knows he is not wanted...
THAT is the exact situation that you are referring to with the christian bakers and such.. You refute the position that, "It's my business and I have a right to refuse service to anyone!!"
Funny thing is that you IGNORE it when a gay hairdresser says the EXACT same thing when he refuses a GOP Governor..
You have yet to address ANY point that's been made.. And your NON-response simply proves the validity the position..
Have you ever sat down with a christian and actually TALKED to them about why they oppose gay marriage???
Of course not.. It's much easier for the Left to just scream HATE MONGER!! and BIGOT!!! and HOMOPHOBE!!! rather than actually TRY to understand the other side's point of view..
I bet if CW were to have a christian guest author come here and espouse the views as to why gay marriage is wrong, no one here would care a whit about their views. Granted, most Weigantians would likely be polite because that's the way Weigantians are... But anyone else from the Left would just attack the author and call him names.. Regardless, neither you nor anyone else would give ANY credence to an opposing viewpoint..
That's why my unique position gives me an insight that you can never have...
Not being enslaved by any political ideology, I can see clearly BOTH sides of an issue objectively and without the fog of partisan slavery..
I don't agree with the christian point of view. It has many flaws..
But I *DO* respect their point of view and acknowledge their right to HAVE that point of view..
No one here can make the same claim...
Michale
The answer Michale, is that gay or same sex marriage will NOT lead to anything else.
You keep saying that yet provide absolutely NO evidence to support the claim..
If you want to continue to argue that the logical conclusion to gay marriage is that a man should also be able to marry his automobile as well, because that is only equally fair, then I hope you are happy in your straight jacketed rubber room all alone by yourself.
Which simply proves the validity of the claim. You can't answer it because the ONLY possible answer exposes the political partisan agenda at work...
When a rutabaga can verbally give its consent to marriage and is physically capable of signing its own name on the dotted line, you can get back to me.
What does consent have to do with anything??
Do you have to get consent from the rutabaga if you go buy it at the store??
Does a porsche have to sign on the dotted line so that you can own it????
Of course not.. Why??
Because it is not a sentient being..
So why would a rutabaga or a porsche have to consent to a marriage??
Answer...
They wouldn't because they are not sentient beings..
So why would you discriminate against a man who wants to marry his porsche or a woman who wants to marry her rutabaga??
Answer...
Because they don't serve your political agenda...
It's really quite simple once you are able to rise above ideological enslavement...
Michale
Even CW has said (correct me if I am wrong, CW) that the argument in support of gay marriage is the EXACT same argument that supports polyamory marriages...
So, if you have a problem with that argument...... Well, it's your problem. :D
"What's with the cat??"
"The cat.. Oh well, there's a problem with the cat.. Sign here."
"OK.. {scribble, scribble} The cat??"
"It's your problem.."
-Men In Black
:D
Michale
You might think my examples are silly..
But they are no more silly than a man marrying a man was silly a hundred years ago..
What's silly at one time becomes common place at a later time...
And as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, you can bet that if the millennia-old definition of marriage is allowed to be changed SOLELY on a whim to appease a vocal minority who has made a certain lifestyle choice then there WILL be other vocal minorities down the road who will want to change the definition of marriage AGAIN to suit THEIR lifestyle choices...
You don't think there is a slippery slope??
Most people don't...
Right up to the point they find themselves careening down it completely out of control...
Michale
It's not rocket science at all so I am honestly confused as to why you can't grasp the concept..
The current definition of marriage is a man and a woman...
You want to change the definition of marriage to include and man and man or a woman and a woman ONLY...
There are people out there who want to change the definition of marriage to include multiple (more than 2) men and/or women.
There may even be people out there who want to change the definition of marriage to include ONE person and a personal inanimate object...
What makes YOU right and all those other people wrong??
Why is YOUR way the only way and THEIR way "silly"???
You see the point??
You go on and on about "equality" yet when it comes to something you don't approve of, "equality" goes out the window..
Either you are for equality for all or you are not...
"There is no try.. Do.... Or do not..."
-Yoda
Michale
You forget Justice Robert's comment during the case on same sex marriage... He asked why it could not be argued as case of gender discrimination.... if a man could marry a woman, but could not marry another man...
Using that reasoning, it's "gender discrimination" that a man can't use a woman's bathroom...
It's "gender discrimination" that Queen Elizabeth can't be KING Elizabeth..
There are literally MILLIONS of examples of what you would call "gender discrimination" in today's society..
I know, it's tough..
But it's the price we pay for... yunno... civilization... :^/
Michale
So, a Canadian Christian jeweler custom-made a pair of engagement rings for a lesbian couple, Nicole White and Pam Renouf, at their request. Later, when they found out that the jeweler personally opposes same-sex marriage, they went to pieces and demanded their money back.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/heads-lgbt-win-tails-christians-lose/
So, let me see if I got this straight..
A christian business owner is attacked and vilified by the gay bullies/activists because he would not serve a gay couple....
Another christian business owner is attacked and vilified by the gay bullies/activists because he DID serve a gay couple...
The message from the gay bullies/activists is clear..
It's not about keeping your feelings to yourself and just complete a commercial transaction as a commercial transaction period.
You MUST fully believe as this vocal minority wants you to believe OR ELSE!!!
And ya'all wonder why I feel the way I feel about gay activists..
They are bullies. Intolerant bullies who will tolerate no other beliefs but their own..
You cannot have your own set of beliefs or values or principles.. You MUST adopt the gay beliefs and values and principles....
OR ELSE!!!
And yea... Ireland has gone gay....
Michale
So, a Canadian Christian jeweler custom-made a pair of engagement rings for a lesbian couple, Nicole White and Pam Renouf, at their request. Later, when they found out that the jeweler personally opposes same-sex marriage, they went to pieces and demanded their money back.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/heads-lgbt-win-tails-christians-lose/
So, let me see if I got this straight..
A christian business owner is attacked and vilified by the gay bullies/activists because he would not serve a gay couple....
Another christian business owner is attacked and vilified by the gay bullies/activists because he DID serve a gay couple...
The message from the gay bullies/activists is clear..
It's not about keeping your feelings to yourself and just complete a commercial transaction as a commercial transaction period.
You MUST fully believe as this vocal minority wants you to believe OR ELSE!!!
And ya'all wonder why I feel the way I feel about gay activists..
They are bullies. Intolerant bullies who will tolerate no other beliefs but their own..
You cannot have your own set of beliefs or values or principles.. You MUST adopt the gay beliefs and values and principles....
OR ELSE!!!
And yea... Ireland has gone gay....
Michale