Gay marriage in Ireland

[Archimedes]

Yesterday we had a referendum for a constitutional amendment that would explicitly state that marriage can be recognised regardless of the sex of the couple.

With all the votes almost in, it's currently 62% - 38% in favour of the amendment.

Yay!

 

[dystopian]

Yesterday we had a referendum for a constitutional amendment that would explicitly state that marriage can be recognised regardless of the sex of the couple.

Based on the wording, it doesn't seem as if that automatically means that gay marriage is legalized, just that it could at some point be recognized? Is that correct?

Either way, it's a step forward.

 

[The Colourful Jester]

Apparently there are rainbows forming over Ireland shortly after the result. How about that? The good supernatural sky daddy has given his blessing.

 

[SimpleDon]

Congratulations to Ireland.

Pretty soon only the US will be left in the category of "unable to accept the obvious."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ok, that giant tsunami that just drowned Ireland under the ocean is going to be really awkward for us atheists to explain away. Let's fake some more global warming data and say it's what caused it.

 

[Archimedes]

Yesterday we had a referendum for a constitutional amendment that would explicitly state that marriage can be recognised regardless of the sex of the couple.

Based on the wording, it doesn't seem as if that automatically means that gay marriage is legalized, just that it could at some point be recognized? Is that correct?

I'm not sure of the legal details, but the idea is that proposed amendments to existing marriage laws could be challenged in the high court because the constitution apparently is vaguely worded enough that same sex marriage laws could be challenged, so the proposal was to enshrined it in the constitution so that any potential laws to do with same sex marriage couldn't be challenged as unconstitutional.

Either way, it's a step forward.

Absolutely!

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

My only point of confusion on the reporting of this issue is that there were claims of being proud to be the first nation to cement such rights through popular vote. I can see being proud of the result, and I can see being proud of how Irish people pulled through, but it's a sticky situation to have constitutional rights decided by majority rule. This is not a criticism of Ireland -- I don't know how their system is set in terms of amending their constitution --, but I'd think the tone would be that it was unfortunate the rights of a minority had to be decided upon by the majority, yet thrilling that majority stepped up and came through.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

My only point of confusion on the reporting of this issue is that there were claims of being proud to be the first nation to cement such rights through popular vote. I can see being proud of the result, and I can see being proud of how Irish people pulled through, but it's a sticky situation to have constitutional rights decided by majority rule. This is not a criticism of Ireland -- I don't know how their system is set in terms of amending their constitution --, but I'd think the tone would be that it was unfortunate the rights of a minority had to be decided upon by the majority, yet thrilling that majority stepped up and came through.

Ya, that is both good and bad. On the one hand, the majority of people in Ireland stepping up and saying that they deserve to be treated equally is impressive. On the other hand, setting the precedent that minority rights are the kind of thing which should be decided by popular vote instead of the kind of thing which should just be enshrined in law is potentially problematic.

 

[ronburgundy]

 

[Bronzeage]

My only point of confusion on the reporting of this issue is that there were claims of being proud to be the first nation to cement such rights through popular vote. I can see being proud of the result, and I can see being proud of how Irish people pulled through, but it's a sticky situation to have constitutional rights decided by majority rule. This is not a criticism of Ireland -- I don't know how their system is set in terms of amending their constitution --, but I'd think the tone would be that it was unfortunate the rights of a minority had to be decided upon by the majority, yet thrilling that majority stepped up and came through.

There really is no other way to define rights, either of minorities or majorities.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

There really is no other way to define rights, either of minorities or majorities.

Of course there is. I can't comment on Ireland because I don't know the particulars of their system. I assume the call for a referendum was due to the fact that this dealt with their constitution (I didn't really look that far into it), but I'd wager they do not ordinarily hold a public vote for every gay rights issue. In Canada we sure as hell don't. We have legislative bills, or occasionally court rulings. We have a constitution which guarantees certain rights to residents, and as our understanding of people changes, our understanding of how our constitution needs to apply changes as well. Once we realized that sexual orientation is not a disease or a perversion or a crime, it was unconscionable to deny equality to gay, lesbian, and bisexual Canadians. It doesn't matter if the majority of Canadians see it that way; once you decide equality is a value, you cannot ethically and with the support of reason then decide who gets to be equal and who does not.

 

[Bronzeage]

There really is no other way to define rights, either of minorities or majorities.

Of course there is. I can't comment on Ireland because I don't know the particulars of their system. I assume the call for a referendum was due to the fact that this dealt with their constitution (I didn't really look that far into it), but I'd wager they do not ordinarily hold a public vote for every gay rights issue. In Canada we sure as hell don't. We have legislative bills, or occasionally court rulings. We have a constitution which guarantees certain rights to residents, and as our understanding of people changes, our understanding of how our constitution needs to apply changes as well. Once we realized that sexual orientation is not a disease or a perversion or a crime, it was unconscionable to deny equality to gay, lesbian, and bisexual Canadians. It doesn't matter if the majority of Canadians see it that way; once you decide equality is a value, you cannot ethically and with the support of reason then decide who gets to be equal and who does not.

How is a Constitution changed if the majority of the electorate do not want it changed? If a minority is allowed to determine which groups are allowed full rights of citizenship, that would be an autocracy, not a democracy.

The United States is currently engaged in an internal debate over this matter. There is a perceptible shift in opinion over the past few years and if this trend continues, the rights of gay citizens will be the same as others. There will no longer be enough support to pass laws which restrict same sex marriage.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How is a Constitution changed if the majority of the electorate do not want it changed? If a minority is allowed to determine which groups are allowed full rights of citizenship, that would be an autocracy, not a democracy.

The United States is currently engaged in an internal debate over this matter. There is a perceptible shift in opinion over the past few years and if this trend continues, the rights of gay citizens will be the same as others. There will no longer be enough support to pass laws which restrict same sex marriage.

But that's the point. These kinds of protections should be enshrined in law and not subject to the whims of the voters. While that is somewhat of a moot point, since the law is basically just a reflection of what the will of the voters wants it to be, it is an important distinction to have made.

 

[Bronzeage]

How is a Constitution changed if the majority of the electorate do not want it changed? If a minority is allowed to determine which groups are allowed full rights of citizenship, that would be an autocracy, not a democracy.

The United States is currently engaged in an internal debate over this matter. There is a perceptible shift in opinion over the past few years and if this trend continues, the rights of gay citizens will be the same as others. There will no longer be enough support to pass laws which restrict same sex marriage.

But that's the point. These kinds of protections should be enshrined in law and not subject to the whims of the voters. While that is somewhat of a moot point, since the law is basically just a reflection of what the will of the voters wants it to be, it is an important distinction to have made.

Maybe we should phrase it this way: The majority of the people will not allow one group to deny rights to some other group.

It would be nice to have our laws written and our rights defined by some noble enlightened few, but until we find such a group, we're stuck with each other.

 

[RavenSky]

My only point of confusion on the reporting of this issue is that there were claims of being proud to be the first nation to cement such rights through popular vote. I can see being proud of the result, and I can see being proud of how Irish people pulled through, but it's a sticky situation to have constitutional rights decided by majority rule. This is not a criticism of Ireland -- I don't know how their system is set in terms of amending their constitution --, but I'd think the tone would be that it was unfortunate the rights of a minority had to be decided upon by the majority, yet thrilling that majority stepped up and came through.

If I am understanding the language of the vote, they did not vote to make gay marriage legal (i.e. popular vote on a right); but rather to clarify that their constitutional rights to marriage includes same-sex marriage. In other words, I think the popular vote was to clarify that all marriage is a right not subject to popular vote nor to legislation.

ETA: Apparently Ireland has the protection of marriage as part of their Constitution. Article 41.3.1 states:

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.

According to Wiki:

The Marriage Equality referendum was held on 22 May 2015. The referendum proposed to add the following text to Article 41 of the Constitution:[97]

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

With votes from all 43 constituencies counted, the 62.07% "yes" vote assured the passage of the referendum.[98] In the aftermath of the result, Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald stated that legislation would be brought through the Oireachtas this summer (ie: June or July 2015) to make same-sex marriage a reality.[99]

 

[dystopian]

But that's the point. These kinds of protections should be enshrined in law and not subject to the whims of the voters. While that is somewhat of a moot point, since the law is basically just a reflection of what the will of the voters wants it to be, it is an important distinction to have made.

I agree in principle. I also think that it's a bit silly to boast about being the first to legalize it through referendum because of it. If a referendum on gay marriage had been held here back in 2001 (when we legalized it), the result would without question have been 'yes'. But since the very first two lines in our constitution read "Everyone who is located in the Netherlands will be treated, in equal situations, with equality. Discrimination because of religion, life philosophy, political orientation, race, gender, or any grounds whatsoever, is forbidden", there was never any real question about a lack of legal gay marriage being unconstitutional. There was no need for a referendum, just people pointing out "hey we exist and we'd like the rights granted to us by the constitution".

That's the ideal situation. Though, of course, when a country's politics is dominated by bigots, they could prevent the application of constitutional laws guaranteeing equality... so it's hardly ideal. Still, a country should not have to extend rights by popular vote when the spirit (or even the letter of it as was the case here) of the law already guarantees it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But that's the point. These kinds of protections should be enshrined in law and not subject to the whims of the voters. While that is somewhat of a moot point, since the law is basically just a reflection of what the will of the voters wants it to be, it is an important distinction to have made.

I agree in principle. I also think that it's a bit silly to boast about being the first to legalize it through referendum because of it. If a referendum on gay marriage had been held here back in 2001 (when we legalized it), the result would without question have been 'yes'. But since the very first two lines in our constitution read "Everyone who is located in the Netherlands will be treated, in equal situations, with equality. Discrimination because of religion, life philosophy, political orientation, race, gender, or any grounds whatsoever, is forbidden", there was never any real question about a lack of legal gay marriage being unconstitutional. There was no need for a referendum, just people pointing out "hey we exist and we'd like the rights granted to us by the constitution".

That's the ideal situation. Though, of course, when a country's politics is dominated by bigots, they could prevent the application of constitutional laws guaranteeing equality... so it's hardly ideal. Still, a country should not have to extend rights by popular vote when the spirit (or even the letter of it as was the case here) of the law already guarantees it.

Ya, I guess my general argument is that the goal should be to get the consitution of countries to that point so that each individual situation can be handled by applying the equality laws to it as opposed to any unequal situations which arise needing to get approved by a majority vote.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

How is a Constitution changed if the majority of the electorate do not want it changed? If a minority is allowed to determine which groups are allowed full rights of citizenship, that would be an autocracy, not a democracy.

It typically isn't changed; it's clarified through a bill or a court ruling. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms already guarantees the rights LGBT people are seeking in the majority of cases; it was just being unevenly applied when people thought being gay or transgender was some sort of disease or moral failing rather than an innate and/ or harmless condition. Canadians already agreed that equality in certain matters was important. Applying equality to LGBT people is now a matter of reason, not opinion. The process is still subject to human error, but for the most part minority rights can progress somewhat faster than the time it takes for the majority view of the [voting] populace to change.

 

[dystopian]

Ya, I guess my general argument is that the goal should be to get the consitution of countries to that point so that each individual situation can be handled by applying the equality laws to it as opposed to any unequal situations which arise needing to get approved by a majority vote.

Like I said, that's the ideal; and no doubt better than relying on the plebiscite. Still, it's imperfect as there's no way to guarantee that a country's laws will be applied without bias. An Amsterdam court in 1989 (during a mock-trial) for instance pulled the by now familiar argument heard everywhere that while law didn't specify marriage was between a man and woman, the intent of the law was nonetheless exactly that. And when in 1998 (which is when it was passed, came into effect in 2001) the parliamentary vote to open up marriage for members of the same gender was 109 for 33 against. Despite the constitution guaranteeing equality; a vote was still necessary for it to be put into practice on the issue. Now, there was no real risk *here* of that vote going the wrong way... but still. Imperfect.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

If I am understanding the language of the vote, they did not vote to make gay marriage legal (i.e. popular vote on a right); but rather to clarify that their constitutional rights to marriage includes same-sex marriage. In other words, I think the popular vote was to clarify that all marriage is a right not subject to popular vote nor to legislation.

My post was made understanding that to be the case. To reiterate, I am not criticizing Ireland or the quirks of its legal system -- all systems have them --; I just wouldn't boast that being the first to cement a protection for LGBT rights through popular vote is a particularly good thing. More of a necessary evil, I suppose; one which the Irish handled well.

Although I suppose there is at least one major perk to the way this unfolded. Those who were opposed to same-sex marriage cannot pretend they were a slighted majority will when the people themselves voted to pass the referendum with a decisive majority.