Irish Voters Abroad Returning Home To Vote On Same-Sex Marriage Referendum

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

100px-Coat_of_arms_of_Ireland.svgOn Friday Irish Citizens went to the polls to vote by referendum on a constitutional amendment allowing same-sex marriage. If passed Ireland will join nineteen other nation states who have legalized such marriages and will be the first to enact the petition by popular referendum.

The topic of the referendum garnered such strong interest it is expected that a large percentage of Ireland’s 3.2 million registered voters will go to  the polls. In fact, reportedly, unexpectedly high numbers returned home at their personal expense to cast votes.

Taoiseach Kenny
Taoiseach Kenny

The Yes Vote drew wide support from youth as well as Taoiseach Enda Kenny who urged its passage and cited it would represent a civil rights breakthrough. Much of the impetus to return home was triggered by promises of conservative church leaders and conservative groups voicing their opposition and political activism.

The outcome will be difficult to predict due to the nation’s large Catholic majority which has shown traditional leanings in the past.

Twitter users sympathetic or supportive of the Yes Camp utilized the hashtag #HomeToVote and reportedly sixty-four thousand followers of the tag were either neutral or supportive of allowing gay marriage in Ireland.

The results are to be announced Saturday.

By Darren Smith

Source: CBC News

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.

47 thoughts on “Irish Voters Abroad Returning Home To Vote On Same-Sex Marriage Referendum”

  1. “Letting people vote on the civil rights of minority groups is a perverse and disgusting notion.”

    What a maroon. The Civil Rights acts were passed by Congress, who were elected by the People.

  2. @davidm2575

    So David…

    Are you not fully aware that one of the traditional marriages have been polygamy as well? Are you not fully aware that polygamy thrived in the ancient world? Of course, it did! It was one of the most traditional marriages often celebrated.

    As for the video I. Annie posted, Annie Bowers (satirically acting as a Christian) was correct in the various forms of marriage despite her complete sarcastic tone toward Christianity. She was wrong in one aspect: having all the wives at once. King David was not shown to have married wives all at the same time. He married wife after wife. The only exception to David taking more than one wife was Saul’s wives when Saul died.

    In the ancient world, polygamy was paramount as it was essential to survival. Monogamy does not cause a family to thrive in the ancient world. At worst, a monogamic family cannot hope to survive against roving bandits, slavers, and other ne’er-do-wells but a polygamous family? Yes, of course. They are a militia unto themselves. They are far more superior to encountering bandits because of their numbers.

    Here’s where you failed to realize: the advertising of monogamy as the one true marriage comes straight from pagan Rome. Name me one empire that has encouraged monogamy before Rome. None, I’ll bet. In pagan Rome, they worshiped so many false gods. They also had sex with other men. They celebrated having sex with prostitutes. They also had sex with young girls who were enslaved. So, what does that make Rome? A den of adulterers, thieves, slavers, etc. And what did Rome practice? Monogamy!

    Fast forward a few years and you will hear the Council of Trent discuss the matter of polygamy. They wish to ban it so they decide to ban it on all Catholic members. In doing so, there were still people who continued to practice polygamy during that time. They also were persecuted, interrogated, and potentially killed. Many who practiced polygamy had to go underground. One notable example of a polygamous purge led by a government is England. Are you aware that England, in 1604 to 1862, passed a law that would sentence polygamous couples to death? More so, they would be convicted as felons, tried, then killed just for the man having multiple wives! After 1862, they softened the measure to just a man being convicted, separated from all wives except the first.

    What did God say in all this regarding marriage: “Thou shalt not cast them asunder!” But did you cast them asunder? Of course! All believers of monogamic marriages do!

    My ancestor, Quanah Parker, was a polygamous man. He married wives. Did you know what Quanah did when Jesuits came to him? He ignored them. He refused to listen to them. He stood against the “authority” of the Jesuits, refused to cast aside his wives, and stood by them. No man could cast Quanah and his wives asunder because he was smart.

    Yeah, David… It seems you are very totally ignorant of what marriage truly meant in God’s eyes. While I don’t appreciate Bowers’ very heavy-handed sarcastic and contemptuous attitude, I do acknowledge the validity of her arguments, despite the errors she’s made that I listed.

    1. Texan Polygynist wrote: “In the ancient world, polygamy was paramount as it was essential to survival. Monogamy does not cause a family to thrive in the ancient world.”

      You are making my point for me when you go to pre-industrial civilizations to make your case for polygamy. Before societies were civilized, they were polygamous. Monogamy led to civilized societies.

      You surmise that polygyny made families better able to fight? What did they do, hide behind their women and children? I am highly skeptical of such speculation.

      Texan Polygynist wrote: “Name me one empire that has encouraged monogamy before Rome. None, I’ll bet.”

      You would lose that bet. The Grecian empire encouraged monogamy.

      “Moving on to the Greco-Roman world, elite polygyny looms large in the Homeric
      tradition. By the historical period, by contrast, SIUM was firmly established as the only
      legitimate marriage system: polygamy was considered a barbarian custom or a mark of tyranny
      and monogamy was regarded as quintessentially “Greek.” However, SIUM co-existed with
      concubinage even for married men: as far as we can tell, they were supposed to draw the line at
      cohabitation, which was considered inappropriate.”
      http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/060807.pdf

      Even prior to that, the law of the Hebrew people is what first established monogamy. It was by reference to the Hebrew law that the Rabbi Jesus made the case for monogamy as being the original and appropriate form of marriage. Subsequent to the adoption of monogamy, societies became civilized and prosperous.

  3. Gotta laugh…

    Always Wrong didn’t understand the comment about flyshit and pepper.

    Better watch such subtleties in the future, Olly!

    1. Wadewilliams – here all week. Be sure to tip your waitress.

  4. Paul,
    I understood the point you were making and I was reflecting on the insignificance of the error.

  5. http://youtu.be/OFkeKKszXTw

    Mrs.Bowers, the nation’s best Christian besides the Duggars, will explain traditional marriage. A little bit of incest is not against God’s will, it helped create the human race afterall, no? Adam and Eve sons had to enter into traditional marriage with their mom, it seems.

  6. Who knows, Olly…

    Maybe the know-it-all will begin to fact check himself before making flyshit up.

  7. Always Wrong

    Ireland pop. 4.5 million
    Maricopa county pop. 4 million

    2013 stats

    1. Wadewilliams and Olly – my bad. I read registered voters for total population. Nice to know that Wade is back to fact check me. I feel lonely when he isn’t here trying to annoy me.

  8. I’m forced to pay my taxes for war [which most people describe as inevitable or necessary or just] and that violates my conscience about a trillion times more than gay marriage does.

  9. Annie,
    If you haven’t read the Federalist article I posted above then you would mistake “meltdown” for a concern over vanishing rights. If this issue was just about marriage then some legal resolution would easily be found but this is not JUST about marriage. This is about forcing people to recognize as ‘good’ something that violates one’s conscience.

  10. Oh my, it’s not even the U.S. and some are already having a meltdown.

  11. Oh my gosh, an entire nation of 3.2 million registered voters.The same nation that would like the rest of the EU to share in their debt. Yeah, that’s the voice of reason and self-reliance we need. Go equality! Go lowest common denominator! Go race to the bottom!

    1. Olly – Maricopa County, AZ has a larger population than Ireland.

  12. DavidM, “Gay marriage is not a human rights issue. Never before in history have gays expressed interest in marriage. Marriage has always been an institution about the male and female bonding together, resulting in reproduction, the creation of families and the new relationships that come from that, and the property rights that come from that. ”

    The history of marriage is one of politics and power and property rights. The procreation aspects relate to property rights and inheritance of titles and estates.

    I agree that gay marriage is not a human rights issue. The human rights issue is the ability to partner with anyone you choose, gays have that right. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. If marriage were something only for the church, it wouldn’t be a civil rights issue, it would be a religious issue. Fact is, marriage is a civil issue in that marriages are recorded with the state. There are many state provisions that are tied to marriage. If you marry in the church and the religious person doesn’t record the marriage with the state, you are not entitled to claim to the state that you are married, you are a single person. This affects taxes, insurance, inheritance, access to your partner in the hospital, and a host of other privileges that state recognized marriage provides.

    There is undoubtedly a fair amount of promiscuity among homosexuals, as there is among heterosexuals, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t a very large number of homosexual relationships that are as loyal and loving and enduring as heterosexual relationships.

    Why haven’t homosexuals expressed an interest in marriage? Probably because they have been kept powerless and voiceless by the homophobic. The drag queens got tired of being beat up by the cops at Stonewall. They got tired of being treated as second class citizens as their friends died of AIDS. They felt the pain as their partners lay dying in a hospital and they couldn’t visit because they weren’t “family”. As gays united to demand some power over their own situation, the desire of some for marriage became a possibility and thus the demand for civil equality.

    Those with privilege rarely recognize their privilege and how the lack of it hurts those without.

    Your marriage has as much meaning as you choose to give it. It should not be dependent on who else can marry.

  13. No Olly, I truly did not know who you were directing your comment to, me or old nurse. And why would I reverse myself on so called “natural rights”? Until I’m given uncontroversial proof that they exist, I stand by by opinion. You are free to express yours. Thank you democracy. In the meantime we’ve seen an entire nation vote for equality, it’s a great day.

  14. I wasn’t confused and neither were you. You knew full well that post was directed at you which is why you responded. The fact you, I. Annie have not denied the accuracy of my claim that you do not believe in inalienable rights is again unsurprising. You and those that believe like you are not moving society forward towards “a more perfect union” but rather regressing us to a time where we will once again have to fight for full recognition of our natural rights.

    That is such a wonderful legacy you will have for yourself.

  15. Olly, in order to not confuse,it’s a good idea to mention the commenters name that you are directing your comment to, especially if a discussion is moving swiftly.

  16. You should have that hunch looked at. The post was in reference to your post just above it. But then again I’m certain you knew that.

Comments are closed.