Marriage Now Fabulous, SCOTUS Rules for Same Sex Marriage

[Risottia]

is it over.dear god is it over,it was horrible, i will never ever talk about gay marriage or ANYTHING controversial again,it's a death wish,A DEATH WISH

Yet you're still posting.

Let's give The Celtic Britihs Isles a hearty Welcome to Hotel California, folks.

[Risottia]

Of course, Ireland previous banned abortion under all circumstances by popular referendum and it took our courts to permit them when necessary to save women's lives.

To save the lives of the unborn, of an electorate half of whom are women.

Well, this proves Ireland isn't ready for women voting

[Ifreann]

Of course, Ireland previous banned abortion under all circumstances by popular referendum and it took our courts to permit them when necessary to save women's lives.

To save the lives of the unborn, of an electorate half of whom are women.

Yes. We voted away the rights of half our population out of a nonsensical concern for the rights to life of the unborn.

The Irish referendums in 1992 also highlight that the views of the Irish people were changing, voting by popular referendum to not allow the state's pro-life stance to infringe on a woman's ability to travel to the UK or elsewhere for an abortion.

Yet it was the courts in the X Case that ruled that women's right to life must also be protected and vindicated by the state. Which successive governments failed utterly to do until recently, and if not for the courts they still would not be doing, and never would until and unless the 8th Amendment it repealed.

Enlightened despots are not needed in democracy, too often the powers they accrue fall into the hands of despots of less favourable dispositions.

And too often the whims of the electorate are not favourable to the rights of all the people of the nation.

---

Of course, Ireland previous banned abortion under all circumstances by popular referendum and it took our courts to permit them when necessary to save women's lives.

I find it quite pleasing that the Irish people are telling the RCC to bugger off.

The marriage equality referendum was a nice start, certainly.

[Divitaen]

Of course, Ireland previous banned abortion under all circumstances by popular referendum and it took our courts to permit them when necessary to save women's lives.

To save the lives of the unborn, of an electorate half of whom are women. The Irish referendums in 1992 also highlight that the views of the Irish people were changing, voting by popular referendum to not allow the state's pro-life stance to infringe on a woman's ability to travel to the UK or elsewhere for an abortion. Enlightened despots are not needed in democracy, too often the powers they accrue fall into the hands of despots of less favourable dispositions.

Referendums on civil rights are just bullshit.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that RIGHTS are RIGHTS. They always exist, it doesn't matter what the majority of the populace thinks. And so what about abortion? How is abortion even supposed to be a debate? If I was tied up to you through a machine, my fluids and my blood being constantly transferred to support you, do I have to stay hooked up or do I have the right to unhook and possibly kill you? I mean seriously, we're talking about a foetus growing inside an intimate, personal and private part of a woman's body, you don't think the woman ought to have the final say on something growing and expanding within her??

Ridiculous. So what you're telling me is that Irish referendums were used to strip women of their rights to bodily autonomy, clarifying that women with unwanted pregnancies should go suck it and remain mindless baby-making machines. And this is an example of a need for full democracy? I'm glad no nation is a full democracy. This is just another example of democracy run amok, that's why we need constitutional restrictions.

[Des-Bal]

So this is wrong. I'm going to avoid going point by point because my doctor and lawyer agree that I should stop making myself angry and go to the central premise: when faced with opposition we should give up. That's all you are saying. You are saying that people don't like this, people may respond negatively or violently to it, and therefore we should give up. That's not how it works. If it's just and necessary you do it and then you declare that the first, last, and every motherfucker in between who tries to go outside the law to express their displeasure of it is getting sent to prison.

I'm not going to go against advice of council but just to illuminate you on the cultural acceptance of gay marriage:

We are now at about 60% approval for gay marriage. Saying that we aren't ready for gay marriage now is like saying we weren't ready for interracial marriage in 2000. If Loving v. Virginia didn't start an apocalyptic race war gay marriage is going to pass like a fart in a hurricane.

[Napkiraly]

"I don't believe in forcing things on people in places where the majority oppose it".

Man you'd have been fun to have around during desegregation.

Also do you think the overwhelmingly Democratic states should refuse to accept and enforce laws by a Republican held Congress? Or vice versa?

[Laerod]

I'm fine with it being forced. Democracy is okay, but Democracy needs to be checked, and some things should be above a simple popular vote.

A dangerous, stupid, idiotic precedent.

It's not really a precedent. Loving v. Virginia was.

[Ifreann]

A dangerous, stupid, idiotic precedent.

It's not really a precedent. Loving v. Virginia was.

Have Americans ever had their rights put to the popular vote?

[Divitaen]

It's not really a precedent. Loving v. Virginia was.

Have Americans ever had their rights put to the popular vote?

Yeah. And we got Proposition 8.

[Ifreann]

Have Americans ever had their rights put to the popular vote?

Yeah. And we got Proposition 8.

I was thinking your constitutional rights. Like, what was the turnout on ratifying your bill of rights? Or the Constitution itself? Or even the Articles of Confederation?

[Divitaen]

Yeah. And we got Proposition 8.

I was thinking your constitutional rights. Like, what was the turnout on ratifying your bill of rights? Or the Constitution itself? Or even the Articles of Confederation?

Proposition 8 was a constitutional right. Marriage equality is a constitutional right. But yeah I totally agree with your point, something like the Constitution's human rights aren't up for a popular debate and referendum.

[Thessalonaik]

To save the lives of the unborn, of an electorate half of whom are women.

Well, this proves Ireland isn't ready for women voting

Lel, no one is - we do our best

Yes. We voted away the rights of half our population out of a nonsensical concern for the rights to life of the unborn.

Pardon, but that is just your opinion that the lives of the unborn have no right to live, one that the ROI disagreed with - only making the exception where the risk of death was concerned. A compromise on pragmatism in line with their morals, just as I suspect the 1992 referendums were.

Yet it was the courts in the X Case that ruled that women's right to life must also be protected and vindicated by the state. Which successive governments failed utterly to do until recently, and if not for the courts they still would not be doing, and never would until and unless the 8th Amendment it repealed.

Which I do not dispute did happen, so too did the referendums - the one demanding that risk of suicide be removed as grounds of justification for abortion failed, the ones that allowed women to freely travel to England for an abortion there was passed. All from the choices of the people. As was said by the OP of this thread in that some states were not ready for gay marriage, the ROI was and is not ready for abortion laws on a par with the UK. But their people were moving in a direction you and I would find favourable, if slower than you'd like.

And too often the whims of the electorate are not favourable to the rights of all the people of the nation.

This is a fair enough point, but one that does not warrant or even justify giving more powers to increasingly unaccountable few.

Referendums on civil rights are just bullshit.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that RIGHTS are RIGHTS. They always exist, it doesn't matter what the majority of the populace thinks. And so what about abortion? How is abortion even supposed to be a debate? If I was tied up to you through a machine, my fluids and my blood being constantly transferred to support you, do I have to stay hooked up or do I have the right to unhook and possibly kill you? I mean seriously, we're talking about a foetus growing inside an intimate, personal and private part of a woman's body, you don't think the woman ought to have the final say on something growing and expanding within her??
Ridiculous. So what you're telling me is that Irish referendums were used to strip women of their rights to bodily autonomy, clarifying that women with unwanted pregnancies should go suck it and remain mindless baby-making machines. And this is an example of a need for full democracy? I'm glad no nation is a full democracy. This is just another example of democracy run amok, that's why we need constitutional restrictions.

I always find it disturbing when people reduce the miracle of life to such a mechanical process. It's like you've got one couple who describe their enamoured relationship as the ones who make love and another who procreate for reproduction and the propagation of their genetic material. It is in human nature to value ourselves beyond the sum of our components, and if there was a machine tied up to me, using my fluids and blood to create a son or daughter for me, I'd love it because that is metal as fuck. That is just my opinion; nevertheless I don't think you need to convince me as I am pro-choice and would like to see the ROI cease allowing abortion through loopholes and just make the process legal outright, and a lot less harmful. But I am also a progressive, and part of being a progressive means that I also believe that gradual, progressive changes will benefit a society more than revolutional leaps - which often cause more harm than good in the process.
I also agree with you on civil rights, but as I also live in a society where the majority argue away their civil rights citing their own civil rights. Things are complicated, as always.

[Wisconsin9]

Yeah. And we got Proposition 8.

I was thinking your constitutional rights. Like, what was the turnout on ratifying your bill of rights? Or the Constitution itself? Or even the Articles of Confederation?

I think that those were all written and voted on by guys chosen by the state governments.

[Vega II]

Grays have legalized same-gendered marriage for 1,308 Vegan years, or about 1,572 Earth years. We have so far had no problems with it, as marriage has not been linked to reproduction for the past 789 Earth years. We do congratulate this movement towards becoming a Type-I civilization.

[Divitaen]

Referendums on civil rights are just bullshit.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that RIGHTS are RIGHTS. They always exist, it doesn't matter what the majority of the populace thinks. And so what about abortion? How is abortion even supposed to be a debate? If I was tied up to you through a machine, my fluids and my blood being constantly transferred to support you, do I have to stay hooked up or do I have the right to unhook and possibly kill you? I mean seriously, we're talking about a foetus growing inside an intimate, personal and private part of a woman's body, you don't think the woman ought to have the final say on something growing and expanding within her??
Ridiculous. So what you're telling me is that Irish referendums were used to strip women of their rights to bodily autonomy, clarifying that women with unwanted pregnancies should go suck it and remain mindless baby-making machines. And this is an example of a need for full democracy? I'm glad no nation is a full democracy. This is just another example of democracy run amok, that's why we need constitutional restrictions.

I always find it disturbing when people reduce the miracle of life to such a mechanical process. It's like you've got one couple who describe their enamoured relationship as the ones who make love and another who procreate for reproduction and the propagation of their genetic material. It is in human nature to value ourselves beyond the sum of our components, and if there was a machine tied up to me, using my fluids and blood to create a son or daughter for me, I'd love it because that is metal as fuck. That is just my opinion; nevertheless I don't think you need to convince me as I am pro-choice and would like to see the ROI cease allowing abortion through loopholes and just make the process legal outright, and a lot less harmful. But I am also a progressive, and part of being a progressive means that I also believe that gradual, progressive changes will benefit a society more than revolutional leaps - which often cause more harm than good in the process.
I also agree with you on civil rights, but as I also live in a society where the majority argue away their civil rights citing their own civil rights. Things are complicated, as always.

Glad you agree about abortion as an issue. Of course I understand people have different opinions about when life begins, and I get that, but I'm glad you understand a woman's body is her choice and her choice only. All I have to say though is that as a social liberal, I too support democracy, I support the concept of popular sovereignty and national self-determination.

People should have a vote on their leaders, and they should vote on genuinely controversial policies like how much the education budget should be or what the tax rate ought to be. These things have no real right answer, its up to the public to decide. But you are talking about human rights here. The right of a homosexual couple to access an institution as part of their human dignity and equal worth and value in society is a basic and fundamental human right. The right of a woman to bodily sovereignty and to not be reduced to a mindless artificial womb is a fundamental human right. There are certain things, like racial equality, interracial marriage, sodomy laws, racial segregation, contraception access, these are things which shouldn't be controversial at all.

You never, ever, ever put human rights up for a vote. That's all.

[Ifreann]

Yes. We voted away the rights of half our population out of a nonsensical concern for the rights to life of the unborn.

Pardon, but that is just your opinion that the lives of the unborn have no right to live, one that the ROI disagreed with - only making the exception where the risk of death was concerned.

We did not make that exception. Our courts did. The X Case was not put to the popular vote.

A compromise on pragmatism in line with their morals, just as I suspect the 1992 referendums were.

And the popular morals of the day robbed women of their rights. I think that's awful. You seem to think it's ideal.

Yet it was the courts in the X Case that ruled that women's right to life must also be protected and vindicated by the state. Which successive governments failed utterly to do until recently, and if not for the courts they still would not be doing, and never would until and unless the 8th Amendment it repealed.

Which I do not dispute did happen, so too did the referendums - the one demanding that risk of suicide be removed as grounds of justification for abortion failed, the ones that allowed women to freely travel to England for an abortion there was passed. All from the choices of the people. As was said by the OP of this thread in that some states were not ready for gay marriage, the ROI was and is not ready for abortion laws on a par with the UK. But their people

My people.

were moving in a direction you and I would find favourable, if slower than you'd like.

So, what? Women should just quietly accept that their right to life is less important that people's personal feelings about precious little embryos?

And too often the whims of the electorate are not favourable to the rights of all the people of the nation.

This is a fair enough point, but one that does not warrant or even justify giving more powers to increasingly unaccountable few.

What new powers has the Supreme Court of the United States been given? How has their accountability changed in any way?

[Ifreann]

I was thinking your constitutional rights. Like, what was the turnout on ratifying your bill of rights? Or the Constitution itself? Or even the Articles of Confederation?

I think that those were all written and voted on by guys chosen by the state governments.

Then the precedent of people's rights not being subject to popular vote in the US goes back to its foundation. When exactly is the disaster due to befall them?

[Torisakia]

You're right, America isn't ready for gay marriage. Because there currently aren't enough wedding planners and engagement ring salespeople employed. We'll get right on fixing that.

[Divitaen]

I think that those were all written and voted on by guys chosen by the state governments.

Then the precedent of people's rights not being subject to popular vote in the US goes back to its foundation. When exactly is the disaster due to befall them?

To be fair that was a time when women and blacks couldn't vote, so not the best example of how a modern democracy should function. But yeah I definitely agree with the principle, democracy on everything but inalienable human rights.

[Xanama]

It is, it's been legalized and was already legal in 37 states.

[Hurdegaryp]

Title correction: Homophobes* are* not ready for gay marriage

Everyone else is glad it happened or at least neutral about it, the only ones that aren't ready for equality are the homophobes.

Also I find it disappointing that the OP honestly believes that many states in the USA are such hateful bastions of stark savagery that it is only to be expected that they will respond to societal progress with violent terrorism.

[Divitaen]

Title correction: Homophobes* are* not ready for gay marriage

Everyone else is glad it happened or at least neutral about it, the only ones that aren't ready for equality are the homophobes.

Also I find it disappointing that the OP honestly believes that many states in the USA are such hateful bastions of stark savagery that it is only to be expected that they will respond to societal progress with violent terrorism.

And more importantly, even if they DID, is that a reason to punish homosexuals? "Sorry, we want to give you your basic right to marriage equality, but we're gonna punish you for the fact that some bigots may want to kill you". What?!

[Ifreann]

Then the precedent of people's rights not being subject to popular vote in the US goes back to its foundation. When exactly is the disaster due to befall them?

To be fair that was a time when women and blacks couldn't vote, so not the best example of how a modern democracy should function. But yeah I definitely agree with the principle, democracy on everything but inalienable human rights.

Well that only reinforces my point. America was founded with with highly limited suffrage, and without people's constitutional rights being subject to the popular vote. Couple centuries of "tyranny" later and you've just legalised gay marriage. How awful, if only people's rights were subject to popular vote.

[Hurdegaryp]

To be fair that was a time when women and blacks couldn't vote, so not the best example of how a modern democracy should function. But yeah I definitely agree with the principle, democracy on everything but inalienable human rights.

Well that only reinforces my point. America was founded with with highly limited suffrage, and without people's constitutional rights being subject to the popular vote. Couple centuries of "tyranny" later and you've just legalised gay marriage. How awful, if only people's rights were subject to popular vote.

Which would be more like tyranny by majority. Mind you, popular vote managed to bring marriage equality to Ireland, so it's not always a matter of brutal mob rule. Sometimes true common decency takes control.

[Divitaen]

Well that only reinforces my point. America was founded with with highly limited suffrage, and without people's constitutional rights being subject to the popular vote. Couple centuries of "tyranny" later and you've just legalised gay marriage. How awful, if only people's rights were subject to popular vote.

Which would be more like tyranny by majority. Mind you, popular vote managed to bring marriage equality to Ireland, so it's not always a matter of brutal mob rule. Sometimes true common decency takes control.

I honestly don't care. I mean good job for Ireland but come on, should I be rejoicing that a matter of human rights was actually placed to a popular referendum? These rights should be prima facie, minorities shouldn't wait for the majority to gradually sit on the matter and slowly, slowly abandon their bigotry.

This is ridiculous. Its like putting on the ballot sheet "Should the government recognise homosexuals as equal in worth and dignity?". Even if the public eventually votes YES, it doesn't change how offensive it is that such a right was even placed up for a vote in the first place.