(I would note, there is no explicit right to marriage; but engaging with your culture, pursuing happiness, and starting a family, all indicate an implicit right - IF your culture includes marriage as a component. I would argue that marriage is a personal contract between two people, and the state has no business interfering with that personal contract - registering it to offer legal certainties to both parties is fine; telling people what they can or can not put in their marriage contract is not. Just as the state shouldn't interfere in any agreement you have with your church)

Good point. Don't go vote.

"I would argue that marriage is a personal contract between two people, and the state has no business interfering with that personal contract."

Perfectly said. That's why I disagree with lots of people who oppose gay marriage because their beliefs are against it. Even if it is "wrong," it's not the government's job to decide what's right or wrong for individual people. The thought of putting ketchup on cake is abhorrent to me, but I wouldn't want it outlawed, and if it was, I'd be first in line to vote to legalize it.

I think that it's clear to most of us that gay people should marry if they want, and I would hope it's clear to all of us that women should vote, racial minorities should vote, no one should be slaves, et cetera.

But they have these votes because people see it differently than me and perhaps you do. They think that the government should be a moral guardian of sorts, and that their interpretations of morality say that this minority might not actually have the right to do certain things. To expound into more of a devil's advocate argument, children under a certain age shouldn't vote, nor should they. Why? Because they are of lesser intelligence. At different times in history, and even now, people think that minorities, the other gender, or different sexualities are less intelligent, or in this case, simply lesser than their own, and thus shouldn't be given the same rights and opportunities.

I could explain why, but I'm not a psychologist, and even though I'm kind of a writer, doubt I could make it coherent. I think it has to do with self-righteousness, or maybe a resistance of change in favor of the stability of tradition, but hey, damned if I know.

The point is that, even for things that seem obvious to some, even unalienable rights, to ensure these things you need to work to get them. Maybe that's wrong, but it's how it is. Liberty often needs to be obtained through campaigning and legislation, if not all-out revolution.

From what I've read a referendum is sensible as it is the only way to secure a constitutional change that means gay marriage won't be at the whim of whichever party is in power. I think current govt could have passed law and then gone for ractification and embedding in constitution but as long as it passes it doesn't matter.

Whilst I haven't followed debate closely Orathaic, I understand from commentators that Ireland isn't the deeply religious country it was 20 years ago.

I'd agree with that Maniac, 20 years ago the was a divorce referendum, it passed by just over 9,000 votes ( out of 1.6 million votes cast ) also it rained in the rural areas ( which voted 2 to 1 against divorce ) and was sunny in the Capital ( which voted 2 to 1 in favour ) so the weather greatly affected the outcome.

But today nobody can imagine Ireland without divorce, and none of the terrible fears te no campaign thought up came true.

Likewise, i think if this ref passes, we'll see the fears were for nothing. And to invalidate people - by rejecting their right to pursue happiness - will have negative consequences for many of my friend's mental health.

As someone said to me last night, 'if the referendum fails, i will question how long it will be before i can feel safe walking down the street' ( a friend who i spent the night in A&E last month after they were attacked walking home, so you, has legitimate fears )

The fears that the No campaign have brought up vary from rubbish to outright lies. But i understand that it comes from a place of fear and disgust. They think being fucked in the arse by a man is icky. And they don't have empathy for people, they didn't grow up with positive experiences with LGBT+ people, they don't even see them as people but define them by this single sex act ( when infact gay men have a lot more sex acts which they enjoy, and also aspirations to be fully rounded people, with careers and families, and maybe even equality )

And i understand that they can't get over this disgust response. It is fundamental to our biology - it evolved for food, disgusting food will make us physically ill. And our moral sense has high-jacked this disgust response - because biology tries to be as lazy as possible and re-use systems like that.

People can literally feel physically sick thinking about gay sex, deep in their gut, because fundamentally they think it is icky.

And they don't see gay people as people. So this referendum has had the positive effect of revealing the level of homophobia in this country; it has caused cishet people to go out campaigning for their LGBT+ friends, and confronted an issue which has lain dormant in Ireland for decades.

These are all good things. Even if the referendum fails.

And it was great to see all the queues at dublin airport last night as irish citizens, who emmigrated for economic reasons, flew home to vote yes

@LeinadT - do you mind me asking where you are from? And i think i agree with you on most of what you said.

The biggest lie i've seen in this campaign is 'don't redefine marriage' - the divorce referendum redefined marriage in ireland. Every married couple had the terms of their marriage changed. You could vote yes one day and have your husband/wife tell you the next day they wanted a divorce. But this referendum does NOT redefine marriage. It extends the SAME marriage to include more people. It is fundamentally the same right.

@Maniac, i am worried that the country will vote no. I am worried about the mental health of my friends, i am worried that another referendum will be called in 5 years time and they will once more have their personal lives put under public scrutiny and judgement, i am worried that people's fears will get the best of them.

But i don't think Ireland is the conservative, religious place it once was. And i dearly wish we could effectively ban foreign ( mostly US ) campaign donations. Though i guess i could have setup a fake 'No' campaign and asked Americans to support me, and then put up some satirical posters...

@smeck, too late i'm afraid :p

The government exists to enforce and protect things like contracts. Saying marriage is a contract and that because of that the government shouldn't be involved because of that is silly.

@Holen, i'm saying the government shouldn't restrict our freedom to engage in contracts.

People are sovereign and the state is the apparatus to protect our freedoms as much as possible. The government should protect us from non-consensual activities, but not from the contracts we consent to enter - marriage being one in this case.

I can marry without needing the state to register it. That is my personal business. A mormon can marry many wives - in religious ceremony - and they are still married even despite state laws against polygamy (those laws have merit as far as protecting women from abusive marriages where they are the property of their husband; where multiple wives can be abused because there's always a backup, but modern america has a much more equal view of marriage and culturally women are no longer property )

I thought of a simpler way to say it.

Government should be outside my contract protecting it, not inside it, deciding what is says.

Oh damn, as usual I am too late for the thread and too lazy to read what has already been posted...
Anyway, I believe it is fundamentally wrong to decide on rights of minorities via referendum. Of course, if it is a way to grant those rights, that's great, but a "No" could effectively close the debate for years if not decades and keep the status quo. Note, that democracy is not simply rule of the majority, it's the rule of the majority with respect to the rights of the minority. You cannot let the majority decide what rights the minority gets, because with people so prone to drifting to extremes it's no longer democracy - it's ochlocracy.

"It's a landmark referendum that, if passed, would make Ireland the first country in the world to adopt same-sex marriage through a popular vote. Ireland's voters will be asked to approve this statement: 'Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.'"

Seems reasonable. This is an expansion of rights via constitutional amendment, not a limitation, so a referendum is necessary.

Technically it is an addition to the constitution; there is no line being replaced, the irish constitution doesn't specifically prohibit same-sex couples getting married (legislation does) but the supreme court concluded that the constitution didn't necessarily require same-sex unions to be recognised. (A challenge brought by to women who were married in Canada)

But from a personal view, i don't see why i should have the power to vote on my friend's futures. Is there a better way than a referendum (which, in fairness to it, has lead to a lot of conversation on the topic, and i think been good for ireland...)

And yeah, it's great we can do this, unlike the mess of supreme court decisions in the US

"But from a personal view, i don't see why i should have the power to vote on my friend's futures."

Social contract. If you accept that government must exist for a civil society to function, then all else follows.

As to the argument here, it is, of course, crap. If marriage were just a private contract, then people could indeed go form it without any government objection, anywhere in the world. In fact, any two people are indeed free to form any such contract that they want, and enforce it in the usual way, privately through the courts.

In fact, however, marriage is the state recognizing and encouraging the contract because it considers it externally valuable. To say that there is a fundamental human right to have the state consider gay marriages valuable and worth positively encouraging is very unclear, certainly from any argument in this thread.

@smeck, i'm not saying that in this thread (i have made arguments on facebook, but not in this thread)

And i acknowledge that the state recognises and supports marriage, but imho when it comes down to the 'definition of marriage' - the thing that it is, on a fundamental level, is a contract between two (or more) people.

You don't want to government interfering in any agreements you make with your church (like taxing donations you make to it, perhaps, i know some groups ask for 10% of your wages) And rightly so.

And i also agree, any couple CAN just go out and sign a marriage contract. This whole debate in ireland kicked off because two women challenged the right of the dept of revenue to deny them the tax breaks given to married couples - they had a Canadian marriage license.

But this thread was about rights, and how we, as a society, decide who gets them. How we use the concept of eights to protect minorities from the will of the majority; ad how weird and uncomfortable it feels to vote on other people's happiness.

orathaic,

You did, in fact, say in this thread that it was a fundamental human right due to the right to contract. And I'm just pointing out that there's equivocation there. The private right to behavior is not at issue. As you point out in your post here, what's at issue is government benefits, which is not a fundamental human right.

"And i acknowledge that the state recognises and supports marriage, but imho when it comes down to the 'definition of marriage' - the thing that it is, on a fundamental level, is a contract between two (or more) people."

Well, as for definitions, you're the one who only recently was railing against prescriptivism. The definition of marriage has always been crystal clear; it has always been between people of the opposite sex. Supporting changing it by fiat is strange, isn't it? Likewise calling a particular use of it a human right.

Anyway, as for rights. If you did have good cause to believe that gay marriage was a fundamental human right (which I can't see that you do -- but granted you haven't worked hard to make that case here), and your government didn't grant it, then I don't see why you would feel odd about voting to change that. Somebody having a right to something means that we, the state, must give it to them; it is our moral duty. Surely that entails that it is likewise our moral duty to vote to give it to them?

"what's at issue is government benefits, which is not a fundamental human right."


What's at issue is equal treatment under the law, not government benefits.

Ok, first of all marriage is not simply a private contract, because the fact that you're married also influences your relations with third parties, such as the government.

However, consider this situation - there is a group A of 2/3 people and group B of 1/3 people. Group A has a certain right, that group B doesn't, and group A believes that group B shouldn't have this right, while group B wants it. It is fundamentally unfair to refuse giving group B said right just because group A doesn't want to, therefore, it would be unfair to conduct a referendum in such case.

Of course, the case of same-sex marriage is much more complex, but in my opinion it boils down to this:
- You cannot exclude any particular group from benefiting from a certain right
- ...this also holds when the group benefiting from said right refuses to "share"
- Such referendum, if succeeds, has a chance of creating a more democratic society
- Such referendum, if fail, has a chance to encouraging status quo, thus making the democratic change so much more difficult
- Given the stakes, it should not be left to the people to decide. Any government considering itself democratic should grant same-sex marriage rights.

"Given the stakes, it should not be left to the people to decide. Any government considering itself democratic should grant same-sex marriage rights."

If the duly constituted government represents the will of the people, then the rules for following amendments to the constitution should be followed. Hopefully the people will be wise enough to enshrine their basic values and rights in said constitution and take pains to make it difficult to change them.

Re: amendments

I live in California. We have a referendum system which can modify the state constitution by a 50%+1 vote. IT SUCKS. There is so much garbage in the constitution that it makes changing many basic government services impossible. The referendum process is an artifact of poor governance in the early 20th century. There was a voter revolt which led to some necessary immediate changes, but a century later we are paying the price by making it easy to change. I think many voters aren't even fully aware of the implications of changing the constitution in such a special-interest-driven fashion.

The United States Constitution is notoriously difficult to amend. This is a good thing. There are probably a few things missing that should be clarified, in particular a definition of the right to vote, but it's pretty decent overall.

At any rate, the people have to amend their constitution, not the government. If the government could do it by itself, it could shut out its constituents completely from the electoral process. That would be bad.

"You did, in fact, say in this thread that it was a fundamental human right due to the right to contract."

Yes, thats fair - i don't think marriage is a fundamental right, it is an aspect of culture.

If the pursuit of happiness, the right to found a family and the freedom of expression ( including expressions of love) are fundamental, alog with the right to engage with your culture - then the right to marriage follows.

But only within the context of a culture where marriage exists. It is not neccessary for happiness or families.

"Well, as for definitions, you're the one who only recently was railing against prescriptivism. The definition of marriage has always been crystal clear; it has always been between people of the opposite sex."

That is factually incorrect, there are churh records of gay marriages over 800 years of them. Marriage is only about 10,000 years old, it has changed a lot in that time, it is no longer a property transaction ( with women traded from one family to another ) it is no longer limited to a given race, it is no longer til death do we part ( ie divorce ) and the two people bit has and does vary by culture, and time. With polygamy and polyandry both being practiced in the past.

"Somebody having a right to something means that we, the state, must give it to them; it is our moral duty. Surely that entails that it is likewise our moral duty to vote to give it to them?"

I guess this is what the point of this thread really comes down to for me. Yes it is my moral duty to vote for this change. But i feel like i shouldn't get to determine other people's happiness, or their private relationships.

"- Given the stakes, it should not be left to the people to decide. Any government considering itself democratic should grant same-sex marriage rights."

I believe the government thinks they will win the referendum, thus granting greater protections to gay couples, and meaning this will not be an election issue. They were not elected on a platform to do this, and the backlash from the church would hurt them in the next election (even though i don't think that it would be enough for an opposition government to form just on the issue to repeal it)

This way another referendum would be needed to repeal it, and because they gave the people the choice it will not hurt them come election time (unless they lose)

I live in Luxembourg, and our prime minister just married another man about a week or 2 ago. While I do not like most of his and his governments politics, I am in favor of marriage for every couple who does this step by their own free will (without distinction as to their sex) and wish our prime minister all the best in his private life.

"If the pursuit of happiness, the right to found a family and the freedom of expression ( including expressions of love) are fundamental, alog with the right to engage with your culture - then the right to marriage follows."

This too is problematic, though. The right to found a family is, for a heterosexual couple, an obvious natural right. For a homosexual couple to found a family, the state actually *must* intervene to help them. Why is this an obvious right?

"That is factually incorrect, there are churh records of gay marriages over 800 years of them."

No there aren't, at least if you're referring to the "research" of John Boswell. Here's a good discussion of his "methods":

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/darling.html

See the notes in the wikipedia article on Sergius and Bacchus for a bunch more if this particular refutation is not to your taste.

"Marriage is only about 10,000 years old, it has changed a lot in that time, it is no longer a property transaction ( with women traded from one family to another ) it is no longer limited to a given race, it is no longer til death do we part ( ie divorce ) and the two people bit has and does vary by culture, and time. With polygamy and polyandry both being practiced in the past."

So? How does that mean that a particular evolution of the word *in this culture* is a human right? You point out that in some cultures, polygamy has been the norm. Does that mean it is a human right, in this culture, for it to be recognized as marriage?

"I guess this is what the point of this thread really comes down to for me. Yes it is my moral duty to vote for this change. But i feel like i shouldn't get to determine other people's happiness, or their private relationships."

I'm happy to hear that you're now a libertarian!

(Here is another good review of Boswell's work from what you might consider a more neutral source:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060507014622/http://www.learnedhand.com/shaw_boswell.htm )

@orathaic - United States. The Southern US, at that, where most people disagree with that statement.

I like how semck doesn't want gay people to get married. Nice guy

"This too is problematic, though. The right to found a family is, for a heterosexual couple, an obvious natural right. For a homosexual couple to found a family, the state actually *must* intervene to help them. Why is this an obvious right?"

No, the right to found a family didn't mean that infertile couples had any right to children fo the past two hundred years. Likewise it doesn't require the state to do anything; if a gay couple wants to have children there are pretty simple means - most extra-marital sex.

Finally, how you interpret that right depends largely on how you define a family. Is a straight couple with/without kids a family? What if they are married, with or without kids? What about a gay couple?

Are there other family-like relationships which we can have with friends - acting like siblings?

In any case, the Irish constitution says a family is any married couple with or without children. The right to found a family - in Ireland is now respected (the referendum passed :) )