Nikkeboentje writes:
Not sure if anyone in Ireland knows this but our Prime Minister here in Luxembourg got married to his same sex partner today. Look how happy they are….
Xavier Bettel and Gauthier Destenay say ‘I do’ (Luxemburger Wort)
Sponsored Link
How could anybody see any wrong in this? Look at their love shining from them.
+2015
Yes!
Also great timing in the lead up to our referendum :)
Oh you lovely more socially advanced nations you
+ facilitation of massive tax avoidance
Giveth with one hand etc
All perfectly legal.
We’ll have to introduce a pinko-tax!
Caring
Amazing headline.
Far better article about him and the wedding here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/15/luxembourg-prime-minister-eu-xavier-bettel-gauthier-destenay-gay-marriage
It’s a good article but it was published a few days before the wedding so no photos from today. I wanted people to see them heading into the City Hall and to see how utterly in love and happy they are.
WHY WHY WHYYYYY are our politicians so fugly?!
Is it just me or does he look the spit of david quinn?
I thought the same thing.
boom so did I :-)
haha yes he does!
i keep walking past a poster that says ‘a mother’s love is irreplaceable’. however, i know some mothers who are convinced that love is a mcdonalds and a tv set.
but i digress – congratulations to them. i’s say they got an amazing cake.
Pity they didn’t see a mother’s love as ‘irreplaceable’ when they were stealing babies from unmarried women and selling them off.
what on earth are you on about lad?
the Catholic Church, I’d say
CatholicLad
Grand, its just that nobody had actually ruined the moment by bringing up the church. Carry on.
Ha! Says the person who brought the church into the debate further down this comment section.
This is just lovely. Can’t believe there are people out there that could see anything remotely wrong about this.
How could anybody take issue with this?
Two guys looking happy respectable and clearly in love!!
What is the problem?
VOTE YES!!!
There’s no problem as such. The problem might come if, as in Ireland, the constitutional enabler for SSM is embedded in the section dealing with the family. Complicates things rather.
The problem might come, as such, from people making ridiculous comments, possibly, about things that don’t matter, you know, in this referendum.
Changing the section of the constitution which deals with ‘The Family’ clearly changes what the constitution says about the family. It may be a welcome change, but it is a change and will have an impact for better and, maybe, for ill.
I don’t get people who constantly deny this. It’s as if they’d have you believe we weren’t changing the constitution at all.
On a positive note, Pat Carey and wee Daniel are excellent advocates for a yes vote. I know Pats not new to it – but he’s really coming into his own. Pat, Daniel and Ursuala are going to reach people that the screechers in the Yes campaign could never dream to convince (or would ever lower themselves to talk to).
As long as Ivana doesn’t break free from house arrest in the last week, things might be looking up for the Yes camp.
Nope
2 questions Don:
1) Are we proposing to change the constitution?
2) What is the name of the Article that we are proposing to change?
1) please see all previous comments
2) repeat 1
Have you actually read Article 41?
Of course.
Shame Don lacks the intellectual honesty to even admit we’re changing the constitution.
Unless you think that gay people are inherently inferior as parents, your post is gibberish. If you do think so, you’re demonstrably incorrect, you should actually read some of the studies on the subject.
Those are your options tho, make no sense, or, be wrong.
While you make your choice, you should consider not accusing others of ignoring issues or being in denial, your own view is a ludicrous non-position.
Shame you lack intelligence news. Now back under your rock please.
D4n – what’s the name of the Article in the constitution that we’re proposing to change?
Newsjustin: the desperate and rather exhaustive (and no doubt exhausting) attempt by you to masquerade as a Yes voter but ventilate, to the point of straining everyone’s patience, every and any spurious No argument, is getting old – very old.
Vote how you wish but please give it a rest. Nobody cares.
It’s article 41, the family. And that fact makes no difference to the issues. As I said, your view is a ludicrous non-position.
How complicates? A family is two people. I’ve been 50% of a family for 21 years. Millions of other people have gotten married since we did and the effect on us has been zilch, nada, niente.
If you say a family is UNIQUELY two people plus children, you are saying my family is ‘other’, ‘lesser’ or simply ‘doesn’t count’ and IMHO, that would make you a slug, a slimy, crawly, ooozy, slug.
You’re far too kind to him
Such nastiness for someone asking questions.
We all know what you are about news and it ain’t just asking questions
It complicates things because the constitutional change is no longer just about two people marrying. It’s about “The Family”.
You can call it a complication if you like, newsjustout .
I think most people recognise it as a clarification of equal rights.
It takes nothing from you. Absolutely nothing.
Your ambiguity exposes the fragile lies you build your argument on.
You can call it a complication if you like, newsjustout .
I think most people recognise it as a clarification of equal rights.
It takes nothing from you. Absolutely nothing.
Your ambiguity exposes the fragile lies you build your argument on.
It can be both. My simple point is that we are proposing to change the constitutional article called and related to “The Family”. People are very uncomfortable even admitting that undeniable fact.
It can be both. My simple point is that we are proposing to change the constitutional article called and related to “The Family”. People are very uncomfortable even admitting that undeniable fact.
It can be both. My simple point is that we are proposing to change the constitutional article called and related to “The Family”. People are very uncomfortable even admitting that undeniable fact.
It can be both. My simple point is that we are proposing to change the constitutional article called and related to “The Family”. People are very uncomfortable even admitting that undeniable fact.
Man, this site is acting funny tonight.
@justinfromthe15thcentury
-And your point is?
What difference does that make to YOU?
What terrible changes does this make that the rest of us should be aware of?
My point is simply that the Article on the family is being changed. If people could simply acknowledge that it’d be great.
I don’t think there’s much risk in that change. But it’s the unexpected consequences that you gotta look out for I guess.
What changes?
What consequences?
I’ve asked already.
I’d like to know.
I’m a heterosexual male. I have no gay members in my ‘external-family’ that I’m aware of, but I’d welcome the bravery of any of my children who ‘came out’.
I have friends who are Gay. They pretend to be Bi-Sexual in order to be accepted.
My children won’t grow up like that.
The change? Adding 17 words to Article 41 “The Family”.
The consequences? That’s where I’m unclear, perhaps none. But changing the constitutional take on the family is not a trivial thing the family is important.
I get it now…
Beware of the Bogeyman, because there IS NO Bogeyman, but justincasethereis stay alert. (But there really IS NO Bogeyman.)
Thanks for the clarification.
If there’s nothing to worry about, why won’t people even admit we’re making a change to the Article on the family?
Give it a rest, please.
You’re asking me me to refute an argument you don’t seem capable of formulating.
Explain these ‘changes’ and ‘consequences’, please.
-Then I’ll tell you where you’re wrong.
Stop this.
Newsjustin, this shouldnt even have been an issue for referendum. If the state recognised marriage in law, in a civil ceremony, then you wouldnt have to bring the church into it.
Scotter – what does the church have to do with this? We’re talking about civil marriage.
Legislation for civil SSM without a referendum would be challenged and overturned so fast it would make your head spin.
John McQuaid must be spinning in his grave.
#bringbackarticle44
Sadly he wasn’t buried alive.
But that has ALWAYS been the case in the Constitution. Family = two people who are married to each other.
Our Catholic friends want to scare a few people into defending The Constitution.
Remind them of the new constitution of 1937 as drafted by John Charles MacQuaid under Edward Cahill.
Preamble
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, etc also woman mek sammich (article 41)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00294/69260196_cam_294710c.jpg
Haha I don’t think there is much love lost between those two! Cameron and clegg who would’ve guessed that wasn’t gonna work out?!!
I can’t make my mind up if this is a good thing without seeing their shoes first.
So true! Back down to generic hetero wedding if either pair are brown *narrows eyes*
I can confirm that both men were wearing black shoes.
Hurrah!!! I should have expected more from the Europeans
In that case I give it my blessing.
Good to get that out of the way, great question too. Worthy of BBC Newsnight!
Holy God All Mighty……. This is a travesty……. What about all the wee Luxemburgers now?….. They’ll start dropping like flies what with not being loved and all……and there’s probably a cow being a surrogate for two gay lads somewhere in Luxemburg and God knows what will happen at the Daniel O’Donnell concert next month…….
It’s all too much for me lads…….
Vote No…….
Such a handsome couple. They’ll snatch some gorgeous babies right out of the hands of heterosexuals some day.
How do you think the geys spend their wedding night?!
Meanwhile lady in Galway is praying for their destruction: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32753085
Lost soul i guess
Ah yes, the old Sodom and Gomorrah chestnut. All that destruction the lord has rained down on the UK? America? Most of Europe?
What a sad horrible person she is
If you ever want to have some fun with someone who wants to play the ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’ card. ask them where the cities were. Ask them where the remains of the city are.
Ask them for details about any archaeological evidence found in the regions where they were supposedly situated.
Then tell them: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THESE CITIES EVER EXISTED…..
That’s because of all the bareback riding
Sounds a bit chafey
Ash can get in the smallest of places
I don’t think she would even care. She would just flap her silly hands in your face and mutter something about children. These people don’t do facts.
+1
oh dear
I’m not sure what this is a metaphor for…
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/lot-and-his-daughters.html
How long before the No side start trading on the fear of Destenay’s child?
Ah let them get over the wedding night first, so xavier can properly enjoy the spear of destenay..
I don’t think he ready for this jelly
Trifling!
On their way to take a new born from a mother’s breast no doubt.
They learnt that from the nuns
Yep, they have that look about them alright.
The marrying another man does give them away alright
Santorum dribbling out of your mouth again?
Probably theirs as that what they get off on.
Santorum Super Tuesday Surprise
1. (noun) An anal sex act, in which the giving partner lies to the receiving partner and tells him or her that he has ejaculated. After the receiving partner turns around to face him, the giving partner violently ejaculates into the other partner’s eye. He then uses the Santorum that has accumulated on his penis to draw a cross on the forehead of the stunned receiving partner.
It’s no Liverpool v Chelsea Super Sunday is it?
Yep, all very natural. Normal real couples are certainly missing out. I envy you your sh#t sex.
When Torres was playing at Pool and Rafa was in charge perhaps
Ewwwww stop perving on other people’s sex lives!! I bet you watch the neighbours through the curtains and all tm
That’s not sex. It’s filth.
@ Bertie didn’t Valdano describe some of those Pool Chelsea games as ‘sh*t on a stick’ ?!!
Tm only does sex without looking at his wife and through a sheet like the good lord intended. Everything else is perversion!!!!
Ewwwww stop perving on other people’s sex lives!! I bet you watch the neighbours through the curtains and all
to quote the character of Deon, from Black-ish:
“Oh my god, I just realised my brother and his husband are gay!”
I had a good laugh today at a leaflet from Iona.
No.5 in a list of 5 Reasons to vote NO is;
No other country has ever voted for this.
-Does that even make sense?
-In the box-out explanation there was some nonsense that used words but said nothing, but then comes the killer line;
When referenda were held in European countries (in Croatia, Slovenia and Slovakia) large majorities voted AGAINST redefining marriage (sic)
That one definitely doesn’t make sense. I know the boys over in Croatia, Slovenia and Slovakia are a great bunch of lads an’ all that, but I wouldn’t want them deciding who [REDACTED] my [REDACTED], would you Ted?
Ah so they left off where the voter turn out in all 3 was tiny and in one case meant the vote is not valid. More cherry picking of facts!!
The bigger laugh I got was when I looked to see who was printing this bilious nonsense.
Their logo is hilarious.
It looks like either Zig or Zag gob-strucken by the the two mutually incompatible lines to his/her left; ‘Support Marriage’ and ‘Iona Institute’. I wish I could find a link.
While looking for the logo I saw a headline on the Iona site warning that if you vote Yes two heterosexual men could get married;
http://ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3936
That was the part where I fell off me chair and couldn’t get up.
Sent from my iPhone.
Actually, scratch that…I think it looks MUCH more like Chewbacca.
Sumbody please find the logo I’m looking for.
I’m a girl.
Found it boys, you’re too slow;
Found it boys, you’re too slow;
I’m just a dumb girl. How would I know HTLM?
Here it is;
[img]http://i.imgur.com/tnIp9Ze.png[/img]
It’s back to business after the referendum Leo, so stop dreaming.
Wow they are refreshing pictures. Can you imagine the Taoiseach of this country doing that?!? Not a notion. Vote YES.
Enda did already do that, he got married decades ago in fact.
I presume he meant showing emotion like an actual human being rather than getting married.
No I’m actually meant a gay Taoiseach and him or her getting married to their partner.
Wow they are refreshing pictures. Can you imagine the Taoiseach of this country doing that?!? Not a notion. Vote YES.
Refreshing? I think you mean disturbing, this is so unnatural. Im off to have my way with that lamp over there, equality for inanimate object lovers.
I dunno
Leo’d make a nice br’oom
Luxembourg… A country so far from people’s minds that they would name a state in America as a country before they would think of Luxembourg.
Probably.
I could me wrong though.
You could me right!
but think of the children.
I hear the kids really enjoyed the wedding. Thanks for your concern!!
In my day we were thrilled to have a box of confetti.
Lookit, if two eejits wanna risk getting married, I couldn’t care less what gender they were.
There’s always free drink at a wedding.
Yah-hooooo!
What is your favourite?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/15/new-zealands-new-flag-15-quirky-contenders
I’m surprised you have to ask! Laser eyes of course
… http://s9.postimg.org/btkcnhawv/image.jpg
My concern is that once this is past it won’t just be single women on the hunt at weddings, it will be gays too. I really don’t fancy being chased around all day by some queen with the suit already picked out, thanks very much.
And the mammies will be at it too. Scanning the room for decent prospects for their recently out gay son. The vetting will start. From a decent family tick good job tick nice parents tick nice car tick. Have you met my son Johnny?
You sound like quite the catch.
I’m joking of course. But, never under estimate the Irish mammy’s ability to move with the times. All that will change in her mind is the target demographic.
Can confirm.
So, it’s been nearly 24 hours since Xavier Bettel got married and guess what…the sky hasn’t fallen down, there’s no plague of locusts and no babies have been snatched from hetro couples.
give it time ;)