# Gay Marriage Plebiscite



## barryqwalsh

With Australians preparing for a national plebiscite on same-sex marriage, we visit Ireland – where it was legalised on one side of the border two years ago – and listen to different sides of the debate. 



By Dean Cornish, Joel Tozer 


Airdate:  Tuesday, September 12, 2017 - 21:30
Channel:  SBS



http://www.sbs.com.au/news/datelin


----------



## usmbguest5318

barryqwalsh said:


> With Australians preparing for a national plebiscite on same-sex marriage, we visit Ireland – where it was legalised on one side of the border two years ago – and listen to different sides of the debate.
> 
> By Dean Cornish, Joel Tozer
> 
> Airdate:  Tuesday, September 12, 2017 - 21:30
> Channel:  SBS
> 
> http://www.sbs.com.au/news/datelin



Re: your link.


----------



## DOTR

Must be nice to have a say in government. Here in the US we voted dozens if not hundreds of times to reject this bastardization of marriage. Our rulers decided otherwise.


----------



## bodecea

DOTR said:


> Must be nice to have a say in government. Here in the US we voted dozens if not hundreds of times to reject this bastardization of marriage. Our rulers decided otherwise.


Hundreds of times.....just like the hundreds of times "we voted" to keep inter-racial marriage illegal.......


----------



## DOTR

bodecea said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must be nice to have a say in government. Here in the US we voted dozens if not hundreds of times to reject this bastardization of marriage. Our rulers decided otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds of times.....just like the hundreds of times "we voted" to keep inter-racial marriage illegal.......
Click to expand...


  yes yes I know. As I said Americans cant be allowed to self govern. They mess it up...right? And liberal oligarchs have to fix it by ignoring their votes.
  Must be so tiresome being a liberal elite and constantly having to undo what the American people wrongly want.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must be nice to have a say in government. Here in the US we voted dozens if not hundreds of times to reject this bastardization of marriage. Our rulers decided otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds of times.....just like the hundreds of times "we voted" to keep inter-racial marriage illegal.......
Click to expand...



Oh? Cite them, Nazi Pete?


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Must be nice to have a say in government. Here in the US we voted dozens if not hundreds of times to reject this bastardization of marriage. Our rulers decided otherwise.



I am ashamed at the state of American education displayed by your post.

We don't have rulers in the United States- despite what you have learned from Stormfront and Alex Jones. 

But we do have a Constitution, and a Supreme Court. 

And just like the Supreme Court overturned the unconstitutional bans on mixed race marriages, it also overturned the unconstitutional bans on same gender marriages.

P.S.- we don't have national plebiscites in the U.S.

And now people in love can get legally married. Hopefully Australia will follow suit.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must be nice to have a say in government. Here in the US we voted dozens if not hundreds of times to reject this bastardization of marriage. Our rulers decided otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds of times.....just like the hundreds of times "we voted" to keep inter-racial marriage illegal.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes yes I know. As I said Americans cant be allowed to self govern. They mess it up...right? And liberal oligarchs have to fix it by ignoring their votes.
> Must be so tiresome being a liberal elite and constantly having to undo what the American people wrongly want.
Click to expand...


Shame you hate the Constitution so much that you think that Americans should be able to ignore it. 

Must have really pissed you off when the Supreme Court overturned those state laws forbidding mixed race marriages....


----------



## thetor

Syriusly said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must be nice to have a say in government. Here in the US we voted dozens if not hundreds of times to reject this bastardization of marriage. Our rulers decided otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds of times.....just like the hundreds of times "we voted" to keep inter-racial marriage illegal.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes yes I know. As I said Americans cant be allowed to self govern. They mess it up...right? And liberal oligarchs have to fix it by ignoring their votes.
> Must be so tiresome being a liberal elite and constantly having to undo what the American people wrongly want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shame you hate the Constitution so much that you think that Americans should be able to ignore it.
> 
> Must have really pissed you off when the Supreme Court overturned those state laws forbidding mixed race marriages....
Click to expand...

Same Sex marriage has my Vote


----------



## DOTR

thetor said:


> Same Sex marriage has my Vote



  Why should your vote matter? The Supreme Court says that self government fantasy can be ignored.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same Sex marriage has my Vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should your vote matter? The Supreme Court says that self government fantasy can be ignored.
Click to expand...


The ignorance is strong with you homophobes.

The Supreme Court says that state laws have to obey the Constitution- and that applies to gun laws- and marriage laws.


----------



## thetor

DOTR said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same Sex marriage has my Vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should your vote matter? The Supreme Court says that self government fantasy can be ignored.
Click to expand...

  I believe Australia does not have a constitution,like us


----------



## The Great Goose

Waste of time and money.


----------



## OZman

thetor said:


> I believe Australia does not have a constitution,like us



Here it is:           The annotated constitution of the Australian Commonwealth : Quick, John, Sir, 1852-1932 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive


----------



## martybegan

Syriusly said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must be nice to have a say in government. Here in the US we voted dozens if not hundreds of times to reject this bastardization of marriage. Our rulers decided otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds of times.....just like the hundreds of times "we voted" to keep inter-racial marriage illegal.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes yes I know. As I said Americans cant be allowed to self govern. They mess it up...right? And liberal oligarchs have to fix it by ignoring their votes.
> Must be so tiresome being a liberal elite and constantly having to undo what the American people wrongly want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shame you hate the Constitution so much that you think that Americans should be able to ignore it.
> 
> Must have really pissed you off when the Supreme Court overturned those state laws forbidding mixed race marriages....
Click to expand...


Kind of like how NYC hates it by making me wait 3-6 months for a freaking handgun permit. 

Race and sex are not even in the same ballpark. One is a cosmetic difference, there other involved the radical re-definition of a contract that goes back millennia and has always involved opposite sex individuals, (even when in plurality). 

What Obergfell should have done is allow States to define their own rules with regards to ISSUING SSM licenses, but force them to recognize ANY valid marriage license issued by another State via full faith and credit. That would allow people to get their marriages NOW, and let the rest of the country catch up eventually without the jiggery-pokery of 5/9 un-elected lawyers determine the outcome. 

Kudos to Australia for doing it the right way, just like all the States that passed SSM legislatively.


----------



## DOTR

martybegan said:


> Kudos to Australia for doing it the right way, just like all the States that passed SSM legislatively.



  Name a state that passed its same sex marriage NOT under threat from unelected Federal Judges. Your lies are insidious in that they attack self government. The people of every state but perhaps two tried over and over to find a way to express their opposition to this travesty. They were over ruled.
  Dont rewrite history. We didn't "pass" same sex marriage laws. In most cases we "passed" laws banning it. Five elites in DC overturned the will of 300 million Americans.


----------



## martybegan

DOTR said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos to Australia for doing it the right way, just like all the States that passed SSM legislatively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name a state that passed its same sex marriage NOT under threat from unelected Federal Judges. Your lies are insidious in that they attack self government. The people of every state but perhaps two tried over and over to find a way to express their opposition to this travesty. They were over ruled.
> Dont rewrite history. We didn't "pass" same sex marriage laws. In most cases we "passed" laws banning it. Five elites in DC overturned the will of 300 million Americans.
Click to expand...


New York passed it legislatively and willingly. Since that is my State, that's the one I care about. I supported making SSM legal in New York Legislatively.

My arguments against Obergfell are about the process, not the end result.


----------



## DOTR

martybegan said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos to Australia for doing it the right way, just like all the States that passed SSM legislatively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name a state that passed its same sex marriage NOT under threat from unelected Federal Judges. Your lies are insidious in that they attack self government. The people of every state but perhaps two tried over and over to find a way to express their opposition to this travesty. They were over ruled.
> Dont rewrite history. We didn't "pass" same sex marriage laws. In most cases we "passed" laws banning it. Five elites in DC overturned the will of 300 million Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New York passed it legislatively and willingly. Since that is my State, that's the one I care about. I supported making SSM legal in New York Legislatively.
> 
> My arguments against Obergfell are about the process, not the end result.
Click to expand...


   I meant to say besides New York. I believe New Hampshire did as well but not sure. Interestingly enough New York also legalized abortion before the oligarchs in DC overturned the laws of 48 other states. 
   Regardless , New York broke its own rules to pass the law (one, debate, exclusionary , open meetings and ethical (with the promise of shared campaign funds for any republican who voted yes). But New York’s corruption is New York’s problem on my opinion. 
   America itself rejected giving homosexuals a license. Even California. That right of self government was taken. 
   Had in not been New York would have repealed its law in a few years.


----------



## anotherlife

An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.


----------



## DOTR

anotherlife said:


> An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.



   I think you are right. 
     Marriage as an institution has to be eradicated. Gays consider it a constant reminder of their pathology. Feminists consider it an instrument of oppression.  Socialists see it as an alternative to dependency. Statists see it as a competing loyalty and a subversive educational conduit for western tradition.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

What's wrong with same sex marriage?

 Why can't they be just as miserable as the rest of us?


----------



## thetor

anotherlife said:


> An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.


Rubbish....considering that over 50% of marriages fail,your post is Inane,the "Institution of Marriage " has managed to do that themselves...Duh


----------



## anotherlife

thetor said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.
> 
> 
> 
> Rubbish....considering that over 50% of marriages fail,your post is Inane,the "Institution of Marriage " has managed to do that themselves...Duh
Click to expand...

Yes, but in this thread, the contribution of gays to eliminate marriages is the question.


----------



## thetor

anotherlife said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.
> 
> 
> 
> Rubbish....considering that over 50% of marriages fail,your post is Inane,the "Institution of Marriage " has managed to do that themselves...Duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but in this thread, the contribution of gays to eliminate marriages is the question.
Click to expand...

Another,do you mean marriages between a man and woman?


----------



## Syriusly

martybegan said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must be nice to have a say in government. Here in the US we voted dozens if not hundreds of times to reject this bastardization of marriage. Our rulers decided otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds of times.....just like the hundreds of times "we voted" to keep inter-racial marriage illegal.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes yes I know. As I said Americans cant be allowed to self govern. They mess it up...right? And liberal oligarchs have to fix it by ignoring their votes.
> Must be so tiresome being a liberal elite and constantly having to undo what the American people wrongly want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shame you hate the Constitution so much that you think that Americans should be able to ignore it.
> 
> Must have really pissed you off when the Supreme Court overturned those state laws forbidding mixed race marriages....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Race and sex are not even in the same ballpark. One is a cosmetic difference, there other involved the radical re-definition of a contract that goes back millennia and has always involved opposite sex individuals, (even when in plurality).
Click to expand...


Yet in both cases the rational was for the exact same reason- equal protection for Americans.

What you want is your cake and to eat it too- to argue that the Supreme Court was right to overturn State marriage laws when they restricted the right for a couple to marry because of race- but that the Supreme Court has no authority to overturn a state marriage law when they restricted the right for a couple to marry because of their gender. 

Either the Supreme Court has the power/authority under the Constitution- or it doesn't- and if it doesn't- there are still lots of people who were legally married as biracial couples only because the Supreme Court overturned those laws.


----------



## Syriusly

anotherlife said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.
> 
> 
> 
> Rubbish....considering that over 50% of marriages fail,your post is Inane,the "Institution of Marriage " has managed to do that themselves...Duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but in this thread, the contribution of gays to eliminate marriages is the question.
Click to expand...


I am pretty sure that gays are not going to eliminate marriage- since they have been fighting to have the same right to marry as everyone else.

Don't blame your own successful or failed marriage- on gays.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are right.
> Marriage as an institution has to be eradicated. Gays consider it a constant reminder of their pathology. Feminists consider it an instrument of oppression.  Socialists see it as an alternative to dependency. Statists see it as a competing loyalty and a subversive educational conduit for western tradition.
Click to expand...


Poor little snowflake. If you can't keep marriage to yourself- you want to break it.


----------



## Syriusly

anotherlife said:


> An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.



A spokesman for the Christian Conservatives declared a few years ago that they really want to make homosexuality illegal in the United States. Opposing gay marriage is just the least of their goals.


----------



## anotherlife

Syriusly said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thetor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.
> 
> 
> 
> Rubbish....considering that over 50% of marriages fail,your post is Inane,the "Institution of Marriage " has managed to do that themselves...Duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but in this thread, the contribution of gays to eliminate marriages is the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure that gays are not going to eliminate marriage- since they have been fighting to have the same right to marry as everyone else.
> 
> Don't blame your own successful or failed marriage- on gays.
Click to expand...


That is not about marriage rights, it is about financial rights, such as inheritance, insurance, and welfare.


----------



## anotherlife

Syriusly said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A spokesman for the Christian Conservatives declared a few years ago that they really want to make homosexuality illegal in the United States. Opposing gay marriage is just the least of their goals.
Click to expand...


Homosexuality is a pathological disorder, and it was removed from the DSM per social policy decision, not scientific research.  Usually pathological patients and sick people want to be healed, but not always, homosexuality is one of them.


----------



## martybegan

Syriusly said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must be nice to have a say in government. Here in the US we voted dozens if not hundreds of times to reject this bastardization of marriage. Our rulers decided otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds of times.....just like the hundreds of times "we voted" to keep inter-racial marriage illegal.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes yes I know. As I said Americans cant be allowed to self govern. They mess it up...right? And liberal oligarchs have to fix it by ignoring their votes.
> Must be so tiresome being a liberal elite and constantly having to undo what the American people wrongly want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shame you hate the Constitution so much that you think that Americans should be able to ignore it.
> 
> Must have really pissed you off when the Supreme Court overturned those state laws forbidding mixed race marriages....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Race and sex are not even in the same ballpark. One is a cosmetic difference, there other involved the radical re-definition of a contract that goes back millennia and has always involved opposite sex individuals, (even when in plurality).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet in both cases the rational was for the exact same reason- equal protection for Americans.
> 
> What you want is your cake and to eat it too- to argue that the Supreme Court was right to overturn State marriage laws when they restricted the right for a couple to marry because of race- but that the Supreme Court has no authority to overturn a state marriage law when they restricted the right for a couple to marry because of their gender.
> 
> Either the Supreme Court has the power/authority under the Constitution- or it doesn't- and if it doesn't- there are still lots of people who were legally married as biracial couples only because the Supreme Court overturned those laws.
Click to expand...


What you want is to equate race with gender automatically and that simply isn't the case. Restrictions on race for marriage were an artificial construct that happened for social and political reasons. Saying marriage can be between two people of the same gender has no historical precedence at all. It is a radical change that should not have been imposed by the courts except for forcing States to recognize legal marriages from other States. 

I say those laws would have been overturned eventually due to changes in the population. Once the Civil Rights Acts removed the block to black political power there would have been no stopping the laws being revoked.

Again, there is plenty of historical context of people outside their race/tribe/clan/caste marrying. SSM is a novel concept from the past 30 years or so that does not fall under the concept of equal protection.


----------

