Ireland backs legalizing gay marriage by a landslide

[MongGrel]

It flew over my head...

 

[Meghan54]

I clearly haven't had a clear understand or appreciation for just how much the state took over marriage when it decided to get involved for taxes.

It's been that way.....judges, justices of the peace, clerks of court, etc., for decades upon decades. It's not something new.....or recent.

 

[waggy]

Who performs marriages? A minister...priest... rabbi, etc... and you apply the word secular...

none of those are needed for a marriage.

In fact all you need to do is go to the court house and sign a sheet of paper.

wich is why the argument about it being religious is silly. it has nothing to do with being married in the US

 

[Jaskalas]

none of those are needed for a marriage.

In fact all you need to do is go to the court house and sign a sheet of paper.

wich is why the argument about it being religious is silly. it has nothing to do with being married in the US

Aye, but trying to look up when judges first performed marriages isn't bearing any quick results. All google does is point to gay marriage when I'm trying to find the history of the law(s).
Have judges done it since US inception?

 

[Brainonska511]

Aye, but trying to look up when judges first performed marriages isn't bearing any quick results. All google does is point to gay marriage when I'm trying to find the history of the law(s).
Have judges done it since US inception?

Why does that matter at all?

 

[brycejones]

Aye, but trying to look up when ?first performed marriages isn't bearing any quick results. All google does is point to gay marriage when I'm trying to find the history of the law(s).
Have judges done it since US inception?

Please tell us you don't think civil marriages are some new concept?

 

[Jaskalas]

Have judges done it since US inception?

Civil Unions in the City on a Hill

The English Puritans who founded Massachusetts in 1630 formed a society as committed to religion as any in history. But for them, marriage was a civil union, a contract, not a sacred rite. In early Massachusetts, weddings were performed by civil magistrates rather than clergymen. They took place in private homes, not in church buildings. No one wore white or walked down the aisle. Even later, when it became customary for ministers to preside at weddings (still held in private homes), the clergy’s authority was granted by the state, not the church.
​

Why does that matter at all?

It is believed and argued that marriage is a religious institution. Whether that's true or not matters a great deal to me, as I always got the impression it was. Which meant that any effort to address marriage in government is simply an assault on religion. Anyone who says "get government out of marriage" is likely under the same impression.

Please tell us you don't think civil marriages are some new concept?

It's something I'm absolutely not familiar with. History books in no way address or cover the history of marriage. In TV and Movies marriage always involves churches and religious figures to preside over it. That messaging sinks in and becomes truth.

Based on the term you used I was able to more effectively search for the history of marriage as a "civil" matter. Apparently it did not become strictly religious until the English Reformation which later manifested as a rather explicit law:

Civil marriage

England: "Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act" of 1753, which required that, in order to be valid and registered, all marriages were to be performed in an official ceremony in a religious setting...Any other form of marriage was abolished.
​

Part of participating in this forum is to be exposed to new ideas. Lo and behold, there's another one discovered today. It's likely only due to the internet that the "lie repeated often enough..." can be overcome.

It would appear that marriage was not a religious institution until people tried to make it that way. The effect of their action still resonates today. Especially with people out there who think it's religious.

 

[Subyman]

so are all you's guys going to run away to Ireland??

You going to run to Iran when it is legalized here?

 

[MagickMan]

Good, why should it be anyone's fucking business who adults choose to marry, or what the definition of marriage should be? Two guys want to get hitched? So what. Two gals want to tie the knot? Why is it any of your damned business? It doesn't affect your life even one iota. Just let them all be, for shit's sake.

 

[Rakehellion]

I don't have a problem with gay people getting the equivalent of marriage, but just called something else. Why? Because I don't think it's a big deal to just choose a different term instead of being pricks about having it called "marriage." I'm not religious, either, it's just the matter of I think the gay community largely chooses their battles just to be dicks so they can feel special because they chose to be gay. I think few would have had a problem with gay people getting married if they just called it something other than marriage.

All that had to be done was to create a category word for all of the legal protections, then categorize "marriage," "civil unions" (or whatever they wanted it to be called), etc. under that category. Boom, same legal protections, no problems with anyone.

When did you choose to be straight?

 

[biostud]

It's the first land to get it by public vote, but it was made legal by several of countries parliaments before Ireland got it. Sweden has had it since 2009 and Denmark since 2012. And before that we had the registered partnership since 1989.

In 1989 gays/lesbians could get registered in the Town Hall as 'Registered Partnership'. The Danish church could perform a ceremony, if the couple wanted it, but the priest could refuse if it was against his belief.

In 2009 gays/lesbians could adopt jointly.

In 2012 the Danish church could perform a religious gay marriage.

 

[SlickSnake]

You need to learn to read, as well. Understanding the things you read will help you, too. Once you accomplish that mission, you should go back and read my posts, and put effort into understanding them.

A good idea, and I hope you appreciate the effort.

There are no layers of complexity. That's like saying a 3-5 step plan is too complex for you to understand. Hooked on phonics. It will work for you.

Anyways, I guess I have to lower the bar for many of you here. Let's try one last time, for the multitude of beyond stupid that can't read:

1. The word "marriage" and its derivatives are removed in any legal sense and replaced with something else
2. Everyone can take it upon themselves to still use the word married if they so choose

Holy fuck! What an incredibly complex thought to process!!! Seriously, though, it is no surprise to me why issues like this become such a big deal to people with how utterly retarded and insane some of you people are. I would think that most of you would be embarrassed by how grossly inept you are, but you seem to congregate and gather to form against basic sentences that you simply are too stupid to be able to read, despite them being broken down multiple times, in multiple ways, for multiple people. It is amazing that some of you are still unable to understand the things that I have written.

Done wasting my time. You guys should be ashamed, seriously.

Seriously, YOU should be the one ashamed because you wrongly attempt to blame and attack the posters for trying to correct your ignorance, which really isn't surprising at all considering the hateful, bigoted tone of the initial post you made.

Additionally, in this final post you made, your 2 main points bears little resemblance at all to the initial bigoted post you made to which I am now referencing below. And all your fake macho bravado you make later on, is still clearly centered around this initial homophobic outburst you posted, which seems to have been largely overlooked by others arguing with you until now. Lucky YOU!

And it's pretty obvious later on in your other rabid, rambling posts you make, that you are attempting to redefine your initially hostile and bigoted anti-gay rant you originally posted. Because you later stop the victim shaming and blame the government for interfering in SSM, which is only partly true, because you also willfully ignore the fact the fundies started this SSM fight to get votes in the first place.

I don't have a problem with gay people getting the equivalent of marriage, but just called something else. Why? Because I don't think it's a big deal to just choose a different term instead of being pricks about having it called "marriage."

Gay people weren't the ones being "pricks" about having it called marriage, but the Bible thumpers who initiated this SSM fight by bringing it to ballots in states just to take away marriage rights that weren't already legislated against were obviously being "pricks" about using the term marriage. And certainly no gay person I know wanted almost extinct political dinosaurs in the GOP to use gay marriage as a bigoted, hateful and nefarious scheme just to get tainted votes from bigoted fundies just like themselves.

I think few would have had a problem with gay people getting married if they just called it something other than marriage.

All that had to be done was to create a category word for all of the legal protections, then categorize "marriage," "civil unions" (or whatever they wanted it to be called), etc. under that category. Boom, same legal protections, no problems with anyone

What a rotten red herring you offered up. Obviously, a civil marriage is nearly completely worthless legally if the state refuses to recognize civil unions exactly like a marriage, and most do not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_unions_in_the_United_States#Civil_unions

And I fixed this other quote from you for truthfulness and accuracy, something that probably don't mean a whole lot to a bigot like you. (See above.)

I'm not religious, either, it's just the matter of I think the

Spoiler

gay

religious community largely chooses their battles just to be dicks so they can feel special because they chose to be

Spoiler

gay

religious.

So, the next time you troll post, please try to be a bit more consistent in your arguments in your juvenile attempts at trolling posters who rightly disagree with you, ok?

 

[sportage]

For years and years the gay community patiently waited for someone, anyone in congress to press the idea of civil unions on a national level. Hell, on a state level would be progress back then.
So why would anyone be surprised when the courts stepped in to correct the injustice?
And as far as marriage being a state thing, decided by the states, and only the states, that would be fine ...except... the problem arises for two guys legally married in Iowa then moving to Ohio and no longer legally married.
THAT is the pisser with allowing only the states to decide.
And something heterosexuals and marriage do not have to deal with.
Heterosexuals married in Iowa stay married wherever they move.
And THAT is why the US Supreme Court needed to step in.
Gosh... I sure hope Mike Huckabee is reading this.

 

[Mike64]

so are all you's guys going to run away to Ireland??

I'll go to Ireland, if you'll go to Uganda.:sneaky:

 

[Bubbleawsome]

This thread became exactly what I expected it could be. Great job ATOT, can't wait to see what you idiots do in another 20 years. I thought the "younger generation" always wanted progressive thought and stuff but I guess they all turn into middle aged politicians in the end.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

For years and years the gay community patiently waited for someone, anyone in congress to press the idea of civil unions on a national level. Hell, on a state level would be progress back then.
So why would anyone be surprised when the courts stepped in to correct the injustice?
And as far as marriage being a state thing, decided by the states, and only the states, that would be fine ...except... the problem arises for two guys legally married in Iowa then moving to Ohio and no longer legally married.
THAT is the pisser with allowing only the states to decide.
And something heterosexuals and marriage do not have to deal with.
Heterosexuals married in Iowa stay married wherever they move.
And THAT is why the US Supreme Court needed to step in.
Gosh... I sure hope Mike Huckabee is reading this.

I don't get this whole thing about gay marriage being a state issue. If denying gay marriage is a denial of peoples' rights, then it (the denial of same-sex marriage) is not acceptable anywhere in the U.S.

 

[Mike64]

I am somewhat conflicted about the marriage question. It's a hybrid religious/legal action and ceremony.

Civil marriage has a long history as a socio-legal construct distinct from religious marriage. ("Long" in the sense of existing nearly as long as the concept of (primarily) secular government itself has existed, at least in the West.)

If there is a large contingent of straight people who don't want me to marry my man why would I do it if civil unions are available? To piss them off? I already know that life isn't always fair.

Sure, absolutely, why the hell not?

Given that life isn't always fair, as you note, would you willingly, let alone happily, live in a deep, very dark closet* because a large contingent of most straight people (everywhere in the world) didn't want to see, hear or deal with you living an openly gay life?

My only issue with the push for same-sex marriage vs civil unions, which never amounted to opposition to it, was that it seemed to me to involve an enormous expense of energy and money that, imo, would be better spent on other issues I consider much more pressing. I'm still not sure that wasn't the case, but frankly and to my great surprise, the general acceptance of same-sex marriage became so widespread so quickly, that those objections became almost moot. And the acceptance of marriage may in fact pave the way for a quicker acceptance of other legal changes I consider more generally important (like ENDA.) Not being able to be legally married or "united" certainly has some concrete drawbacks, but imo, it's not positively outrageous in the way that legally overt discrimination in employment, housing and other similar contexts is.

__________________________________________
* Unless of course you were very rich, but then, as the song goes, money changes everything, in so many ways.

 

[Mike64]

I thought the "younger generation" always wanted progressive thought and stuff

Nah, that's never really been true... Sometimes it works out that way, but it's not just because they're "the younger generation".

 

[SlickSnake]

Because they often grow up just as stupid and brainwashed as their parents are.