Ireland and #hometovote

DrTyore

Go Ireland Go

I will be sorely disappointed if this ends up going "No".

Ireland could make history with gay marriage vote

Mark

moose

Electoral officers across Ireland reported a strong turnout at the many churches, pubs and schools where voting took place.

These guys know how to improve voter turnout.

DrTyore

As an aside,

Is there something wonky with the forum? This post took like 10 minutes to show up in the thread, and then I had to refresh twice to get Moose's response.

Mark

Scoops

DrTyore wrote: »

As an aside,

Is there something wonky with the forum? This post took like 10 minutes to show up in the thread, and then I had to refresh twice to get Moose's response.

Mark

hmm anyone else having this issue?

Bfillmaff

Yeah a few odd things, click one thread and it opens another, etc. Weird!

wildbill7145

Just noticed the forum is indicating Milo posted in the Bluesky payout thread earlier this morning, but the post isn't there and not indicating that it's been deleted.

Wonder if this has something to do with the server upgrade the other day.

woog30

After your in the thread you have to refresh in order to see new posts.

AcidJoe

I noticed that yesterday, but haven't posted today....

Bfillmaff

Yeah getting the same thing still here, have to refresh every thread

DrTyore

So on an aside from PFC issues..

Way to go Ireland!

Mark

pkrfce9

I expect Gaelic to become much more popular.

DrTyore

Sigh.

Vatican says Ireland gay marriage vote is 'defeat for humanity' | World news | The Guardian

Mark

Milo

This is not to say I think that the voters of Ireland made the wrong decision, because I do not, but I find it odd that the GOVERNMENT would put a supposed Human Right (marriage is a Right?) to a vote . . . why not just pass a Law?

MickeyHoldem

Milo wrote: »

This is not to say I think that the voters of Ireland made the wrong decision, because I do not, but I find it odd that the GOVERNMENT would put a supposed Human Right (marriage is a Right?) to a vote . . . why not just pass a Law?

Because politics isn't about doing the right thing.... it's about retaining power and checking with the voters is always a popular play when dealing with contentious issues!

Milo

Agreed, to a point. In this country . . . it was not LEFT to the politicians, though. A couple (two of them?) went through the Court system, which is bound to the Constitution, rather than wait for venal pols to do the right thing. curious as to why no one tried this in Ireland, not that it matters now.

Unknown

Milo wrote: »

This is not to say I think that the voters of Ireland made the wrong decision, because I do not, but I find it odd that the GOVERNMENT would put a supposed Human Right (marriage is a Right?) to a vote . . . why not just pass a Law?

Shockingly, I agree with Milo here. Putting any liberty issue to a popular vote is crazy, though I accept Mickey's point about any elected official not wanting to force a law on people that gets them turfed in the next election. I believe the right to marry is protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Though that document gets ignored on the regular by pretty much every country attached to it except Iceland.

Article 16, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

The UK is a signatory to this agreement, though so is the US and Canada, and all sorts of countries who didn't have same sex marriage for years and years. It's interesting to me that it leaves out sexuality but specifically mentions, race, nationality, and religion. You'd think for a human rights document they could just leave it at men and women. You know... humans.

Basically, the logic for me works like this. If human beings have rights and liberties, they get extended to everyone. To deny anyone those rights is to deny their humanity.*

I guess I should qualify by stating that where that liberty will be limited in some cases when conviction of a crime occurs.

Milo

Not to be pedantic, but Article 16 ALSO states that Men and Women of full age . . . which leaves things open for the bigots.

Personally, I think Governments does not belong in the "marriage" business. Leave "marriage" to the Churches, Temples, and Mosques. Every other Union can be dealt with through the Civil Laws of whatever jurisdiction said Union occurs in.

When my parents married in the Netherlands, they were required to have a service at City Hall for their "marriage to be official in the eyes of the Government. Their wedding a few months earlier in the Church was not recognized by the State, and vice versa. Seems pretty sensible to me . . . and this was 1954.

Unknown

Milo wrote: »

Not to be pedantic, but Article 16 ALSO states that Men and Women of full age . . . which leaves things open for the bigots.

Personally, I think Governments does not belong in the "marriage" business. Leave "marriage" to the Churches, Temples, and Mosques. Every other Union can be dealt with through the Civil Laws of whatever jurisdiction said Union occurs in.

When my parents married in the Netherlands, they were required to have a service at City Hall for their "marriage to be official in the eyes of the Government. Their wedding a few months earlier in the Church was not recognized by the State, and vice versa. Seems pretty sensible to me . . . and this was 1954.

Not pedantic really. I was just saying that this is the only example I know of that indicates that marriage is any sort of "right" at all.

Bigots are like mice, they always find a way in.

Milo

Agreed . . . but the wording of that portion IS interesting. That said, given the time period that it was written, it is understandable. Written today it would likely be something like "man, woman, lesbian, gay, transgendered, two spirited, etc."

trigs

let anyone marry anyone (over the age of 18) is what i say. why should only heterosexuals be allowed to torture themselves with marriage? gays, lesbians, etc. should be free to torture themselves too if they feel like it.

imho, marriage should last at most 5 years with the option of renewal after the time limit is up (unless you choose even more torture and have kids - then you're stuck until there 18).

Milo

As I said . . . get Government out of the "business" of marriage. Leave it to the Churches. Let folks use civil Law to make their cohabitation arrangements.

compuease

Milo wrote: »

As I said . . . get Government out of the "business" of marriage. Leave it to the Churches. Let folks use civil Law to make their cohabitation arrangements.

Absolutely NOT! So unless one is a churchgoer you can't get married...? That is about as narrow minded as they come.

Let's keep churches out of the "business" of marriage. Sounds just as dumb don't you think?

Milo

"Marriage", in this circumstance is just a word. People say they are getting married at City Hall, and always will say that. Couples who choose to avoid Church ceremonies will STILL refer to themselves as "married". so what it your problem? You allow Churches to "marry" couples as they choose to, and everyone else makes their own arrangements as per Civil Law. They are legally "married" or cohabitating or whatever term suits them, and no one needs to get hung up on the terminology. Hell, people who are living together WITHOUT going to a Church or City Hall are said to married too, so what the hell? To say nothing about the numerous gay couples who considered themselves "married" before they could be legally recognized as such.

compuease

Nice backtrack...

Milo

I would prefer the term clarification.

I have said for quite sometime that Government has no business attempting to label/define personal relationships or living arrangements, and that the argument seems not so much about allowing gay people to marry but the insistence that Churches accept that gay Unions be termed "marriages". With that in mind, eliminating the term "marriage" from the public realm seems to satisfy all sides (or dissatisfy them all equally, whatever). As I said, people will STILL refer to themselves as married, regardless of the what Church-types think or say.

compuease

Milo wrote: »

I would prefer the term clarification.

I have said for quite sometime that Government has no business attempting to label/define personal relationships or living arrangements,

Nor does the church...

Milo

Sure they do . . . their beliefs and tenets are what define them. The State, on the other hand, must NOT define itself in that way. The State must be broader in it's scope.

compuease

Wow, I really thought you were more open minded than that. Do you REALLY believe what I "think" you are saying? How about others here? Is the consensus that marriage is only for church goers? All others are really only cohabitating, including heterosexual couples.

Milo

My point is that, in the eyes of the Churches . . . yes. I DO think that part of the insistence of same sex couples for use of the term "marriage" has to do with poking a finger in the eye of those same Churches.

Personally, I don't care who an adult "marries". So long as the relationship is between consenting adults, it's none of my business . . . "marry" your cousin, for all I care (well, genetic and medical issues come into play there, but you get my meaning I hope).

What I am saying is this . . . removal of State sanction for "marriages" is what I am getting at. Why is it necessary for the City Council of Brampton to sanction my Union with my wife? Or yours? Why do I have to buy a license in the first place? To me, that puts marriage/Civil Unions/pair bonds on the same level as a trout you want to pull out of the lake at your cottage.

Much as I hate PET, he was right about this . . . "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation." Removal of the State from "marriage" is a logical extension.

wildbill7145

Milo wrote: »

My point is that, in the eyes of the Churches . . . yes. I DO think that part of the insistence of same sex couples for use of the term "marriage" has to do with poking a finger in the eye of those same Churches.

Personally, I don't care who an adult "marries". So long as the relationship is between consenting adults, it's none of my business . . . "marry" your cousin, for all I care (well, genetic and medical issues come into play there, but you get my meaning I hope).

What I am saying is this . . . removal of State sanction for "marriages" is what I am getting at. Why is it necessary for the City Council of Brampton to sanction my Union with my wife? Or yours? Why do I have to buy a license in the first place? To me, that puts marriage/Civil Unions/pair bonds on the same level as a trout you want to pull out of the lake at your cottage.

Much as I hate PET, he was right about this . . . "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation." Removal of the State from "marriage" is a logical extension.

Generating statistics and taxation? I've often wondered why one of the first questions you have to answer when filling out your taxes is whether or not you are married. Why do we have to file our taxes together?

As far as the first part about same sex couples using the term "marriage" being a poke in the eye of the churches. If that's what those churches believe, they really need to get over themselves. It's not all about them.

Milo

No, it isn't, but the same sex lobby was adamant during the process that "Civil Unions" was not acceptable terminology, even if applied to hetero couples as well. One is led to wonder why that was?