Suseonline:

“it is a well known fact that a big backlash against the Catholic Church hierarchy, for all the lies they told their 'flock' , was at the heart of that vote.”

Well then they voted to change the law for the wrong reasons. Revenge is no good reason to do anything. They should vote for same-sex marriage because it is reasonable to have same-sex marriage not because they are trying to ‘hurt’ the Catholic Church. There is no satisfaction for homosexual people to know that people used their issue to respond to a completely unrelated grievance.

What is important is the reasons why people say they support same-sex marriage and fear of being ostracized by your peers is a major factor in this issue in my opinion. Sure in the ballot box it is ultimately up to you what you vote for but if you have told your peers one thing and you vote another then it sets up a stress between lying to yourself and lying to your peers. The only way to avoid that stress is to be honest with your peers and yourself.

Not sure if I understand Dustin’s point, but he appears to be saying the law does not discriminate against gays because ‘eligibility’ is embedded in and defined by the law. But the debate is about what the marriage law ought to be, not what it currently is. Likewise, the discrimination argument is not based on the evolution of marriage, but on the lack of any good reason to exclude same-sex couples. As the article tried to make clear, there is a difference between civil or state marriage and religious marriage.

Well said Maxat. You provided sound reasoning.

Phanto, I doubt the gay community in Ireland will give a damn why most people supported gay marriage in the vote there.
There is no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Suseonline:

“Phanto, I doubt the gay community in Ireland will give a damn why most people supported gay marriage in the vote there”

Well that would just show how desperate and unprincipled they are. If they don’t give a damn then why did you present the backlash against the Catholic Church as an argument? It doesn’t matter what the arguments are so long as they get what they want? Then why argue about the issue at all?

“There is no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry.”

What has reason got to do with anything if they do not give a damn?

In any case they are ‘allowed’ to marry – you do not need the government’s permission to marry. You have already said that yourself.

maxat said:
“Not sure if I understand Dustin’s point, but he appears to be saying the law does not discriminate against gays because ‘eligibility’ is embedded in and defined by the law.”

Yes, that’s as I understand the law.

maxat said:
“But the debate is about what the marriage law ought to be, not what it currently is.”

Agreed, of course.
Perhaps I’ve been rabbiting on a little but it’s apparent that not everyone understands how the current law is framed. I think it’s vital to know precisely what’s being discussed if it’s to be considered further.

maxat said:
“Likewise, the discrimination argument is not based on the evolution of marriage . . . […]”

It doesn’t matter. The discrimination argument doesn’t fly because discrimination hasn’t been established.
Again, the Marriage Act incorporates an eligibility criteria within the ‘man & woman’ definition.
Any man or woman (and presumably any one identifying as GLIBT - dunno) can be married as long as it’s to the opposite sex - the eligibility criteria.
Consequently, no person is being subjected to discrimination but they are being subjected to an eligibility criteria.

We already have anti-discrimination laws and they accept what might be termed ‘legal discrimination’.
This is in play when I seek to join Fernwood Fitness.
It’s in play if I want to play mixed doubles tennis partnering with me old mate Dave.
Eligibility criteria are pervasive in every day life from education access to toilets to public housing etc. etc.

maxat said:
“[…] . . but on the lack of any good reason to exclude same-sex couples.”

That’s the same argument repeated but using the word “exclude” instead of the word “discriminate”.

The law doesn’t have any built in defence mechanism but it certainly may be challenged.
To do that, one would need to argue that same-sex couples should be included, perhaps not why they are allegedly excluded, because I don’t think the case for apparent exclusion could get off the ground. I’m no lawyer though.

Dustin,

Discrimination doesn’t need to be established in a court of law to exist.

<<The discrimination argument doesn’t fly because discrimination hasn’t been established.>>

Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/discrimination). Therefore, not allowing same-sex marriage is, by definition, discrimination if a just reason cannot be given for the unequal treatment, and, so far, that has not yet been done.

<<...one would need to argue that same-sex couples should be included...>>

No, the onus is actually on the nay-sayers to provide a rational reason as to why same-sex couples should not be allow to get married. That’s the way rights work. They’re not withheld until it can be shown that they will NOT be a problem, they’re granted until it can be shown that they ARE a problem.

In the total absence of any rational arguments against same-sex marriage, however, equality alone is an adequate reason to allow it.