timschochet
Footballguy
its like rain on my wedding day.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Gay marriage (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Bubba
- Start date
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
No. He's arguing that the law passes rational basis review because the legislature could conceivably believe the law benefits society.
Also, the attorney doesn't represent "conservatives," so it's odd to act as if he's somehow bound by your notion of what conservatives believe.
bigbottom
Footballguy
matuski
Footballguy
To be fair - Most people paying attention in this world could tell a conservative what they were going to be told to think before they could.
You could say the same thing about liberal dumb ####s. It this kind of non-sense that makes people hate politics. .
matuski
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
blah blah blah fairness blah blah blah racist blah blah blah equality blah blah blah homophobic blah blah blah
Chief Justice John Roberts brought up what I've thought all along is the best legal argument against bans on same-sex marriage:
Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?
Banning gay marriage discriminates based on sex, not sexual orientation (at least directly). And discrimination based on sex invites heightened scrutiny.
Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?
Banning gay marriage discriminates based on sex, not sexual orientation (at least directly). And discrimination based on sex invites heightened scrutiny.
This is from last August, but I hadn't seen it before.
Excerpts from oral arguments on the gay marriage cases before the Seventh Circuit.
Judge Posner is audibly frustrated that the anti-gay-marriage side can't come up with better arguments.
Excerpts from oral arguments on the gay marriage cases before the Seventh Circuit.
Judge Posner is audibly frustrated that the anti-gay-marriage side can't come up with better arguments.
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
I agree. Seems like a pretty good rationale to me, but my opinion on the subject carries slightly less weight than the Chief Justice.
To my eye the only way the Supreme Court can hold true to precedent and uphold gay marriage bans would be to find that either homosexuals aren't a protected class or that it isn't discrimination that rises to the level of constitutional protection. The "legitimate state interest" arguments are all awful and weak.
I do think it will be interesting to see that they Supreme Court does if it upholds gay marriage bans. The 2nd case presents is own set of problems for the anti-gay marriage contingent. Historically, states recognized marriages performed in other states even if those marriages would be prohibited in that particular state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. For example, a 16 year old can marry in Georgia without parental consent if the girl is pregnant. That's an illegal marriage in Tennessee (and most other states), but Tennessee recognizes that marriage as legal. You can get married at 15 with parental consent in Missouri, but not until age 17 in Nebraska (basically right next door), yet Nebraska recognizes that marriage if it's performed in Missouri. Currently all heterosexual marriages legally performed in any state are recognized by all other states.
Congress tried to do an end-around with the "Defense of Marriage Act", which ostensibly applies to all marriages, but was clearly targeted for gay marriages. Section 3 of that horrendous piece of legislation has already been defined by the Supreme Court as discriminatory. Section 2 is the part squarely before the Court now, and it allows states to refuse to honor any marriage performed in another state if it so chooses. It was written broadly on purpose so it wouldn't be discriminatory on its face, so it literally applies to all marriages. I can't fathom how the conservative Justices will be able to contort themselves in order to affirm that portion of the law -- that basically removes marriage from the purview of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Doing so would pave the way for individual states to decide that some heterosexual marriages performed in other states won't be recognized for basically any reason whatsoever. That opens the doors for lots of problems.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
It would be truly a great development if this case both comes out the right way AND is written with Roberts applying intermediate scrutiny instead of Kennedy applying some form of scrutiny that he hasn't been able to articulate for two decades.
Jon Stewart on the slippery-slope argument: "When women fought for suffrage, how come nobody was like, 'Well what if someday a dog wants to vote?'"
Oral Argument.
My responses to some of the Justices' questions:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: My question is you're not seeking to join the institution, you're seeking to change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same-sex relationship.
ME: Yes, we're seeking to change it from a constitutionally invalid institution to a constitutionally valid one. Right now, the institution discriminates based on sex and there's no rational basis, even, to justify the discrimination.
----
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, how do you account for the fact that, as far as I'm aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex? Now, can we infer from that that those nations and those cultures all thought that there was some rational, practical purpose for defining marriage in that way or is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice?
ME: Most cultures throughout human history have been pretty homophobic. Most cultures have also been pretty racist and sexist, but we're making progress on all those fronts. We cannot, however, infer from the fact that same-sex couples have historically been excluded from marriage, that there must have been some some rational, practical purpose for the exclusion. There's an obvious alternative explanation that we can't rule out: irrational animus against gays.
----
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, the the issue, of course, is not whether there should be same-sex marriage, but who should decide the point.
ME: The issue is whether excluding same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause, and there's no reasonable debate over who should decide that point. It's a task for the judicial branch.
----
JUSTICE ALITO: But there have been cultures that did not frown on homosexuality. That is not a universal opinion throughout history and across all cultures. Ancient Greece is an example. It was it was well accepted within certain bounds. But did they have same-sex marriage in ancient Greece?
ME: Greece didn't have an Equal Protection Clause, but you may be right that the ancient Greeks' exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage was not based on animus toward gays. Of course, the fact that the exclusion did not have one particular irrational basis does not mean that its basis must have been rational. I don't know what their basis was, but if the Respondents in this case don't know either, I don't think it's relevant here. The burden is on the Respondents to come up with a rational basis (depending on the standard of review) -- and I think they have to articulate it explicitly, not just conclude that there must be one out there somewhere because the Ancient Greeks would never do anything irrational.
----
JUSTICE BREYER: [Opposite-sex marriage] has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require States that don't want to do it to ... change what marriage is to include gay people. Why cannot those States at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other States is or is not harmful to marriage?
ME: Gay marriage has been legal in some states for about ten years now. We've already seen that it hasn't been harmful. In any event, let's distinguish between two different situations. If there were a specific legitimate reason, rooted in evidence or logic, to think that gay marriage might be harmful to straight marriage, for example, then that legitimate reason may satisfy the rational basis test (or even certain forms of heightened scrutiny) and a ban on gay marriage might survive constitutional scrutiny, at least until the fears are shown to be unfounded based on the experiences of other states. But "if we stop discriminating, unspecified bad things might happen for unknown reasons" cannot pass the rational basis test, or else everything must always pass it -- because that argument is available in literally every case. The burden is on the Respondents to identify a specific harmful threat that gay marriage poses, supported by evidence, and they have not done so in this case.
----
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, what if there ... are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women.... What would be the ground under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?
ME: We'd have to approach that case the same way we approach any Equal Protection Clause case. If the state refuses to marry a group of four people and they sue for relief, a court would first have to ask whether there's any reason to apply heightened scrutiny. Unlike in this case, I don't think there would be. A court would next evaluate whether there's a rational basis for limiting marriage to two-person couples. Unlike in this case, I think any of us could come up with arguments that would pass the rational basis test as that test has traditionally been applied (and not just the completely toothless version of it favored by the Respondents). For example, the state has a legitimate interest in keeping issues like custody, asset-division, and spousal support manageably simple, and limiting marriage to two people is rationally related to that goal.
----
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: [O]ne of the things that's truly extraordinary about this whole issue is how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society. ut if you prevail here, there will be no more debate. I mean, closing of debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it's imposed on them by the courts.
ME: It is theoretically possible that striking down an unconstitutional law will stifle debate. But maximizing debate should not be the Court's objective. Otherwise, if you really want to stimulate debate, try overturning Loving v. Virginia. That will surely enliven debate. But that's not a relevant factor under Equal Protection Clause analysis in any precedent I'm aware of.
----
JUSTICE SCALIA: Is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry?
ME: The 14th Amendment guarantees people equal protection under the law, not equal protection under church doctrine. It says that states can't discriminate arbitrarily, not that priests can't. Even after Loving, no priests have been required to marry interracial couples. So yes, it's conceivable that even if the Petitioners prevail in this case, no priests would be required to marry gay couples. It's not just conceivable -- it's virtually certain.
My responses to some of the Justices' questions:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: My question is you're not seeking to join the institution, you're seeking to change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same-sex relationship.
ME: Yes, we're seeking to change it from a constitutionally invalid institution to a constitutionally valid one. Right now, the institution discriminates based on sex and there's no rational basis, even, to justify the discrimination.
----
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, how do you account for the fact that, as far as I'm aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex? Now, can we infer from that that those nations and those cultures all thought that there was some rational, practical purpose for defining marriage in that way or is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice?
ME: Most cultures throughout human history have been pretty homophobic. Most cultures have also been pretty racist and sexist, but we're making progress on all those fronts. We cannot, however, infer from the fact that same-sex couples have historically been excluded from marriage, that there must have been some some rational, practical purpose for the exclusion. There's an obvious alternative explanation that we can't rule out: irrational animus against gays.
----
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, the the issue, of course, is not whether there should be same-sex marriage, but who should decide the point.
ME: The issue is whether excluding same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause, and there's no reasonable debate over who should decide that point. It's a task for the judicial branch.
----
JUSTICE ALITO: But there have been cultures that did not frown on homosexuality. That is not a universal opinion throughout history and across all cultures. Ancient Greece is an example. It was it was well accepted within certain bounds. But did they have same-sex marriage in ancient Greece?
ME: Greece didn't have an Equal Protection Clause, but you may be right that the ancient Greeks' exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage was not based on animus toward gays. Of course, the fact that the exclusion did not have one particular irrational basis does not mean that its basis must have been rational. I don't know what their basis was, but if the Respondents in this case don't know either, I don't think it's relevant here. The burden is on the Respondents to come up with a rational basis (depending on the standard of review) -- and I think they have to articulate it explicitly, not just conclude that there must be one out there somewhere because the Ancient Greeks would never do anything irrational.
----
JUSTICE BREYER: [Opposite-sex marriage] has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require States that don't want to do it to ... change what marriage is to include gay people. Why cannot those States at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other States is or is not harmful to marriage?
ME: Gay marriage has been legal in some states for about ten years now. We've already seen that it hasn't been harmful. In any event, let's distinguish between two different situations. If there were a specific legitimate reason, rooted in evidence or logic, to think that gay marriage might be harmful to straight marriage, for example, then that legitimate reason may satisfy the rational basis test (or even certain forms of heightened scrutiny) and a ban on gay marriage might survive constitutional scrutiny, at least until the fears are shown to be unfounded based on the experiences of other states. But "if we stop discriminating, unspecified bad things might happen for unknown reasons" cannot pass the rational basis test, or else everything must always pass it -- because that argument is available in literally every case. The burden is on the Respondents to identify a specific harmful threat that gay marriage poses, supported by evidence, and they have not done so in this case.
----
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, what if there ... are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women.... What would be the ground under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?
ME: We'd have to approach that case the same way we approach any Equal Protection Clause case. If the state refuses to marry a group of four people and they sue for relief, a court would first have to ask whether there's any reason to apply heightened scrutiny. Unlike in this case, I don't think there would be. A court would next evaluate whether there's a rational basis for limiting marriage to two-person couples. Unlike in this case, I think any of us could come up with arguments that would pass the rational basis test as that test has traditionally been applied (and not just the completely toothless version of it favored by the Respondents). For example, the state has a legitimate interest in keeping issues like custody, asset-division, and spousal support manageably simple, and limiting marriage to two people is rationally related to that goal.
----
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: [O]ne of the things that's truly extraordinary about this whole issue is how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society. ut if you prevail here, there will be no more debate. I mean, closing of debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it's imposed on them by the courts.
ME: It is theoretically possible that striking down an unconstitutional law will stifle debate. But maximizing debate should not be the Court's objective. Otherwise, if you really want to stimulate debate, try overturning Loving v. Virginia. That will surely enliven debate. But that's not a relevant factor under Equal Protection Clause analysis in any precedent I'm aware of.
----
JUSTICE SCALIA: Is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry?
ME: The 14th Amendment guarantees people equal protection under the law, not equal protection under church doctrine. It says that states can't discriminate arbitrarily, not that priests can't. Even after Loving, no priests have been required to marry interracial couples. So yes, it's conceivable that even if the Petitioners prevail in this case, no priests would be required to marry gay couples. It's not just conceivable -- it's virtually certain.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Now do one where you pretend you're the Justices asking questions and then insert the real lawyers' answers.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
to the extent he's conducting a civil marriage, he's an instrument of the State.Maurile Tremblay said:
In the faith based aid cases did Scalia make the same argument?
roadkill1292
Footballguy
And do it with hand puppets.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Mr. Retukes
Footballguy
Maurile Tremblay said:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Actually the correct answer is that it is not true. I would have loved hearing Maurile explain that Christians banned gay marriage when they gained control of Rome.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I think the slippery slope argument at the time was regarding letting children vote
Well, there is a movement.....
Surprised they did not propose 3/5ths as a compromise.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
They should have asked Alito why he thinks the rest of the world should dictate the protections afforded US citizens by the US Constitution.
How do we account for what other nations do? We don't.
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Not sure where to post this, but since he worked for the anti-gay marriage Family Research Council, this thread seemed the most appropriate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/21/josh-duggar-apologizes-resigns-from-family-research-council-amid-molestation-allegations/
Josh Duggar apologizes, resigns from Family Research Council amid molestation allegations
In the wake of a tabloid report alleging that he molested several underage girls while he was a teenager, reality-television star Josh Duggar said Thursday that he "acted inexcusably" and was deeply sorry for what he called my wrongdoing."
The 27-year-old Duggar, a member of the family that stars on TLCs "19 Kids and Counting," also resigned his post with the Family Research Council.
In an exclusive statement to People magazine, Duggar said:
"Twelve years ago, as a young teenager, I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regret. I hurt others, including my family and close friends. I confessed this to my parents who took several steps to help me address the situation. We spoke with the authorities where I confessed my wrongdoing, and my parents arranged for me and those affected by my actions to receive counseling. I understood that if I continued down this wrong road that I would end up ruining my life." [...]
Josh Duggar is the oldest child in the family that stars in the popular TLC show, "19 Kids and Counting." Duggar, his wife Anna and their three children live in Washington, where Duggar worked as executive director of FRC Action, the non-profit lobbying arm of the Family Research Council.
The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian organization led by Tony Perkins, is known for its advocacy against same-sex marriage, "with the mission to champion marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/21/josh-duggar-apologizes-resigns-from-family-research-council-amid-molestation-allegations/
Josh Duggar apologizes, resigns from Family Research Council amid molestation allegations
In the wake of a tabloid report alleging that he molested several underage girls while he was a teenager, reality-television star Josh Duggar said Thursday that he "acted inexcusably" and was deeply sorry for what he called my wrongdoing."
The 27-year-old Duggar, a member of the family that stars on TLCs "19 Kids and Counting," also resigned his post with the Family Research Council.
In an exclusive statement to People magazine, Duggar said:
"Twelve years ago, as a young teenager, I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regret. I hurt others, including my family and close friends. I confessed this to my parents who took several steps to help me address the situation. We spoke with the authorities where I confessed my wrongdoing, and my parents arranged for me and those affected by my actions to receive counseling. I understood that if I continued down this wrong road that I would end up ruining my life." [...]
Josh Duggar is the oldest child in the family that stars in the popular TLC show, "19 Kids and Counting." Duggar, his wife Anna and their three children live in Washington, where Duggar worked as executive director of FRC Action, the non-profit lobbying arm of the Family Research Council.
The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian organization led by Tony Perkins, is known for its advocacy against same-sex marriage, "with the mission to champion marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society"
squistion
Footballguy
http://www.mediaite.com/online/montel-williams-goes-off-on-scumbag-josh-duggar-gay-people-are-the-danger-to-kids/
Montel Williams Goes Off on 'Scumbag' Josh Duggar: 'Gay People Are the Danger to Kids?'
No one of the internet is more outraged over the revelations that Josh Duggar has publicly confessed to sexually molesting young girls and resigned from his prominent post at the conservative Christian Family Research Council than Montel Williams.
The former talk show has been tweeting up a storm and not holding anything back since the news broke Thursday evening:
Montel Williams
✔ @Montel_Williams
BREAKING: Josh Duggar, a world class bigot, admits sexually abusing young girls - has consistently stated that LGBT folks r danger to kids
@Montel_Williams
Gosh, yet another anti-gay alleged "Christian" defender turns out to be a garden variety scumbag.
@Montel_Williams
Sorry, Josh Duggar is a bigot, slimebag. Whole family is, and FRC is a scam. Yup, Gay people are the danger to kids? NOPE, JOSH DUGGAR IS
Montel Williams Goes Off on 'Scumbag' Josh Duggar: 'Gay People Are the Danger to Kids?'
No one of the internet is more outraged over the revelations that Josh Duggar has publicly confessed to sexually molesting young girls and resigned from his prominent post at the conservative Christian Family Research Council than Montel Williams.
The former talk show has been tweeting up a storm and not holding anything back since the news broke Thursday evening:
Montel Williams
✔ @Montel_Williams
BREAKING: Josh Duggar, a world class bigot, admits sexually abusing young girls - has consistently stated that LGBT folks r danger to kids
@Montel_Williams
Gosh, yet another anti-gay alleged "Christian" defender turns out to be a garden variety scumbag.
@Montel_Williams
Sorry, Josh Duggar is a bigot, slimebag. Whole family is, and FRC is a scam. Yup, Gay people are the danger to kids? NOPE, JOSH DUGGAR IS
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
http://patch.com/pennsylvania/doylestown/father-and-son-married-one-same-sex-couples-story
Father and son marry in Bucks county. They debase one relationship before they debase another!
Father and son marry in Bucks county. They debase one relationship before they debase another!
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I think most people know I'm pretty progressive on social issues and the kind of person who is repulsed by the Family Research Council and everyone involved with it. But the reaction to and treatment of this Duggar guy by my fellow progressives really rubs me the wrong way. If my math is correct this guy did these terrible things when he was 14 -15 years old. The entire reason we have a separate justice system for juveniles with sealed records and an alternate approach to sentencing is because we've decided as a society that we don't hold children responsible for their behavior the same way we do with adults. We don't get to throw that concept out the window and hold an adult fully accountable for what he did as a child just because the child in question turned into a dooshbag adult who works for a horrible organization.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
3C's
Footballguy
As bad as that is, I read that the investigation was dropped because the investigating trooper was arrested for child porn and is serving a 56 year sentence.
Then it was picked up some time later (via Oprah) but the statute of limitations had passed.
HellToupee
Footballguy
Way to bury the lead. Not a fan of their original actions but when you are left no choices you do what you need to do. Good for them.
Last edited by a moderator:
HellToupee
Footballguy
not really aware of this Duggar family . Looks like they were the template for that Kate plus whatever show.
The dad looks like a creeper . The 14yo was feeling boobs & crotch . Can see the family torn but having a builder "council" him ??The kid needed help
Montel Williams
is still a thing?
The dad looks like a creeper . The 14yo was feeling boobs & crotch . Can see the family torn but having a builder "council" him ??The kid needed help
Montel Williams
is still a thing?Joe Summer
Footballguy
That's a good point. But what do you think the Family Research Council would say about a man who fondled boys when he was a teenager?
the moops
Footballguy
You too?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Thorn
Footballguy
Ireland to vote via nationwide referendum on constitutional amendment to recognize gay marriage.
Polls suggest it will pass overwhelmingly.
Polls suggest it will pass overwhelmingly.
squistion
Footballguy
19 cancellations and counting:
http://mashable.com/2015/05/22/tlc-19-kids-and-counting-off-air/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashablefrance+(Mashable!+Francais)
TLC to pull '19 Kids and Counting' after Duggar molestation allegations
TV network TLC will drop airings of 19 Kids and Counting from its current lineup, TMZ reported on Friday, following child molestation allegations against one of the show's stars, 27-year-old Josh Duggar.
Duggar resigned from his job at the Family Research Council on Thursday after In Touch released a police report with claims Duggar molested multiple young girls, including some of his sisters, when he was a teenager. He posted a lengthy statement on Facebook admitting that he "acted inexcusably" 12 years ago.[...]
A representative for General Mills told TMZ that they had "blacklisted" 19 Kids and Counting. It is no longer on their advertising schedule.
the moops
Footballguy
I think we do when it involves molesting underage siblings. There are some things as teenagers we can overlook. This is not one of them.
squistion
Footballguy
It did:
Shane Bitney Crone @ShaneBitney ·
Bravo to Ireland for becoming the first nation to approve marriage equality by popular vote! #LoveWins ????
squistion
Footballguy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristi-lowe/how-ireland-embraced-marriage-equality_b_7505172.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
How Ireland Embraced Marriage Equality
On May 22, Irish voters approved a national referendum on marriage equality. Other countries have legalized same-sex marriage through their parliaments and courts, but Ireland was the first where the public made the decision at the voting booth. This would be an historic moment for any country, but it is even more so for this bastion of conservative Catholicism.
So how did Ireland, one of the last Western democracies to decriminalize homosexuality, become the first country to embrace marriage equality by popular vote? Five factors shaped the outcome.
First, there is the Church's waning stature in Ireland. In 1995, Ireland passed a referendum over the Church's opposition ending the ban on legal divorce. The 2011 Cloyne Report outraged Ireland with evidence of sexual abuse by clergy and efforts by the Church to protect abusers. Then in 2013, Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kenny offered an historic national apology to the victims from decades earlier of the "Magdalene Laundries" -- Church-run homes for girls, which had often exploited their wards. Our focus groups with Irish voters during the referendum campaign revealed that the Church's opposition to this year's referendum carried limited weight.
Second, the Yes side ran an aspirational campaign, highly focused on the broad goal of equality. They motivated the Irish people to reflect upon the kind of country they wanted. They encouraged citizens to vote on their aspiration to be a country where everyone is treated equally no matter who they love. Mobilizing thousands of volunteers, the Yes campaign was omnipresent, plastering the entire country with colorful posters featuring equality-focused slogans. They made it both historic and cool to be part of the movement.
Third, the Yes side made a strategic decision to reach out beyond their base, appealing to hesitant voters and those who might have low motivation to vote. Going beyond the cosmopolitan young and well-educated in Dublin, the Yes camp reached out to more conservative and traditional older voters, using personal stories from gay children and parents of gay children. Their "Call Your Granny" campaign, which featured videos of young supporters of marriage equality calling their grandparents and asking them to vote "yes," went viral on social media.
Fourth, the Yes side made savvy moves to neutralize opposing arguments. To blunt concerns around adoption and surrogacy, the government wisely passed a Child and Family Relationships Bill before the start of the campaign, allowing adoption by same-sex couples regardless of the referendum results. When the No side tried to build a campaign around alleged damage to children from same sex marriages, the Yes side could effectively argue that concerns around adoption, parenting, and surrogacy were completely separate issues from this referendum.
Our own research highlighted that the No campaign had also erred by trying to argue that every child deserved a "normal family." Participants in our focus groups often characterized traditional nuclear families as a bygone relic, and a great many cited atypical families who are fully loving and committed. As a result, many voters found the No side message that "every child deserves a mother and a father" inaccurate if not downright offensive.
Fifth, strong public support encouraged all the main parties to unite in support of this issue, rendering it non-partisan. All the main parties ran also coordinated their campaigns with the larger Yes campaign. In addition, trade unions, business organizations, civic organizations, sports stars, and other celebrities advocated for a Yes vote.
How Ireland Embraced Marriage Equality
On May 22, Irish voters approved a national referendum on marriage equality. Other countries have legalized same-sex marriage through their parliaments and courts, but Ireland was the first where the public made the decision at the voting booth. This would be an historic moment for any country, but it is even more so for this bastion of conservative Catholicism.
So how did Ireland, one of the last Western democracies to decriminalize homosexuality, become the first country to embrace marriage equality by popular vote? Five factors shaped the outcome.
First, there is the Church's waning stature in Ireland. In 1995, Ireland passed a referendum over the Church's opposition ending the ban on legal divorce. The 2011 Cloyne Report outraged Ireland with evidence of sexual abuse by clergy and efforts by the Church to protect abusers. Then in 2013, Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kenny offered an historic national apology to the victims from decades earlier of the "Magdalene Laundries" -- Church-run homes for girls, which had often exploited their wards. Our focus groups with Irish voters during the referendum campaign revealed that the Church's opposition to this year's referendum carried limited weight.
Second, the Yes side ran an aspirational campaign, highly focused on the broad goal of equality. They motivated the Irish people to reflect upon the kind of country they wanted. They encouraged citizens to vote on their aspiration to be a country where everyone is treated equally no matter who they love. Mobilizing thousands of volunteers, the Yes campaign was omnipresent, plastering the entire country with colorful posters featuring equality-focused slogans. They made it both historic and cool to be part of the movement.
Third, the Yes side made a strategic decision to reach out beyond their base, appealing to hesitant voters and those who might have low motivation to vote. Going beyond the cosmopolitan young and well-educated in Dublin, the Yes camp reached out to more conservative and traditional older voters, using personal stories from gay children and parents of gay children. Their "Call Your Granny" campaign, which featured videos of young supporters of marriage equality calling their grandparents and asking them to vote "yes," went viral on social media.
Fourth, the Yes side made savvy moves to neutralize opposing arguments. To blunt concerns around adoption and surrogacy, the government wisely passed a Child and Family Relationships Bill before the start of the campaign, allowing adoption by same-sex couples regardless of the referendum results. When the No side tried to build a campaign around alleged damage to children from same sex marriages, the Yes side could effectively argue that concerns around adoption, parenting, and surrogacy were completely separate issues from this referendum.
Our own research highlighted that the No campaign had also erred by trying to argue that every child deserved a "normal family." Participants in our focus groups often characterized traditional nuclear families as a bygone relic, and a great many cited atypical families who are fully loving and committed. As a result, many voters found the No side message that "every child deserves a mother and a father" inaccurate if not downright offensive.
Fifth, strong public support encouraged all the main parties to unite in support of this issue, rendering it non-partisan. All the main parties ran also coordinated their campaigns with the larger Yes campaign. In addition, trade unions, business organizations, civic organizations, sports stars, and other celebrities advocated for a Yes vote.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
With liberty and justice for all.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
:confetti:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
