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.
the Catholic Church does not excommunicate for fornication Dave…are you a JW?….this cult does excommunicate for fornication…
The Great Stanton wrote: “… the Catholic Church does not excommunicate for fornication Dave…”
The Roman Catholic Church is not the only church in existence. Roman Catholicism has apparently lost its way in many doctrines, including this one. Other churches still follow the teachings of the apostles of Christ.
The apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “… I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” (1 Cor. 5:11).
I’m sure you are correct I. Annie. No doubt a full cacophony of pedophiles, zoophiles, and religious fanatics sliding down their self-lubricated slippery slopes.
PhillyT,
This is just a sampling of the sort of outrage we’ll see from the right wing religious base, come June, SC decision. It will be interesting to say the least. Full blown temper tantrums to put a two year old to shame.
Dreaded Taipan.
You amuse me. You claim to know god’s intentions but question my knowledge of the same? How arrogant can you get?
To paraphrase the great Betty Bowers, I always suspect the religious person who is quite certain that god hates all the same people they do.
Wow Phillyt…you talk like an atheist yet you refer to God as Her…is this an attempt at sacrilege?…who says finding someone to love is a blessing indeed?…where does this blessing come from?…your entire presentation is somewhat incongruent, and rather illogical reading…God forbids homosexual behavior, ie romance…He said it was wrong and forbidden…do you deign to know more than God, when it comes to our spiritual well being?…
ps: I don’t endorse or condemn homosexuals or heterosexuals. I myself was born hetero. It’s none of my business who people love, as long as it involves consenting adults. In this great big beautiful, terrible world, finding someone to love is a blessing indeed. I hope all the posters on this board have love in their hearts and someone to love in their lives. That is all.
Dreaded Taipan,
If you choose to believe in that tale, by all means carry on. To me it’s nothing more than a desert people’s attempt to come up with some rules to live by, that have nothing to do with god or eternity, and nothing to do with Her will.
One more thing phillyt…Moses DID NOT make up the Ten Commandments, they were given to him at Mt. Horeb by God…to dictate to humanity how to live a life morally, that was in conformity to His will!…not yours…nor any other secular teaching that is at variance with those Commandments!
Men marrying men, and using the anus as an erogenous zone is complete madness “phillyt” and his twisted knowledge of morality and human sexuality would have all america believe that sodomites are good, clean guys, who should be treated like royalty!….WRONG MCFLY!…phillyt thinks the catholic notion of morality is crazy…but his endorsement of sodomites is sound…with logic like that, I can see why he spends his afternoon blogging…LOL!
An ad hominem attack is one that attacks a person’s character. I did no such thing. I don’t know you, and so I cannot begin to attack your character. I was questioning whether or not claiming to know what natural or inalienable rights are is ANYONE’s purview. Certainly not mine, and not the church’s.
I think too many supreme court justices see the Constitution as a document of holy writ, much in the same way they see the bible. The bible is a product of its time, as is the Constitution, as are the works of Locke, Paine, Rousseau, and so on.
There is nothing in the bible or the Constitution banning slavery. Or rape. Or child abuse. Why not? Because they were not inspired by some all-knowing all-seeing god who is able to see the entire scope of human progress and point out what is really important. Rather the bible and Constitution are the best-guess writings of the day and era in which they were written…by men.
Do you think Moses would make up the same ten commandments today that he did then? Do you think Hobbes or Locke or Lincoln or Jefferson would look at today’s world and just stick with their thoughts of centuries ago? If we were to write a new bill of rights today, would it be the same? All the countries that are writing their own constitutional documents today are coming up with very different lists.
So if you want to make a case for what YOU think make up inalienable or natural rights, by all means proceed. But please include with your list how you derived them and on what philosophical basis you believe they are supported.
phillyT wrote: “An ad hominem attack is one that attacks a person’s character. I did no such thing.”
Actually, you accused him of being unable to understand what he claims to understand. You basically said that people like him who make such claims about natural law “give themselves away as charlatans or fools.” Yeah, that is an ad hominem attack, speaking toward the man rather than addressing the issue. You did not say that all natural law theories are fallacious because…
phillyT wrote: “If we were to write a new bill of rights today, would it be the same? All the countries that are writing their own constitutional documents today are coming up with very different lists.”
That last sentence is actually an interesting point. But it also is the crux of the matter. Are these different lists enlightening, or are they bringing us toward the barbarism of Sodom and Gomorrah? Are the new lists a result of government corruption or rational thought?
phillyT,
Nice try dodging the question. Instead of saying what you believe in you choose use ad hominem attacks as if that is a valid argument. If I quoted for you exactly what the Declaration of Independence says about equality, inalienable rights and the purpose for government would you still declare I’m twisting their words? If I gave you Locke’s view on natural rights in his own words, would I be twisting them? If I gave you every reference used by the framers to form our system of government and provided you their words as to the purpose of government, would you still claim I’m twisting them?
You always have the option to try and prove what I’m saying is wrong but you and I both know what I’m relating is an inconvenient truth you cannot refute. If you won’t bother doing the research then cite your sources and I’ll study them. Getting it right is what is important and if your sources prove I’m wrong then I really have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Anytime someone claims to know the truth about natural law, natural right, or inalienable rights, I am immediately suspicious. And those who claim to know what the founders intended, or even more absurdly, to know what they (the founders) would say were they alive today, give themselves away as charlatans or fools. It’s almost as dangerous and ridiculous as those who claim to know what the bible or the qur’an really mean.
I’ve hear the catholic explanation of what natural law is, and is as far from natural as one can be without being carted off to an asylum.
We are, in America, currently living with the results of the courts interpreting the founders wishes to mean that the right to own weapons is a “natural” or even “god-given” law because the Constitution says that the right “shall not be infringed” implying that the right comes from somewhere beyond the scope of human control or existence, or perhaps that it has always been, since the beginning of time. Meanwhile the rest of the world sits back in shock and disgust as we slaughter each other having given in to this collective insanity.
So, sorry Olly, I don’t care to engage in this exercise in which you put forth some pseudo logic about natural or inalienable rights, when it is clear from your posts that have have simply twisted them to mean whatever you want them to mean. Thanks anyway.
phillyT wrote: “Anytime someone claims to know the truth about natural law, natural right, or inalienable rights, I am immediately suspicious. And those who claim to know what the founders intended, or even more absurdly, to know what they (the founders) would say were they alive today, give themselves away as charlatans or fools. It’s almost as dangerous and ridiculous as those who claim to know what the bible or the qur’an really mean.”
This is nothing but your hubris talking. Nobody can know something you don’t know? Really?
As for the right to bear arms, really? You don’t believe in the natural right for a man to defend his own life and property as well as the lives of his family?
phillyT wrote: “So, sorry Olly, I don’t care to engage in this exercise in which you put forth some pseudo logic about natural or inalienable rights, when it is clear from your posts that have have simply twisted them to mean whatever you want them to mean. Thanks anyway.”
What a cute way to stick your head in the sand and make it sound like you are intelligent in doing it.
Olly actually makes very rational arguments about natural law.
phillyT,
Do you believe our constitutional republic is based on the principle of equality and inalienable rights? Do you believe the purpose for government is to secure those rights for all citizens equally? If you side with Annie and do not believe in inalienable rights then it is you that is aligned with the Taliban. Keep in mind that ANY doctrine, religious or otherwise that would seek to infringe the natural rights of others IS totalitarian and exactly the enemy inside the gates of this republic.
The problem is not that gay marriage is legal. It is that the proponents demand acceptance and compliance from everyone regardless of their religious beliefs. Or even their taste.
Same sex marriage is always sold as “not affecting you.” “What’s the big deal? Live and let live.”
But that is not the reality. The reality is the proponents of same sex marriage want to reach into your business, your school, your family and your church. Their goal is not tolerance but control. The next step will be to apply anti-discrimination laws to the operation of churches, temples and synagogues. They will not accept the fact that some churches will not sanction same sex marriages just as they will not accept that some bakeries or photographers or wedding venues will not be able to opt out of participating in an event that violates their morality. The next step is to stop churches from performing marriage ceremonies and removing civil recognition of religious marriages. In other words you won’t be able to get married in church and have that recognized by the state. You will have to go through a civil ceremony as the combined religious and civil marriage will be outlawed. Priests and rabbi’s and imam’s will not be able to perform civil recognized marriage ceremonies. That is the next step. They will couch it in their familiar platitudes and lies. “It’s not fair that gays can not be married in church.” “Discrimination trumps religious doctrine.” “How does it hurt you if your priest is forced to offer the Sacrament of Marriage to same sex couples.” “Just go along with it you have no right to object.” “You have no right to think it is wrong.” “If you think it is wrong we will punish you.”
I expect that in ten years all religious denominations will be precluded from performing legally binding marriage ceremonies.
Trooperyork wrote: “How does it hurt you if your priest is forced to offer the Sacrament of Marriage to same sex couples.” “Just go along with it you have no right to object.”
Another thing overlooked is that homosexuality as well as heterosexual fornication can be a sin by which a church excommunicates a person. Therefore, some churches will be kicking out same sex couples that get married. Their same sex marriage is evidence of unrepentant homosexuality. How long will that principle hold up in a civil society that thinks gay marriage is good? Such a church would be labeled as filled with hatred, and it cannot be long before laws are passed to shut down such churches.
With you all the way on this on Annie.
So interesting to see the American Christian Taliban speaking up so forthrightly. I think it’s a good thing for everyone to know just where you all really stand and what you really stand for.
Do carry on.
LOL! More deep thought, eh? You still don’t get it and probably never will. Even the founding fathers understood racial equality is the correct vision for America and if progressives would “stop helping” we’d get their a lot sooner. The reason you don’t get it is because you reject the idea of inalienable rights. Our entire system of government is based on the principle that government’s fundamental purpose is to secure natural, inalienable rights for all citizens EQUALLY!.
The oath that you routinely mock is to support and defend that principle of government and it is the same oath your daughter has sworn allegiance to. Either you believe in your daughter and her oath or you stand as a hypocrite.
Perhaps you can lean on the legal experts in this blog and see if they deny inalienable rights. I’ll be more than happy to stand corrected if they can prove a different purpose for our government.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-84SIEGFX2tA/Tqvnv_Cok5I/AAAAAAAAFKQ/bddidcqD_K0/s1600/i-am-so-mad.jpg
And I’m sure we heard the same sort of argument when interracial marriage was made legal nation wide. It’s nothing more than a teakettle whistling, eventually people like you will run out of water to boil and end up looking like a cracked pot. Interracial marriage is accepted nation wide now except for the most extreme elements. But rave on, that’s democracy!
You wouldn’t recognize a bolstered argument if it hit you between the eyes.
Olly, your negativity and rudeness does nothing to bolster your argument. Carry on with your hissy fit, because really, that’s all it is.