Does that include equality for Polygamists ?

They are incomparable. They would want the right to marry multiple partners. The fight for marriage equality is for the same rights that heterosexual people have, there are no new rights involved. Just the application of existing rights to all consenting adults.

It really isn’t comparable, but…I would kind of expect anyone who’s pro “traditional marriage” to support polygamy. It was quite common in the Bible.

That’s all gay citizens, I presume.

The above article is propaganda and it is obvious that there is a homosexual screaming campaign in full swing.

I for one will not be swayed in my opinion by the gay hysteria in these comments.

It seems clear that equallity is a one-way street for commetators- and to hell with anyone who does not support the gay campaign. That is one sure way to make yourself obnoxious!

The vitriol is concentrated and vicious- against safe targets. How about taking on Islamic teaching in homosexuality? Or the Sharia law? Thought so- too gutless. Of course, that would take courage, not a ‘pack-attack’ campaign.

And, I suggest that the word ‘gay’ be replaced by ‘homosexual’ and let us stop using fancy words as a ‘sweetener.’

There’s nothing gay about being ‘gay’ if one is to judge by the intolerance and viciousness of the homosexual supporters.

Of course most people on here are opposed to Sharia teachings on same sex couples. The difference being that most people running Ireland don’t buy into them and so they have minimal impact on what’s going on.

It’s clear that you seem to feel victimised by other people’s campaign for equality (which, yes, is a one way street, because…you can already marry who you want.) Why on earth do you feel so personally harmed by another citizen enforcing their human rights?

exactly

You’re right Lynda. Politicians should not be under any pressure to express positions concerning public policy. I wonder if the words policy and politics are related…….

he should comment because he is the leader of this country . but sadly the same old lame FG stance is not to answer anything that may lose a vote or two. He won’t answer anything put to him at all. Forget the referendum on this lets dissolved that sez pit government and vote in people who might keep the promise or at least try to run an honest and open govt .

Agreed. Obviously, these bullies only want to hear what suits them and their minority campaign.

I believe they are being suckered by those politicians who have supported the campaign.

Maybe Enda will be the most honest one yet!

And, I believe he should keep his own counsel in the face of this invidious minority campaign!

The only real liberal point on here.

” I think it is as offensive to attack somebody’s beliefs/ religion as it is to attack gay rights”

For me I don’t view a religious belief to be the same as a civil right. I don’t care what religion you are just don’t try and enforce that belief on people who don’t follow your religion.

But where do beliefs start and end? Religious beliefs can be Catholicism, Islam, Scientology, the Moonies, the Church of Euthanasia (yes, it exists) etc. and they all pretty much proclaim to be the one true faith. They can’t all be right – and let’s face it they’re not exactly based on facts and established science/knowledge. Why should we stand aside and allow the excuse of religion to be used to deny people the solutions to legitimate grievances? If people want to believe in the man on the moon then off with them, but don’t go trying to shape public policy based on stuff that should be reserved for children’s night time stories.

yeah, why single out religion? Those belief systems are no more nutty than anything else. I think Marxism is a pseudo-scientific load of bull – a pseudo-religion in many ways – but I wouldn’t ban marxist parties. Here is the real liberal position.

1) We should have Gay Marriage
2) Edna can believe what he wants.

Eh who said anything about banning anything. I said let people believe what they want just don’t form public policy from it. And without getting into a philosophical debate with you Eoin, Marxism is an ideology which is defined by its ideals, goals and potential outcomes, whereas a religion is by its very nature based in its past, usually a founder and some ‘sacred’ text (which also usually has some threatening foreboding passages relating to the future just to keep people on their toes/indoctrinated). But in some sense they are similar in that they defy science rationality and reason, when their systems are so monomaniacal.

Base public policy on what we know is good in terms of reason, rationality, science and throw in a bit of empathy and justice for good measure.

Do we not believe in civil rights here in the republic of Ireland? Government MUST uphold people’s civil rights equally, it is not relevant what your or anyone else’s opinion on the subject. Equality will come, whether you or the other bigots want it or not.

You will look so foolish in a few decades. Look how ridiculous those morons in the Southern US who held up signs protesting interracial marriage were, that will be you soon. Prepare for it

So the Vatican runs all ‘religion.’
Ant-catholic or what!

Oh, but your civil rights…..

Now that’s all that matters.

Typical!

In this country Catholicism is the main destructive force. Never said the Vatican ran all religions. What has your religion got to do with my civil rights. Why should someone’s deluded fairy tale dictate laws to people.

Yes that’s all that matters @Peepingass (nice name by the way)

David you don’t have to be a Catholic to disagree with homosexual marriage. I know some homosexuals who prefer barebacking to marriage.

and I know some heterosexuals who prefer barebacking to marriage -your point is?

Some people’s views are based on out dated beliefs. I want the right to marry my boyfriend. I do not want it in a church but I do want to be surrounded by friends and family. I also want to giving a loving home to a baby at some point, but one fight at a time.

I don’t think anyone cares a jot about what views people hold privately but it is a matter of concern for the citizenry if the leader of our Government believes that it is acceptable to deny a portion of our society equality. He may damn well disagree with gay marriage but he has no right to use his position to withhold rights because of it!

Christ, typical keyboard bravado. Right – here’s the deal.

When you post an opinion on the internet (or stand for election) you expose yourself to contrary opinions. That’s fact. It’s the internet, if people want to voice their opinion. They’re allowed to. If you want to voice an opinion and not have anyone disagree with you. Do it alone. Do it in your car. Do it in your living room. Tell your pet. Do not do it on thejournal.ie.

I am sick of hearing this argument. Having a huge response from independent minded individuals online does not equate to bullying. At the moment of writing this there are 45 comments on this article. I don’t know anyone else commenting. If anyone else replies to your ridiculous argument with a contrary view, you can put it down to your argument being ridiculous, not the presence of “groups ready to pounce at a moment’s notice at the mere hint of someone’s view point being against theirs”.

I agree with your implication that the notion of ‘political correctness’ is nonsense. I don’t want to be pandered to by people who think it is good to be ‘pc’. I’d rather have someone do the right thing because it is the right thing.

But it is not ‘pc’ to want equal rights for all citizens. That’s the basis of a democratic civilisation as we know it. And by terming it political correctness you demean the very notion of equal rights and all the various struggles we’ve been through as a species to get them.

Excellent Stephanie. That ‘PC’ phrase is bandied about way too much by people who disagree or couldn’t be bothered formulating a coherent opposing argument to back up their own views. Well written post there…

That’s the whole point. That’s how civilisation progresses. We are all responsible for allowing freedom of will and speech with out harm or discrimination towards other people.
You all can think and talk about what ever you want but when it effects other people’s rights negatively then we (us people who you feel the pressure to be politically correct for) will be all over it.

Enda has the right to withhold his opinion but it will effect the public opinion of him. That being said it would help a lot if he made a statement saying that no matter what his personal beliefs are, that they would not and never will effect civil rights issues in Ireland (If that is the case!)
…. too little too late now perhaps?
Roll on equal rights.

That’s the whole point. That’s how civilisation progresses. We are all responsible for allowing freedom of will and speech with out harm or discrimination towards other people.
You all can think and talk about what ever you want but when it effects other people’s rights negatively then we (us people who you feel the pressure to be politically correct for) will be all over it.

Enda has the right to withhold his opinion but it will effect the public opinion of him. That being said it would help a lot if he made a statement saying that no matter what his personal beliefs are, that they would not and never will effect civil rights issues in Ireland (If that is the case!)
…. too little too late now perhaps?
Roll on equal rights.

Do you mean devout which would have a different meaning and resonance in the current situation. If the Taoiseach was not a practicing Catholic but say a Muslim I do not believe the same ridiculous fuss would arise. In such a circumstance it would be considered impolite even rude to push the man for his views when they were that obvious. This just goes to show how intolerant and ignorant people can distort something private like a personal opinion. This country becomes more fundamentalist every day.

Total crap. The leader of a nations duty to his citizens supercedes his personal views and feelings. If enda kenny has a problem with gay marriage he should act like a true statesman and say that dispite his personal views he will not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation in his country.

The man is a coward.

Hear hear. It’s a democracy. He’s supposed to represent and protect the people, the most fundamental duty is to grant equal rights to all citizens.

Typically selfish !

That attitude will get you nowhere.

Your religion and beliefs are of course up to you. They shouldn’t impact a civil rights and equality issue.

And you are also entitled to your view. However, if we do live in a Republic, the government MUST support equality for all its citizens regardless of the legislators religious beliefs.

If you don’t personally “support” gay marriage, then don’t get gay married. That’s *your* choice. Please don’t deny me mine.

Well said Dave. Darren your religious beliefs and the discriminatory tenets of your religion should end where everybody else’s lives are concerned. If you want to live in a theocracy then move to the Vatican. The dogma of a 2000 year old middle eastern goat herder cult has no place in my life or the lives of most people in this country.

What’s your beliefs got todo with theirs? It’s not impacting you it’s impacting them. What about gays who aren’t catholic? Why should they live under the laws of your religion?

@Darren: I’m a practising Catholic too but simply cannot see any reason why this is relevant to the SSM debate. I have no right to force my beliefs of others.

It does if marriage is defined by our constitution that was presented to the Vatican before it was signed into law.

John, please read articles 40 and 41 of the constitution, and refrain from referring to it if you haven’t studied it. It in no way says marriage must be between a woman and a man. And the Vatican has NO say in the running of this country! Look where that got us in the past!

Sorry Amy but did a court of law not decide that it was what they meant when they wrote it because for some strange reason they never envisioned gay marriage. Don’t get me wrong I’m all for gay people having the same tax breaks and other things that heterosexual people in ireland are afforded but I know after gay marriage is made legal the next thing on the agenda will be to force the church to marry them. Don’t try and kid me by saying that will not be the case because we all know it will.

Nonsense. That’s not the case in any country where they have civil marriage. It’s entirely up to a church whether or not they want to perform a religious ceremony. Some catholic priests have done it against the wishes of the church. And I can’t think of a single person who would want their marriage ceremony conducted by a person who didn’t consider them an equal citizen.

John who the hell would want to get married in the catholic church with people like you in it. Give over.

Nonsense, John. The church has nothing to do with it.

John: Firstly, you stated that marriage is defined in our constitution as being between a man and a woman. It is not. No such definition is to be found in Bunreacht na hÉireann! Once this was brought to your attention you changed course and referred to the K& AL case where the presiding judge’s interpretation of articles 40 & 41 was that it was exclusively heterosexual. Interpretation is the operative word. If you believe that marriage equality can be reduced to an argument about tax breaks then the entire argument is beyond you I fear. Lastly, no one can “force” any church to conduct “gay” marriages, and frankly, probably wouldn’t want to. This is about parity of esteem in the eyes of the law and civil institutions. Complete separation of Church and State should appease your fears that d gays are a-wantin to get married in churches.

Total lifestyle choice

Because naturally people would choose to be exposed to that kind of nonsense.

what a ridiculous idea that catholics dont support gay marriage, i was raised a catholic and wasnt allowed to meet girls when i was a teenager, catholics idea of morality is perverse and unnatural, what harm does it do anyone? i wonder what jesus would say?

John, the same court of law hardly meant for inter-racial marriages and god forbid (pun intended) inter-religious marriages at the time. Social evolution buddy. Please keep up!

Good for you, and as a gay man I was also raised a catholic, I never asked to be raised one, it was thrust upon me and all of us for that matter, I don’t practice it and I’m sure the majority of so called Catholics don’t either, so keep your religious beliefs to yourself and keep it out of state and civil matters as that is what civil marriage for gay people would be, a lawful act not a religious one, thank you very much!

I was also raised a Roman Catholic and I believed in Human rights
Human Right to choose your own life partner a right to live honestly and openly. Why is this such an issue in this day and age. The church and state should be separate

Completely agree that the church and state should be separate but as was highlighted by the journal last week that the church of England was to forced to host gay marriages in their church, that will be the next thing the gay community will call for and every one knows that. It’s not right for Christian to demand a wedding in a mosque just as it is for a gay couple to demand it in a Christian church. Simples!nI know most gay people won’t demand that because I know a few gay couples and they say that but there will always be the few that want to take it to the extreme.

You’ve clearly misread what the English legislation is doing. It’s allowing clergy who want to marry same sex couples (as the Quakers in England have vocally supported that they’d like to) and allowing clergy and church who are a bit more narrow minded to opt out. The idea that people will be forced to marry them is scaremongering.

I was also raised Catholic and I do support it. Enda is entitled to his opinion but his opinion should not interfer with politics. I am going to end this once and for all (the religious against gay arguement). We are all Gods creation he made us. OK, now Jesus was asked what the two most important commandments were and he replied that 1, we had to love God, and 2 we had to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. Now to all the bigots who use “religion” to hate, you are going against Gods will because you are not treating your neighbours with love and respect as your bible tells you to. Sorry for the religious rant people but I hate my religion being used like this. I am Catholic, I am proud and I support all be they gay, bi, black, purple, whatever because it is against my religion not to. OK.

Why? What would be the point in calling it something else?

The traditional union of a man and a woman exists primarily to procreate children – and yes I know I sound like a Catholic theologian – but its a unique situation and requires a unique word to describe it.

i actually have a big problem with the term ‘gay marriage’ too and im gay. when it is legislated it will be just ‘marriage’ and can we please just get there before we’re all bored to tears.

john, youre gas. have you never considered men and women who dont have kids in wedlock? are they not married?

So I assume you also object to couples who either cannot or chose not to have kids, using the word marriage for their union. I also assume you wouldn’t object to female couples who intend to avail of a sperm donor from getting married. Otherwise your objection is a little disingenuous.

I’m going to post the same reply to this that I did on another article about this issue – Why is it that, when same sex marriage is mentioned, people become suddenly so obsessed with the dictionary definition of a word? So what if the word marriage once meant the union between a man and a woman. It demonstrably is not constrained to that definition any more. You can tell by the marriages happening in New York, California, Canada, Argentina, Iceland and more.
Sinister used to mean left handed. Retarded use to mean delayed. More examples are ‘awesome’, ‘molest’, ‘dumb’, ‘mute’, hell just seven years ago only a bird could ‘tweet’. More relevantly the word ‘gay’ used to mean happy but it’s not constrained to that anymore either. If it’s defined by the constitution, you change the constitution. The constitution used to define a legitimate child. We changed the constitution. Now legitimacy isn’t defined by it at all. That doesn’t mean it no longer has a definition. People ask why we should change the definition, but why shouldn’t we?

John O – feel glad that you are not marked out in such a way that you would have to specifically call your union ‘straight marriage’. Or that you ever had to come out to your parents as straight when you wanted to bring a girl home. I can only hope that people will see such distinctions as ridiculous sooner rather than later…

John by that logic – are couples who have no intention of having children (or likewise those that are biologically unable to) allowed to get married then? Or do they have to call it something else? This is pure nonsense, I heard lucinda creighton spew this same bullshit not long ago. It’s utter cowardess to try and defend this sort of bigotry with some pretty spurious theology.

I also love this idea that marriage has been nothing but rosy for hundreds of years. It was, let’s be honest, a union in which women could be legally raped and beaten. Marriage has been evolving over time to an equal union of loving partners, a lifelong commitment, with children being optional. This is a good thing for marriage.

Would it do you?

Real marriage would be between a man and a woman in the natural order of things.

But you can have imitations. But not the same thing.

You may have to borrow someone to supply children. That’s the difference. And always will be!

But, don’t let me spoil the dream.

YAWN! and I’m tired of ignorant bigots like you who assume gay people should just shut up and be happy with what they have been given
.I’m sick of being treated like a second class person in my country.
I cannot marry my lifelong partner.
I cannot donate blood.
I run the risk of being fired if I work in a catholic institution.
I just want equality not happiness.

There are huge differences.
Children are not protected within a civil partnership.
Educate yourself http://www.marriagequality.ie/