The Economist: The case for gay marriage

Yoda

From The Economist

The case for gay marriage

It rests on equality, liberty and even society

SO AT last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely “Massachusetts liberal” opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be worse than that: Mr Bush must actually believe in what he is doing.

Mr Bush says that he is acting to protect “the most fundamental institution of civilisation” from what he sees as “activist judges” who in Massachusetts early this month confirmed an earlier ruling that banning gay marriage is contrary to their state constitution. The city of San Francisco, gay capital of America, has been issuing thousands of marriage licences to homosexual couples, in apparent contradiction to state and even federal laws. It can only be a matter of time before this issue arrives at the federal Supreme Court. And those “activist judges”, who, by the way, gave Mr Bush his job in 2000, might well take the same view of the federal constitution as their Massachusetts equivalents did of their state code: that the constitution demands equality of treatment. Last June, in Lawrence v Texas, they ruled that state anti-sodomy laws violated the constitutional right of adults to choose how to conduct their private lives with regard to sex, saying further that “the Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code”. That obligation could well lead the justices to uphold the right of gays to marry.

Let them wed

That idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only two countries—Belgium and the Netherlands—have given full legal status to same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea in principle and others have conferred almost-equal rights on such partnerships. The sight of homosexual men and women having wedding days just like those enjoyed for thousands of years by heterosexuals is unsettling, just as, for some people, is the sight of them holding hands or kissing. When The Economist first argued in favour of legalising gay marriage eight years ago (“Let them wed”, January 6th 1996) it shocked many of our readers, though fewer than it would have shocked eight years earlier and more than it will shock today. That is why we argued that such a radical change should not be pushed along precipitously. But nor should it be blocked precipitously.

The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else? Not just because they have always lacked that right in the past, for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American states it was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but precious few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was “traditional”. Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but cannot, on this argument, be “married”. But that is to dodge the real question—why not?—and to obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one another, and to society, then why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?

Civil unions are not enough

The reason, according to Mr Bush, is that this would damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought social damage.

But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, it often is, but not always, and permitting gay marriage would not alter that. Or it is a religious act, say others: to which the answer is, yes, you may believe that, but if so it is no business of the state to impose a religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for religious ends.

The importance of marriage for society's general health and stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage—a so-called civil union—is not enough. Vermont has created this notion, of a legally registered contract between a couple that cannot, however, be called a “marriage”. Some European countries, by legislating for equal legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved in the same direction (Britain is contemplating just such a move, and even the opposition Conservative leader, Michael Howard, says he would support it). Some gays think it would be better to limit their ambitions to that, rather than seeking full social equality, for fear of provoking a backlash—of the sort perhaps epitomised by Mr Bush this week.

Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society. Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn't everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would threaten a fundamental institution of civilisation.

Hairy Homer

Graham Norton put it very well on his TV show over the weekend.

'George Bush wants to outlaw a situation where gay adults commit to each other in a loving exclusive long-term relationship and go back to a situation where they'e out shagging a different man every night.

Mmm. I'm on your side George'

Or words to that effect.

dr_manhattan

...I hope that comment wasn't supposed to be taken seriously: yours, that is, rather than Mr. Norton, who actually, you might notice, never says anything that's meant to be taken seriously.

Graham Norton has also made some valid comments about relationships being bad enough without the prospect of alimony. And for people who share his view, that's fine.

But graham norton is neither making a comment seriosuly nor do his views represent those of all gay people. So like I say I hope you're kidding. A mate of mine from the US once described Graham Norton as "like some kind of queer uncle tom" - and I get what he meant.

Mr. Norton has never said a single thing that would make anyone uncomfortable about anything (unless you hate hearing stories about vacuum cleaners getting stuck up someone's arse) - and that's why he's so damn successful. And I wish him the best of luck.

But to my mind, it's a simple thing: I cannot think of a SINGLE valid reason that any gay person who wants to should not marry. I myself do not really wish to marry, but if someone said I could not, I'd imagine I'd want to.

George Bush is a sick, sick man who is trying to make the next election about family values and issues of social trivia, cos it's the only way he has a snowball's chance of being allowed to continue lying and stealing for another 4 years.

In the year 2004, gay marriage should not be an issue of ANY description - as the article correctly states, anyone who suggested a "mixed race" couple should not marry would be labled a neanderthal bigot, and rightly so. But up until recently the law in the US said they couldn't: however if illegalising "inter-racial" marriage was a vote catcher, you can bet Dubya would be playing ball there, too. His family's track record in the area of trading with the nazis is interesting, too, in the licght of his "new world order"

I wish him all the problems he can get, and every failure.

ixoy

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
I wish him all the problems he can get, and every failure.

Well stated. I hated Dubya already, but when he announced that he wanted to ammend the constitution to ban gay marriage, the hatred turned into an actual boiling physical loathing of the guy. It's sickening bigotry by the world's most powerful man, a shocking concept. Even the conservate American populace are balking at his facist like proposals. If I understand it correctly, currently the US does not - for any nation wide laws attaining to marriage - recognise the concept of gay marriage. So a gay marriage, even if ratified in the state of Massachussets, is not recognised at a nationwide level and - furthermore- does not have to recognised by any state outside of Massachussets. What Bush wants to do is actually make it a ban, prohibit marriage at even a state level. Imagine this was a racial issue - we'd see him for the black-hearted dictator that he his. I spit on him and his polices, and wish him a painful way the presidential door later this year.

dr_manhattan

heh - at the risk of turning this thread into a bush hatefest, just a quick one:

You're 100% on point regarding dubya's decrees. And I have to say, with all the complaints about violence on TV, janet jackson's stray boob**, quentin tarantino making people commit crime, and HipHop making everyone into a criminal, WHY is it that, in 2004 (the 21st century for crying out loud) I can see an out and out BIGOT speak on TV to MILLIONS and effectively say "the buck stops here: we are not giving these people any illusions, we think they are WRONG and we want the law to reflect this"

...and nobody worries about "messages the youth are recieving"?

Let's take an example: let's say george michael (as a well known gay man) was to produce material as explicit and as aimed at kids as say, britney spears' catalogue. Or lets say he was to release "dirty" by christina aguilera, with an equally dumb video with equally unmistakeable sexual overtones: he would never get the airplay.

Everybody seems to think that sex, as long as it's boy-girl or girl-boy, is problem free. But as soon as it's boy-boy or girl-girl, suddenly it might be "problematic", or send "the wrong messages". Or be (one of my favourites) "unsuitable".

I really think we have to think about this, and realise that we are dealing with issues of second class citizenship. Because no matter how comfortable Graham Norton makes us feel about it, this situation is NOT acceptable, and our children will ask us (I hope) about what we did back in the days of the great oppression, what we did to help equality, and we will only be able to answer "well I watched graham norton and he was hilarious"

Many may see this as melodrama, but I have to say this: if you accept this crapola about marriage being between men and women only, then every gay man or woman that dies as a result of anti-gay violence is partially your fault. Don't make me list a whole bunch of statistics about how homosexuals are STILL being murdered all over the world for what they are, because I'd rather not depress myself on a monday morning.

Okay, rant over - but another yet to come ;-)





**now THAT is nuts: you know howard stern has been sacked this month in an atmosphere of clearchannel doing a "moral audit" of it's stations' output? Apparently janet's boob has meant that all US stations are involved in "toning down content" - wtf? I mean, I HATE howard stern, but either he's a moneymaker or he's not: you can't make a fortune out of him for 15 years and then say "oh wait! Howard, you're WRONG! I never noticed, but you're a bit of a bastard aren't ya?"

Even the Osbournes: make a million quid out of showing a damaged ex drug addict and his dysfunctional family. Fair enough. But then make it acceptable by bleeping the cuss words and blurring the gestures? What, do we think kids are stupid? Or do we think it's okay to point and go "haha, look at the speed freak, his liver is ****ed and he can't control his spoiled kids"?

And gay marriage is somehow lacking in moral fibre? Only in the US of A, hmm?

Yoda

Right so. The question is: what is being done about ensuring that every Irish citizen has the same rights as every other?

dr_manhattan

Whoa, stright to the point, huh, Yoda?

Well, basically, i could make a feeble, whingey liberal list of all the activities I've organised or petitions I've helped with regard to equality legislation, but that list would end about 6 years ago, and anyways, I honestly don't think it helped many people as much as it eased my liberal conscience, haha. The campaign for information, for example, may have been a help for womens' rights and reproductive rights, but it may not: we may have damaged as much as we helped.

So my answer has to be: "very little" - apart from the odd bit of free work for organisations I support, I personally do sweet **** all to help with the good fight: unless you count having blazing rows about it in the pub ;-) - but that's probably about as useful as goofing off at work posting rants online LOL

Any ideas for someone who'd gladly help campaign for gay marriage? I'm open to suggestions and I have no idea what's being done in this country... too much time with me head buried in the sand, haha.

ixoy

Well the Constitution says nothing about marriage being necessarily between a man and a wife. The appropriate pieces, from Article 41, reads:

Article 41
1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that
i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,
ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.
3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.`

Marriage appears to be defined around a family unit. However, it uses the terms "spouse" and does not define gender whereas the US Constitution does. So from this is there some piece of legislation actually forbidding gay marriages with our legal framework??

yellum

Good list of benefits here:

http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-list.html

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
...I hope that comment wasn't supposed to be taken seriously: yours, that is, rather than Mr. Norton, who actually, you might notice, never says anything that's meant to be taken seriously.

Graham Norton has also made some valid comments about relationships being bad enough without the prospect of alimony. And for people who share his view, that's fine.


He said it as a flippancy; I understood it as a flippancy and I posted it as a flippancy. I'm sure anybody who's familiar with Mr Norton's work would understand exactly where he's coming from. In fact, I'm surprised that anybody could have interpreted it any other way.

dr_manhattan

fair enough, HairyHomer, but in an atmosphere where heads of state can appear on TV and talk trash like dubya did, I think it's fair enough to be a bit cautious about whether or not someone's being serious: i've heard many people quote prominent gay people on various issues as if there's a gay consensus or something.

So yeah, sorry to come across as a bit serious, but it's not like there's no cause to think people are harbouring daft reasons to justify a gay marriage ban ;-)

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
[BI cannot think of a SINGLE valid reason that any gay person who wants to should not marry. [/B]

Seriously? Homosexual union endorsed by State and Church by ceremony would make a mockery of the whole point of marriage, ie .... that two people of opposite gender in a loving relationship form a stable family unit to conceive and raise children.

To argue that homosexuals should be allowed to marry is ridiculous.

dr_manhattan

where do I start?

first off, I think you're just trolling. But anyway:

"Homosexual union endorsed by State and Church by ceremony would make a mockery of the whole point of marriage"

Okay, nobody actually said "church" here, so you can drop that straight off: the church can fight it's own (losing) battle on this one, and it can throw out all its gay clergy while it's at it, thereby cutting off its (progressive, dynamic) nose to spite its (crumbling, authoritarian) face.

So anyway: you say this, yet infertile couples are allowed to marry: is that a similar "mockery"? Answer "yes" or "no" with some supporting reasons please.

next then:

" .... that two people of opposite gender in a loving relationship form a stable family unit to conceive and raise children."

Okay, as has already been posted - nowhere in *our* constitution does it say "of opposite gender". So you can go live in the US as far as that's concerned.

Also, NOWHERE mentions "a loving relationship" - and given that for hundreds of years, teen and pre-pubescent women were forcibly married to men tens of years their senior, to have kids until they died of it, WAS marriage, I defy you to show me where this is written: marriage has about as much to do with love as anything - it's all down to the people in the marriage. That's why we have this crazy thing called "divorce" - or are you opposed to that, too?

Damn, I could nitpick the rest of that sentence, but I'm not bothered: instead, I want you to show me where this is written in the law of THIS state: you homophobes need to learn your lessons in terms of legality. Until you can show me what you just wrote in the constitution, I'm not interested in your droning.

Also, last time I looked, as I said above, people who are infertile, disabled, or too old to bear children are allowed to marry. These people are also allowed to ADOPT children and are trusted to raise them despite not having ever conceived them: so why not gay people? Once again, I want reasons and a fully supported answer: otherwise you're just blowing hot air like the rest of the 'phobeys.

So again, is a childless union a "mockery" of marriage? May I enquire as to your marital status and children?

And just to save time, in case you give me the tired "gay people cannot raise kids" routine: I'm sorry, but they can, and have, despite their being discriminated against. And if you're going to say they'll raise "gay kids", then all I can say is: So ****ing what? And anyways, straight parents raise gay kids all the time, so why can't gay parents raise straight kids? I mean, who really cares anyway?

and finally, your piece de resistance:

"To argue that homosexuals should be allowed to marry is ridiculous"

Why? To argue that ANYONE should not be allowed to marry by consensual agreement is much, much more ridiculous. I want you to reply stating all your reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, because, believe it or not, YOU are the one who has to prove otherwise: do you believe that anyone else "should not" marry? And if not, why are gay people singled out by you?

In short: what is your problem?

But like I say, you're probably just another trolling student: so to use your dialect, I'll just say "what-everrrr"

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
where do I start?


" you homophobes need to learn your lessons in terms of legality."


"otherwise you're just blowing hot air like the rest of the 'phobeys."

Hey.......... how dare you accuse me of being homophobic. I would be justified in PM'ing a mod of this forum to have you warned. It seems people like you cannot enter into debate with another that disagrees with your opinion without resorting to insult and labelling. If I were to debate immigration issues, the likes of you would accuse me of being a racist with a capital "R".

Anyway, to address your points:
My reference to "Church" was just that. No adjective ....... I didn't say THE church. I had thought "church" would have been construed and understood as (any) religion especially when used in conjunction with the word "ceremony".

With reference to infertile couples, I am sure that you will agree that the majority of such affected pairings only discover their misfortune after the event (the marriage) It's not as if an infertile man says " I gotta find me a barren woman so we can look forward to a childless future together".

Where did I mention the constitutionality of "opposite gender" or "loving relationship"? I was giving my own opinion. I never claimed that MY opinion was enshrined in the Irish constitution. And, your reference to pre-pubescent girls being forcibly married to older men is nothing but an anachronism in the present Western society, so don't be ridiculous by bringing that up.





You have asked me to explain my "piece de resistance" ..... your words. That was a summary of my opening paragraph of that particular post. BTW., you are, I know, aware of my age from a previous debate on another subjecy. A "trolling student" aged 49????

Yoda

Ixoy said
Well the Constitution says nothing about marriage being necessarily between a man and a wife. The appropriate pieces, from Article 41, reads:

Marriage appears to be defined around a family unit. However, it uses the terms "spouse" and does not define gender whereas the US Constitution does. So from this is there some piece of legislation actually forbidding gay marriages with our legal framework??

This has been discussed on this forum in the thread Non-Heterosexual Marriage and the Irish Constitution. Certainly the forms one is to fill out to get married don't ask about the sex of the persons applying for the licence. I really wonder if it is specifically forbidden in Irish law. If not, then it's legal. But that will require a test case.

Yoda

Pro-Gnostic-8,

Maybe you think that "the whole point of marriage" is to conceive and raise children. Not all heterosexual people marry in order to conceive and raise children, however. Many prefer not to. Many cannot do so. Either way, all of those people (the married-with-children, the married-without-children, and the married-but-childless) are able to avail of a contract with the State which protects their rights in the even of the death of their partner; which allows them to avail of taxation and other benefits; which honours their commitment to live together as lifelong partners by conferring upon them not only rights but responsibilities.

People whose partnerships consist of two people of the same sex are currently not permitted these rights and responsibilities in Ireland, and this is needless and pernicious discrimination which causes harm to the people who are discriminated against. Surely that is against the aims of the State, which must needs care for all of its citizens.

ykt0di9url7bc3

Originally posted by Yoda

Maybe you think that "the whole point of marriage" is to conceive and raise children. Not all heterosexual people marry in order to conceive and raise children, however. Many prefer not to. Many cannot do so. Either way, all of those people (the married-with-children, the married-without-children, and the married-but-childless) are able to avail of a contract with the State which protects their rights in the even of the death of their partner; which allows them to avail of taxation and other benefits; which honours their commitment to live together as lifelong partners by conferring upon them not only rights but responsibilities.

nail, hammer, head

Yoda

By the way, in response to something Dr Manhattan said:

The US Constitution does not specify the gender of two people who may marry. That is what Bush wants to introduce to the Constitution.

ixoy

Originally posted by Yoda
By the way, in response to something Dr Manhattan said:

The US Constitution does not specify the gender of two people who may marry. That is what Bush wants to introduce to the Constitution.

But it does specify, does it not, what they currently believe the term "marriage" to mean - two people of opposite sex - when applying to national laws using the term "marriage".

Yoda

Please cite text from the US Constitution if you are going to make claims about it.

sceptre

Originally posted by ixoy
But it does specify, does it not, what they currently believe the term "marriage" to mean - two people of opposite sex - when applying to national laws using the term "marriage".

No it doesn't.

Here's the text

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Yoda


People whose partnerships consist of two people of the same sex are currently not permitted these rights and responsibilities in Ireland

Unfortunately, the alternative would entail the Legislature indicating its approval and blessing in ceremony or ritual to an activity of a sexual kind that a considerable percentage of the populace still views as "unnatural".

oscarBravo

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Unfortunately, the alternative would entail the Legislature indicating its approval and blessing in ceremony or ritual to an activity of a sexual kind that a considerable percentage of the populace still views as "unnatural".

I'm sure the same argument was used against legalising inter-racial marriages in some parts of the USA in the last century.

dr_manhattan

okay, first off, pro gnostic_8:

I called you a homophobe because you were (and still are) being homophobic. You say gay marriage is "a mockery" and "ridiculous" - if someone, in connection with immigration, were to suggest that marrying an immigrant was making "a mockery" of marriage, then yes, yes, YES they would be being racist too. Accept it, capital 'R' or not.

My apologies for assuming that, with somewhat unrefined attitudes to sexuality and morality, you were a student, or young in some way. To be honest, I think you should be ashamed of yourself at 49, what have gay people ever done to you that you feel the need to rubbish their lifestyles?

PM a mod if you want: fact is, I deliberately baited you by calling you a homophobe because I am sick of people like you treating homosexuals like some kind of freaks (yes, you did say "unnatural", "ridiculous" and "a mockery") and then running for cover when someone tells you what you are: exactly the same thing happens when people call an ethnic minority "dirty" and then get all shocked when they're called a racist.

So stop trying to pretend you're being reasonable here, and either answer my questions or leave me alone: I reiterate those questions:

why do you say homosexuals marrying is ridiculous?

why is your restrictive idea of what marriage is (what was it again, loving, reproductive, opposite gender?) relevant in this debate? The only restrictions on marriage that are relevant (thank god) are the legal ones: your definitions don't matter, because they don't stop people marrying, the LAW does.

Can you give me one reason why gay people should not marry?

And a new question, based on your last post:

"Unfortunately, the alternative would entail the Legislature indicating its approval and blessing in ceremony or ritual to an activity of a sexual kind that a considerable percentage of the populace still views as "unnatural"."

A 'percentage', eh? So, here's some questions:

Do you find this "activity of a sexual kind" unnatural?

If so, why don't you just say it instead of hiding behind a "percentage of the population"?

Can you tell us what this "percentage" is? and why it should be listened to?

Many people think cosmetic suregery is "unnatural" and a "mockery", too - and it's certainly more dangerous. Should it be banned because of your opinions?

Also, you said:
" With reference to infertile couples, I am sure that you will agree that the majority of such affected pairings only discover their misfortune after the even"

The majority, yes. So for those other marriages, are they a mockery or ridiculous? Is the sex within those marriages, never for porcreative purposes, unnatural?

And finally: celibate gay couples exist. Contrary to what people like you think, sexuality isn't all about 24 hour a day ****ing. So if gay couples were to not have this "unnatural" sex, would their marriage be acceptable then? Would it be acceptable for gay celibates to marry?

I doubt it, because the whole issue of allowing gays to marry is an issue of either accepting gays as equal or refusing to accept that people who live differently to you have the same rights as you. And you seem to think it's fine to describe these people as "unnatural" and "a mockery" so I'm guessing they're not okay by you.

Did you even look at the reasons for marriage that were posted earlier?

Nobody cares about your ceremonies of church approval, fact is I'm sure once gay marriage is allowed then the ceremonies can be tailored to suit the marriage, just like heteros change their vows to suit them. Capisc?

dr_manhattan

PS - just to illustrate here, I think I'll post some of my uncompromising views on marriage:

I don't think materialist idiots should marry. I think it makes a mockery of marriage when self obsssed idiots, with their greedy, sucking ways and suburban aspersions on everyone else, decide to marry because it's a quick way to get free stuff from their family and friends, and gain acceptance - respect even - from their community.

With their materialist aspirations, usually the sex that idiots have will be a "mockery" of sex, based on what they find in glossy magazines and on the TV, somewhat lacking in feeling, in order to make the man and woman feel adequately sexed around their peers. I would even describe it as "unnatural".

Forced to eke an ethical subsistence in this suburban den of avarice and fear, their children often grow up twisted, materialistic bullies, unable to give voice to the feelings of suffocation they feel as their parents attempt to live through them, constantly grooming them for careers or interests that they think will reflect well on their marriage.

I strongly feel that making sure these empty people shouldn't marry or reproduce: I think a lot of people would agree with me, and know at least one axample of this.

But why the hell should anyone listen to my opinion? There's nothing in the law about it, there's nothing to support my views except the irrational feeling I have that I am right, and my views should govern anyone.



this post has been sponsored by sarcasm, irony, and the very real need for thought about what other people can and can't do ;-)

Yoda

Right so. The question is: what is being done about ensuring that every Irish citizen has the same rights as every other?

ixoy

Originally posted by sceptre
No it doesn't.

Here's the text

Right, I misinterpreted the source. What I'm referring to is the Defense of Marriage Act 1996 (here ) which defines marriage as:

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

As stated in the source:
It ensures that whatever definition of "spouse" may be used in Federal law, the
word refers only to a person of the opposite sex.

It's not moulded into the Constitution, but it is using the Constitution to say that Congree can ensure that one state's definition of marriage does not have to upheld in another state.

Yoda

Lovely. Now, is there anything in Irish legislation which does the same thing? Bunreacht na hÉireann doesn't. The marriage application forms don't.

Zombrex

To me marriage is the state and society formally recongising a committed union between two people.

In the past this union was done for a number of reason, mostly to provide children (heirs) for the man and his wealth, and also to provide union of power between two familys. None of that is relivent these days.

I believe that today marriage is about finding a "life partner", someone who will love, support and care for you for your life (of course i am for divorce, you pick the wrong person you should be able to start again). I think it is important that the state reconginise and support this relationship, in the same way it is important to fill in the "Contact in Emergency" part in the back of your passport. Marriage is about formally letting another person into your life, to represent you.

Now to the point. I do not believe it is the state's responsibility to tell you who is you life partner, or more importantly to tell you who isn't your life partner. No one should be able to tell you who is acceptable for you to marry (except of course your over bearing mother )

If someone does not understand someones love for another person, that is not justification to deny it.

{edit} forgot to say, we accept that two people love each other, when they tell us they do. There is no test to see if they actually are in love.

ixoy

Found it I think! Right, there's a new bill out - Civl Registration Bill - which basically ammends who can marry. The relevant section for this discussion would appear to be 51.2:

(2) A registered solemniser shall not solemnise a marriage
unless—
(a) both parties to the marriage are present,
(b) two persons professing to be 18 years or over are present as
witnesses,
(c) the place where the solemnisation takes place is open to the
public, and
(d) he or she is satisfied that the parties to the marriage understand
the nature of the marriage ceremony and the declarations
specified in subsection (4).

Now we need to look at 51.2.2(d) and we can see that there are particular declarations that are specified. These are:

(4) The declarations referred to in subsection (3) are—
(a) a declaration by the parties to the marriage in the presence
of—
(i) each other,
(ii) the registered solemniser who is solemnising the marriage,
and
(iii) the two witnesses to the solemnisation,
to the effect that he or she does not know of any impediment
to the marriage, and
(b) a declaration by the parties to the marriage in the presence
of—
(i) each other,
(ii) the registered solemniser who is solemnising the marriage,
and
(iii) the two witnesses to the solemnisation,
to the effect that they accept each other as husband and
wife.

It seems to be defining a legal marriage as that between two parties that would form a husband and wife unit. Now there doesn't seem to be a definition here of husband and wife, but I imagine a court ruling could say that the definition is a known one...

Yoda

This is alarming.