By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
With all constituencies reporting, the Irish citizenry approved a constitutional amendment recognizing gay marriage: Yes 1,201,607; No 734,300.
The Constitution of Ireland permits amendment only by popular vote. A vote of the people for such amendments can provide more legitimacy and acceptance by the public and judging by the margin gay marriage will probably gain acceptance more readily. Nevertheless it does not necessarily engender full acceptance of such partnerships as over seven hundred thousand voters chose otherwise. Some institutions in Irish society will struggle to come to terms with the new direction Ireland is pursuing.
Change has been underway with the Irish government’s approach to the issue. Ireland decriminalized homosexuality twenty two years ago and later in 2010 the state voted to permit same sex civil unions to have same legal status as heterosexual couples. Yet there existed considerable debate as to whether a full marriage would be permitted. In 2013 a constitutional convention formed to explore the possibility of amending the Irish Constitution to allow the right to marriage regardless of gender of either party. In 2014 a referendum was drafted to be posed to the people. Voting occurred yesterday.
Probably the most visible unresolved question will be that of the Catholic Church which is not legally bound presently to perform gay marriages by its clergy or within its facilities. The vast majority of Irish are of the Catholic religion which might put more tradition minded church leaders against a younger demographic which sided with the Yes camp in greater proportions. The higher age demographic was more likely to belong to the No camp.
The issue has the potential to cause a schism within the church because doctrine disallows such marriages and the church’s hierarchy answers to the Vatican which ultimately could set policy contrary to that of Catholic Church in Ireland. The issue of gay marriage has caused fragmentation of protestant churches in the United States.
It is likely that in the afterglow of the passage of the referendum Ireland will experience strong debate while it tries to understand and embrace this change. Time will be ultimately the deciding factor. The younger generation embraces gay marriage. Eventually it will not be a significant matter for controversy but like most controversies first generation likely will be the one to struggle the most.
By Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
I expect simple ideas from my 6 year old and I’m continually working to help him develop the critical-thinking skills necessary to actually formulate complex thought. I’ve come to expect simple ideas from progressives because they seem to function at that 6 year old level where things must be fair. It may be better if the SC comes back 9-0 in favor of gay marriage so we can move on to wiping out the 1st and then 2nd amendments. I know, save your breath, that will seem to be hyperbole to your ilk because long-term consequences are only something the adults need to be concerned with.
years ago, i was in venice beach and my buddy recognized a short, tanned guy with a jelli-roll hairdo…he looked like some little poseur, complete with dolphin shorts…people began gawking and snickering at him, he was enjoying the attention, though it was of a negative kind, and it was laced with mockery and derision…somebody laughed and said, “hey it’s peter north”!…had no idea who this was…my friend said he’s some major porn star…i later looked up this degenerate on the internet…this pervert is the single most debauched human I have ever had the misfortune of sharing oxygen on this earth with…his notorious nickname is “the decorator”…and has this guy ever been “slated”…and rightly so…porn, along with homosexuality and abortion are this nations gravest evils…along with divorce.
Olly, I said it was simple. It was meant to be simple, so as not to cloud what is really going on. I could add to my simple explanation, that fear of progress, fear of change also drives people like you, Stanton, David, and others. Don’t accept gay marriage fight against it until your dying day, that’s not my concern. Really who cares what intolerant people think, as long as they don’t harm others. It’s not a crime to be intolerant, feel free. When same sex marriage is legal in this country in June, by SC decision, we as a democratic people will have righted a wrong.
I’ll admit…the beauty of a gorgeous woman is intoxicating…a man has to have custody of his eyes…here in so-cal, gorgeous women abound…when it’s warm and sunny, (which it usually is)…many delight in parading around the promenade, wearing high heels micro mini-skirts, and low cut tops, generously displaying their ample bosoms…this is also grrravely sinful…a woman should never present herself as a near occasion of sin for a man…even at my parish, we have a sign on the outside, discussing proper attire for the parish…scantily clad women are told to change and dress more modestly…
the porn industry in “the valley”…is another sodom and gomorrah…these men and women, use their reproductive organs like joy-rides at the local carnival!…I met a strumpet at the sagebrush cantina in Calabasas awhile back…my buddy and I were enjoying a cold carta blanca and some delcious carnitas…as the evening wore on a two scantily clad bronzed women strolled in…they were wearing high heeled wedges, daisy dukes, which prominently displayed a third of the cheek, if you get my drift…they were insanely bronzed, with eyelashes a block long…my buddy was beginning to drool and had that cuckoo-bird look in his eye, when a harlot appears, spreading her lust-filled net “far and wide”…the two gorgeous strumpets began some eye play…they flashed ‘the hot look”…I finished my suds and vacated the cantina…man’s got to know his limitation’s…
“Tolerant/ intolerant. Authoritarian/ anti authoritarian.
Put simply. Why not live and let live? Why not allow churches who want to marry gays marry them, churches who don’t want to shouldn’t have to. Gay marriage is no threat to heterosexual marriage, get over it, move on, live your life and mind your own business.”
That’s some real deep thinking there Annie. You STILL believe this entire debate revolves around the institution of marriage. I’ve attended gay weddings and I’ve celebrated them; they were with friends that absolutely refused the “intolerant and authoritarian” agenda that the entire human population has to embrace, condone and support homosexuality. They reject as fundamentally abhorrent the idea one must set aside the natural right of conscience for the legislated right of marriage. If you weren’t so myopic on the term discrimination you would understand you discriminate every day in the choices you make. It’s called freedom of choice. Not everyone must accept gay marriage, “get over it, move on, live your life and mind your own business.”
annie…sodomites are evildoers…they follow the “dark one”…
There was a story on RIL recently in which a heterosexual couple were having sex on a public beach, full of families with children. Disgusting wanton display. Some commenters thought that opposing such a display was restricting their freedom. I think that when people of any sexuality perform sex acts and intimate affectionate acts in public, they should be ashamed of themselves and the police should be called.
I was in Frisco last year, at the Steinhart Aquarium, with wifey…we both watched two tinkerbell’s begin playing grab-ass, in front of my 10 year old nephew, at which point my repulsed wife asked these savages to stop, as children were present. I was watching the glorious “threadfin butterflyfish”-( Chaetodon auriga) flit about the brain coral, as my wife admonished them…these two pervert’s than began “frenching” each other, after they slyly smiled at each other, with a knowing wink, they than began groaning in demonic ecstasy, as a crowd milled, staring in horror, at these two filth monger’s…we vacated the aquarium forthwith…shocking, positively shocking…
“Will you go where I go, do what I do, and make a life together?”
“Yes.”
“We’re married.”
Sounds like a power-over relationship, i.e. patriarchy. Could be matriarchy. Certainly not feminist.
Tolerant/ intolerant. Authoritarian/ anti authoritarian.
Put simply. Why not live and let live? Why not allow churches who want to marry gays marry them, churches who don’t want to shouldn’t have to. Gay marriage is no threat to heterosexual marriage, get over it, move on, live your life and mind your own business.
The Morality of Higher Purpose vs The Morality of Self-Fulfillment. Is there ANY evidence in history where this has proven to be good for the long-term survivability of society?
Civil marriage is a civil right. It has certain precedents in common law.
Churches perform religious weddings and are authorized by the state to make a religious wedding a civil marriage and thus confer the rights of “being married.”
Are all religion’s marriages accepted by civil law? No. There are religions with polyandry and polygamy as legitimate under their religion’s rules; we have yet to recognize these living arrangements as civil marriages. There are religions that allow children to be married to adults; we don’t recognize these living arrangements as civil marriages. In some jurisdictions a parent may authorize a physically mature, but nevertheless underage to consent to sex, child to be married in their religion.
If a truly free society the state has no interest in marriage. Why license marriage, anyway.
“Will you go where I go, do what I do, and make a life together?”
“Yes.”
“We’re married.”
George wrote: “If a truly free society the state has no interest in marriage. Why license marriage, anyway.”
The State has an interest in forming public policy that betters society for everyone. It has an interest in defining marriage, and in settling domestic disputes regarding deadbeat dads and property issues that arise from marriage. It has an interest in preventing fraud in marriage. Arguing that government has no interest in family law is to deny the responsibility that government has to society.
The more I observe the participation in this blog the more I’m convinced the dividing line is not necessarily political or legal. The greatest rift seems to be between those concerned with the lessons of history and those wanting to make history. Of course this appears to be regressives against progressives, conservatives against liberals, but it’s more like adults vs teenagers. The progressives have us barreling down the interstate in dense fog and of course everything is perfect because we haven’t crashed yet.
Which brings me to the vote. Why do we still restrict the franchise for anyone under 18 years of age? I no longer see the point because the same ignorant, self-indulgent, narcissistic, impetuous, myopic, naïve behaviors expected of those 17 and under are certainly not limited by age.
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”
― Joseph Stalin
Pearl Harbor
9/11 – Architects and Engineers for Truth
Gulf of Tonkin
Warren Commission
JFK Assassination
Nixon 1960 Loss to Kennedy
Federal Reserve Controls Industry to Improve Employment
Roosevelt’s “Five Year Plans and New Deals Wrapped in Golden Chains” *
16th Amendment (see below)
Suspension of Habeas Corpus
Catholic Church Guilty of Child Molestation (“God” nowhere to be found to help innocent children)
Prop. 8 Passes In California – Court Rips It to Shreds
Etc.
ALL BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE “VOTE.”
The restricted-vote republic of the Founders was diluted into corruption as a one-man one-vote democracy.
The Following is a great example of the “VOTE” in America:
_____________________________________________________
“HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY **
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT*
“Bill Benson’s findings, published in “The Law That Never Was,” make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913.
There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.
Knox had received responses from 42 states…38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.
In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version… Kentucky…acted upon omitted the words “on income”…they weren’t even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!
In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.
Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state’s approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the “presumptive conclusion” argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.
If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.
The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment’s trend. You’ve probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you’d be right – they didn’t; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.
Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.
Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.
When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it’s authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota – which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.
These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn’t have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.
Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.
The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).”
* Who’ll Stop The Rain – John Fogerty
** I apologize for this voluminous account but the corruption is eerily similar to the Warren Commission.
That’s okay. I guarantee no one read it except you and the moderator 😀
davidm2575
I submit that the Founders would have included BUSINESS in the First Amendment if they hadn’t presumed comprehensive understanding and acceptance by all people that business was free enterprise without interference by government, as we glean from the daily practice of business by the Founders in 1789. The First Amendment might have read as the following if the Founders had perceived a need:
First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of BUSINESSES, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
We can proffer the example of the unconstitutionality of biased and non-neutral affirmative action
“prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” and nullifying the further right to private property of the business owner.
But NOT THE IRISH!
– Blazing Saddles
If people want to pass a law stating the sky is orange on a clear day at noon on planet earth, so be it. Same to me as passing a law or voting or judicial fiat that same-sex couples can be legally married. I do not much care personally, and besides, “what difference, at this point, does it make?” since we live in a Star-Wars Bar world anyway. I maintain a low profile and keep the popcorn handy.
Play-like this, play-like that, give the legal professions more work.
Win-win!
http://youtu.be/XrhQ74FuIqM
Stanton you’re in great company.
homosexuality is a “gateway” perversion that leads to the occult, witchcraft, black magic and sorcery…ultimately to hell itself…gays delight in violent, bloody sexy…with fisting, salad tossing, a whole host of shameful perversion’s…one more vile than the last…I use street terms like “salad tossing”, to illustrate a point…these savages enjoy these terms, which try to sanitize the horror of the actual act itself…