Question

A rainbow over Dublin today as *** marriage wins in a public referendum. Should the US have them too?

Answer 1

We already have rainbows.

Answer 2

Marriage in any form should not be a subject for Government. It is purely an individual's decision and only concerns those parties that choose to engage in such a mutually acceptable relationship.

Government has used "marriage" for a variety of reasons to place people in various categories and groups so as to tax them differently or subsidize or deter specific behavior. There were many years that my husband & I filed our taxes as 'married filing jointly' only to discover that we would have been better off filing as two single people and simply "shacking up" in the eyes of the IRS.

The fed needs to **** out of the "marriage" discussion and simply defend its judicial responsibility of upholding contract law in civil unions and leave the rest of the choices up to the individual citizens.

Answer 3

pretty creepy they had a rainbow on the day of the vote huh? Maybe there is a *** after all LOL

Answer 4

Marvelous

Answer 5

At least w/marrying a man, you can get consent. Not to sure about the horse or pig. (although I've known many men that turned out to be pigs :-)

Answer 6

I think Canada (Ontario?) was one of the first to pass the law for *** marriage....

I guess if someone wanted to marry their pig or horse...well it's a new and different situation isn't it?

You were one of the lucky ones...

Answer 7

I googled it and couldn't find ANY of the U.S. states where the PUBLIC approved it via their votes... only the courts by judicial fiat and/or legislatures.

But I still think it shouldn't even be an issue for ANY government. Leave people alone to their own devices and choices. It's none of anyone else's business...especially government!

(Ha, besides, I was married to the same man for almost 30yrs and it was the same *** every time! :-) And I loved it every time!)

Answer 8

No kidding... I totally agree... But you think a 'public referendum' would work in some states...?

Answer 9

Why should gov't have the right to say "allow" or "disallow" in the first place?

It's none of their business! I can't speak for Canada, but in my country, such regulatory oversight by gov't is beyond the purview of the Constitutional limits imposed upon our federal gov't.

Answer 10

*** marriages s/be allowed by now...

Answer 11

It's our lives.. why do we still allow mindless idiots make decisions on what THEY think is best for the American Public..If **** want to marry let them! Marriage is a contract and has nothing to do with religion.. other wise you would not have to get a license, can be married by a judge or any state official.. and when you break up must get a divorce to *** it!

Answer 12

SORRY CLICKED THE WRONG ONE . THIS IS ONE. NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Answer 13

No one owns anyone elses's lives, and I have no problem with people that care about one another committing to one another.
That should have been yes......................

Answer 14

Sorry this is a troll question.

“A solid answer to everything is not necessary. Blurry concepts influence one to focus, but postulated clarity influences arrogance.”

All that said we come to "marriage" is a very specific thing. Created by man for a very specific purpose.

Answer 15

so let me ask you: what's the thing that annoys the Irish more: the betrayal of the RC church and its priests, or the fact that *********** want to get married. i.e. which is the biggest "sin"?

Answer 16

We've been having them for some time.
Only thing is the *** marriage kept losing.

Answer 17

The U.S. has had referendums on this issue in various states. Whenever the referendum goes against their wishes, militant ********** district court judges set aside the vote and render the people's wishes irrelevant.

Answer 18

The US sort of does have referendums already, with people voting on various "propositions" during elections.

Direct democracy is kind of stupid though when you think about it. You elect leaders to lead, you're hiring them for their expertise. It's like going to the doctor for treatment and then after examining you she asks you what form of treatment you should take. If your doctor is worth the price, she should know better than you what to do.

The real problem is that people keep going back to the same two doctors. They get treatment from one that doesn't work so they go to the other one, and that doesn't work either, so instead of going to a third doctor, they go back to the first, and when that doesn't work they go to the second one again, it's insanity. You know what I'm talking about.

The only thing direct democracy is good for is deciding controversial but essentially unimportant issues like *** marriage. It's a way for politicians to avoid having to make those controversial decisions and have to defend them for the rest of their careers.

When it comes to making important policy decisions, a good leader should be better equipped to make the right choice than the average person.

Answer 19

Goof for Ireland for having such a logical educated group. You should not have to vote on someone's civil rights.

Answer 20

Yes. We are guaranteed the "Pursuit of Happiness" in our constitution.
Some people are simply born *** and they are Americans who deserve the same happiness as the rest of us. It's a civil rights issue that will eventually succeed.

Answer 21

"Up the Irish!" No pun intended.

Answer 22

It was ***, giving him his approval