Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage 623
BarbaraHudson writes: Reuters is reporting that the citizens of Ireland voted overwhelmingly to legalize same-sex marriages. While it's also legal in 19 other countries, Ireland was the first to decide this by putting the question to the citizens. "This has really touched a nerve in Ireland," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain said at the main count center in Dublin. "It's a very strong message to every LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) young person in Ireland and every LGBT young person in the world." Observers say the loss of moral authority of the Catholic church after a series of sex scandals was a strong contributing factor, with priests limiting their appeals to the people sitting in their pews. In contrast, the "Yes" side dominated social media.
This isn't a question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: This isn't a question (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said.
To add to the story above, this vote was to enshrine this equality in our constitution. So no law can be changed to remove this right.
This truely is a fantastic day for Ireland, and for the world as a whole.
Re: This isn't a question (Score:4)
Re: This isn't a question (Score:4, Informative)
Ireland needed to ask the question via a referendum, as their constitution (which requires a referendum to modify) defines marriage as between a man and woman.
A unilateral edict by the Government of the day would not have been sufficient.
Re: This isn't a question (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, there was no mention of marriage being between a man and a woman in either our constitution or our laws. However, the vote was needed in order to protect the rights of same sex couples to marry, and prevent possible future reinterpretations or changes in law from denying them the right.
Re:This isn't a question (Score:5, Interesting)
In the broadest scope I've never understood why there has to be laws concerning marriage. It's a private contract. There shouldn't be a question of can two people of the same sex get married - the question should be why we need to regulate this at all. If some regulation is found to be useful, what should it be? I'm not happy about "The State" getting that far into my business.
The lesson for the US in this is one that New York, a very Irish and Catholic City and State, learned. You do this by legislative authority, not juridical. The use of judicial fiat just creates anger and inhibits the building of consensus. It isn't something WE did, it's something THEY forced on us. Ireland agreed with itself on this. The way the US is doing it isn't about agreement, it's about power.
This is why I find myself supporting same sex marriage in NY but hoping the US Supreme Court rules against the suit. In the US this isn't a Federal Case - it is something the States have to deal with. The NSA has given me all the evidence I need to not trust to Federal Authority to solve subtle problems. I can't help but worry that the court case isn't about Justice, it's about finding a shortcut around the slogging of the Legislative process.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that there are laws concerning private contracts in most countries.
I agree that marriage is just a contract between two people (note that I disagree with the contention that "love" has anything to do with marriage - no, you don't have to be "in love" to marry, nor does a marriage end just because you stop being "in love").
The devil, however, is in the details. What responsibilities does
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever responsibilities you agree on.
If this contract is treated specially, it should be treated as such based on specific, rational concepts, not a generic "X and Y are 'married'". So, give people tax breaks if they have kids; give them tax breaks if they give each other power of attorney; give them tax breaks if they take on legal liability for each other etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, maybe. It could also be about the fact that money has made the US electoral system no longer an accurate reflection of the will of the people.
And it's not even about referendums, because referendums don't even make it to the ballot without big money getting behind them. And candidates? Forget about it. There's a money primary that happens before you even get to find out who's running.
Today I was reading an article about how statist
Re: (Score:2)
In the broadest scope I've never understood why there has to be laws concerning marriage
Because it is one of the very few institutions found in all human cultures. Any legal system that doesn't deal with marriage in some fashion is profoundly deficient. I'd prefer that we separate the legal and spiritual aspects, but that's a separate argument.
The use of judicial fiat just creates anger and inhibits the building of consensus. It isn't something WE did, it's something THEY forced on us.
This, this, a thousand times this. Telling people "fuck you, that's the way it is, and no you have no choice" is why the US still has a huge anti-abortion lobby.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This isn't a question (Score:4, Insightful)
Until fairly recently in human history, marriage was largely a religious and private issue.
Until fairly recently in human history, religion was not a private issue. The secular state did not exist (with a few notable exceptions, like the Mongol empire).
Re: (Score:3)
Until fairly recently in human history, religion was the law, and no issue could be both religious and private.
Re:This isn't a question (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that a representative democracy needs parts that can't be simply fired so they have some independence from the mob.
Re: (Score:2)
In the broadest scope I've never understood why there has to be laws concerning marriage. It's a private contract. There shouldn't be a question of can two people of the same sex get married - the question should be why we need to regulate this at all. If some regulation is found to be useful, what should it be? I'm not happy about "The State" getting that far into my business.
It's not the state getting into your "business", it's your business getting into the state. Marriage predates nation-states by millennia. And as a practical matter, I'm glad I didn't have to get a lawyer and sign a 500-page contract in order to get married, and I'm glad that other people don't need their own lawyer to go over such a contract in order to recognize my marriage.
Re: (Score:3)
Years and years ago, marriage was generally a church matter. Some societies had laws or rules dedicated to strengthening the society like procreation edicts and such. The more citizens you have, the more chance of surviving raids and such. Then some European king made it a state matter in a scuffle over power with the church. This is where the "if anyone knows of a reason they shouldn't be married line came from", if either spouse was in violation of church laws or the laws of the kingdom, the church wouldn
Re:This isn't a question (Score:4, Informative)
Sure I know about the roman marriage laws. I even know about Nero claiming to marry a male ex slave and a boy he castrated and roman law forbidding it at the time. But that is all sort of irrelevant as to why government is still involved in marriage. Even in Rome, the church controlled what could and couldn't count as marriage starting around the 4th century when Rome converted to Christianity. But I didn't want to write a complete history of marriage, just a short summery to why government is involved today.
Also, the church or churches was involved in marriage long before the Council of Trent. The reformation set certain things into cannon but didn't start it. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term Church and instead said a religious matter. In English law which is important here because of the connections to Ireland and the US, the laws of old Rome are somewhat removed. The Marriage Duty Acts on the late 1600s (1694 and 95) is likely where the start of government interference in Ireland and the US in modern day marriage started.
Re: (Score:3)
It's irrelevant to any point I made. Most of the rest of your comment is irrelevant too.
There is no flawed premise. Ireland gets it's laws from English law not roman laws. Nothing it flawed, as I already said, what I gave was not a comprehensive history of marriage. It's even in the first post. You gain nothing by trying to inject what I left out as I left it out on purpose. BTW, what
Re: (Score:3)
There's absolutely nothing wrong with polygamy. You look like an intolerant shit-face when you group it together with slavery or human sacrifice.
Re: (Score:2)
Marriage is a standard contract that society has an interest in defining. Rather than each couple writing their own, society has set a standard that includes inheritance rights and so forth, and is supposed to be the ideal. For that reason it carries a certain weight and attraction for people.
Of you don't want to use it, there should be systems in place to facilitate that. Of course if you do want it, you should have access to it regardless of sexual orientation.
Re:This isn't a question (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a private contract.
So long as the government is expected to arbitrate the terms of contracts, there is no such thing as a private contract. I can't privately contract myself into slavery, of for sex for hire, or a large number of things, for various reasons. Private contracts don't exist, until such time as the government abolishes all human rights, so they aren't expected to step in for unfair, coerced, or otherwise illegal contracts.
Also, in this case, the public contract has been around so long that many laws have been written assuming it. "Family" law assumes and is built around government-approved marriages. To change marriage would change thousands of laws, with unknown and untested consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you give an example of a negative outcome?
A step-parent relationship is legally the same as an adoption here. The only reason to perform a step-parent adoption is to block birth-parent visitation. So step parent adoptions are rare. But, marriage to the parent of a child is the equivalent. One is the legal guardian of the children in the relationship, regardless of blood. So, if the birth parent in the married couple dies, the child's care is uninterrupted. The surviving parent is sole guardian, and legally the parent, unless the other birth p
Re: (Score:3)
In the broadest scope I've never understood why there has to be laws concerning marriage. It's a private contract.
It is what undid the gayhate movement. Instead of using the ever dubious moral aspect, the fight was lost over the equal protections under the law aspect. For same sex couples to be denied the rights and obligations of heterosexuals in marriage was found to be unconstitutional.
And the seal was that marriage is quite codified in the legal system. As such it is a civil, not a religious matter. Churches perform weddings, they do not perform marriages. The marriage part of the wedding is not definable by reli
Re:This isn't a question (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should 2 people get tax incentives simple because of "love"? How about we take the government out of all marriages as far as tax and property reasons are concerned so that single people have the same rights as those lucky enough to find love
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This isn't a question (Score:3)
The law effectively defines the terms of the contract. It's actually easier that way.
If you like, you can enter into a contract with your partner and leave the state out of it. But you'll run into issues with, for the sake of example, of your other half is incapacitated - the hospital solicitor/lawyer would need a copy of your contact to see what agreement is in place with regard to your next of kin rights, and your rights to make decisions about their treatment.
Having a state defined contract means that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Extrensing marital rights to gay couples is no more creating a new class than overthrowing anti miscegenation laws created a new class. From my point of view, allowingf same sex marriage in fact creates fewer classes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
OK nutter, but reduce the argument to a reasonable one — you should be able to designate someone to come see you in the hospital whether you're married or related or not — and we return to there being absolutely no valid reason to not permit you to define the small pool of people who are permitted to see you if you are in the hospital. Speaking for myself, I vehemently do not want my mother permitted into my hospital room for any reason.
Re: (Score:3)
i would simply argue that id rather see the government out of marriage completely. Why should 2 people get tax incentives simple because of "love"? How about we take the government out of all marriages as far as tax and property reasons are concerned so that single people have the same rights as those lucky enough to find love
Because of insurance for families, because of inheritance aspects, becvause of divorce, Next of kin, legal documents Lot's of legal reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Marriage is a union of two people who love each other and that is all it is,
Why the arbitrary limit?
Re:This isn't a question (Score:4, Informative)
Milestone might be the wrong word, but this result stands out. The citizens stood up to the catholic church, and reminded the clergy about the principle of separation of church and state.
The church's arrogance has come back to bite it, as people now see through the hypocrisy.
Well done, my (distant) Irish relatives.
Re: This isn't a question (Score:3)
The gay aspect doesn't come into it. The age limit for marriage is set in law (as is the whole legal definition of marriage). And there are 0 reasons not to let any gay person get married, in accordance with law.
Re: (Score:2)
Let? This seems to be a big misunderstanding amongst humans - the idea that rights are given to us by some higher authority. Nuh-uh, existence grants our rights. The best our entitled humans may do is refrain from removing them by threat of force. Have a nice day =D
Re: This isn't a question (Score:4, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I'm a gay man married to another man.
When you say "special rights" I think of inequality and favoritism. In reality, gay marriage isn't that (or at least I don't expect it to be that). The main things I want from the law/government regarding my marriage is: medical decisions when the other cannot make them, inheritance decisions without me explicitly writing down that my husband co-owns my assets, the ability to make decisions for our children, and... well I think that's it. I don't consider these natural rights, I really just consider them a government recognition of companionship. This has nothing to do with fucking.
Re: (Score:3)
What does that have to do with who you marry? It shouldn't be necessary to marry someone to give someone that power, nor does everybody who marries someone else want their partner to have that power.
If you have any significant assets, you better think about inheritance decisions and make a will, be
Re: (Score:3)
The simplest change would be (as I said) simply to strike the term "marriage" from the laws and replace it by "civil union"; that wouldn't change anybody's rights, but it would get rid of the stupid discussions around the state redefining religious marriage.
Converting marriage into a private contractual arrangement and unbundling it is harder. Nevertheless, what you are worried about isn't a big problem: old marriages would simply be deemed equivalent to a specific modern contract.
Finally, your reasoning ab
Re: This isn't a question (Score:5, Insightful)
Goats are not legal entities, don't have the capacity to understand marriage, don't have the capacity to comprehend the (do you take this person) question, don't have the ability to answer the question.
Marriage is a contract that is entered into willingly by both partners. A goat cannot willingly enter into a contract (lack of comprehension. etc), this cannot get married.
Maybe, one day, when goats evolve sufficiently... But certainly not today.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's discrimination and you're a closed minded person.
My goat loves me and wants to share the rest of her life with me. I don't care what anyone else says or thinks because they're just wrong. In a ritual recognized by my tribe, the chief married my goat and I. Things have been great; she keeps the lawn trim while I maintain the house and hunt for my own food. We can't have babies together; but that's ok because our tribe is very open about sexual relationships and I hooked up with one of our tribe's (for
Re: (Score:3)
So YOU'RE this guy [bbc.co.uk], the one who the tribe force him to marry to a goat after being caught having sex with it! No wonder you post anonymously here!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Naa-a-a-a-a-hh!
Re: (Score:3)
Can a goat grant consent?
No, it can't. I have no idea why gay bashers keep bringing bestiality up.
Oh wait, yes I do. They are projecting their wishes to fuck a goat. That's sick.
Fundies spend a lot more time thinking about gay sex than gay people do.
Re: This isn't a question (Score:2, Insightful)
Amazingly, there's no "gay agenda", except for the one that people like yourself appear to see...
Re: This isn't a question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: This isn't a question (Score:4, Informative)
Think about it for a minute - what actual, tangible, benefit do gays achieve by being able to call their relationships a marriage?
Do you want a list of the thousands of rights that come with marriage? The rights of survivorship are ignored by almost all, at least until their spouse dies suddenly, and they have to take over the life. When my dad died, I could have sued his partner for her house. They weren't "married", but had lived together for 10+ years, and lived as man and wife. As he made tangible improvements to the property, and as I'm his son, I have a right to whatever holding he had in that property. Since he wasn't married, I could claim against that as his heir. If they had been married, then I'd have had no claim. It would have passed to his wife without claim or ability for incident.
That's one of the thousands of rights that married people take for granted. In most cases, even a written living will is trumped by the "marriage" card. Though, that's changing. But a non-married partner will be ignored by all. And that's not changing.
of course most have little interest in real human rights - just ask around here about people's views on abortion for example.
Since someone doesn't agree with your fascist declaration of when life begins, you assert that their value of life is different. Nah, you are just a fascist aggressor who hates people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: This isn't a question (Score:5, Insightful)
Up until recently beating the shit out of your wife and forcing sexual intercourse on her against her will (spousal rape) was considered lawful and appropriate. Some traditional views just plain suck and we should welcome their demiwey.
This has nothing to do with Marxism, any more than throwing out laws banning miscegenation had anything to do with Marxism.
Re: (Score:2)
Being raised gender neutral means they play with the toys the kid chooses, the clothes the kid chooses to wear, etc. Nobody is "forcing" anything except the fundies who back "reparative therapy", a profitable fraud that is now coming under bans in many places because forcing someone to be other than the gender they feel they are is abusive.
But don't let the truth ruin your story :-(
Re: (Score:3)
I recall reading about this experiment. Kids were left free to play with any toys they wanted... and, surprise, they still chose the traditional ones.
The majority of them do, yes. That's fine for them to do. Some of them don't. It's not fine for the majority to force them to do so. It's not fine for the parents to force them to do so. They may be ignorant and out of control tiny little humans, but many adult humans are also ignorant and out of control and we still let them dress how they want and in most states and countries, even fuck who they want given consensuality.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I can think of one: Gay parents pushing their social agendas onto their (likely) straight adopted children are more likely to cause self esteem and relationship issues. This isn't much different than the stereotype of the belt wielding father who tries to beat the gay out of his son.
This also reminds me of those articles in the times about 'progressive' parents raising their boys as 'gender neutral', but really, they just force them to wear girls clothes and play with dolls.
Like you I'll get modded Troll for defending you, but I won't do it anonymously. You are about half right: there _are_ people who teach gay behaviour, and it is right now not politically correct to say so because the whole issue is very sensitive to people on both sides.
I have no more problem with gays than I have with Muslims, Jews, blacks, Beiber fans, or pot smokers. Each one wants to live his life as his morals, upbringing, and internal inclination direct him. Some feel the need to preach their way of
Re: This isn't a question (Score:2)
But plenty of reasons why you _shouldn't_
Re: This isn't a question (Score:3)
Which church? Which religion?
One religion's rules have no binding any anyone not in that religion, especially other religions.
Of someone founds the Church of Homosexual Christians and decide to marry same sex couples, they are as within their right to do that as your church is to deny these unions.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you heard, in history the church had power of veto over everything. Want to do something? Ask the church.
These days that role has been eclipsed by governments and their corporate sponsors.
Re: (Score:2)
2) Don't abuse others - like God said to, he's still a drinky
3) Use common sense and don't believe without evidence - Unlike God said.
Re:This isn't a question (Score:4, Insightful)
In the beginning was the sock and not God, God came about 2 minutes later.
So that is pretty hard evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Every civilization in the history of mankind has condemned sodomy
Tell that to the ancient Greeks. Next time learn a bit of history before making blanket statements.
Re:This isn't a question (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be a retard who can't think for himself. Every civilization in the history of mankind has condemned sodomy and never define marriage as anything but between a man and women.
Every civilization in the history of mankind? I don't know why you're calling someone else a retard.
So-called "sodomy" in many ancient societies hasn't always been seen as condemning someone to live eternity in hell. Ancient Greek and Roman societies, for example, were pretty loose in that regard.
You want to claim every people in history were a bunch of fools, be my guest. But, only other fools will believe you.
It was the same then as it is now; in any random group of humans, at least 1 in 10 are homosexual. And others were born with a gender but in their mind they *know* they are a different gender. I'm happy to be comfortable in my male skin, but small-minded people like you just can't grasp the concept.
It's always been this way and it always will. Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
First reaction to your post: Ahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha!
Second reaction:
"never define marriage as anything but between a man and women."... or a man and several women. Or a man, several women and a "boy". Whose purpose was... buggery, basically. You really need to pick up a history book sometime.
And even if "every" civilisation in history had condemned this - THEY ARE FUCKING HISTORICAL CIVILISATIONS. Until a couple of hundred years ago (yes), people were still shitting in the corner of the ro
Re: (Score:3)
The primitives did so because they knew that eating pork made you sick. They didn't know what food poisoning was, so they asserted that the meats or animals were mystical.
Sodomy with an infected person is a transmission risk for almost all diseases.
There's nothing "moral" in the reasons. Other than the governments asserted so when declaring it.
You want to claim every people in history were a bunch of fools, be my guest. But, only other fools will believe you.
There are many good pieces of advice in the many historical and religious books handed down. They stumbl
Re: (Score:2)
I'm too tired & drunk to point out in a witty and sarcastic way how stupid your argument is, but I'm sober enough to know that it is stupid. Don't touch that dial.
Re: (Score:2)
Marriage pre-dates religion.
And we'll force them to comply with the law. If they want to "marry" people (I know churches in the UK generally DO NOT, that's for the marriage registrar, not the church), they have to comply with the law.
In the same way that just because a religion believes it can stone adulterous women still can't do that if the law says it's not allowed.
However, as noted above, churches do NOT marry people. They perform a religious ceremony that some people call a wedding. That's very diff
Re: (Score:3)
Marriage pre-dates religion.
Proof?
Or do you define religion as "the Catholic Church"?
To the willfully obtuse (Score:3)
Why do you think they aren't?
Because that's where they live, dumbass. Same reason why you spent more time dealing with the laws where you live than what they are in Bumbfuckistan.
Re: (Score:3)
You know gay people can have biological kids as well as adopt, right? This was always a red herring from homophobes anyway, as you never had the same Concerns over post-menopausal women or elderly couples marrying.
You should be asked if you've ever heard of the word "inheritance". How about the right to make medical choices for your partner in the event of his or her i
This is how organized religion dies (Score:4, Insightful)
This is how organized religion dies -- to thunderous applause.
As they fade into irrelevance day after day, and people discover that they actually value the freedoms their churches have been suppressing, I expect people will abandon them at an even faster pace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Great, so lets work towards abolishing affirmative action as the bigoted favoritism that it is.
Re: This is how organized religion dies (Score:2)
Single people have the right to marry...
Now, in Ireland, so do gay people.
Once married, these additional legal rights and protections are also theirs.
Some people choose not to marry, but they still have the right - nothing is stopping them.
(Expect, maybe, lack of a partner...)
Re: (Score:3)
the "gay people can get married to any woman he wants" has also been true for a very long time and that didnt cut it,
the way I see it now there are 2 protected classes, instead of stripping one protected class, we are simply granting special rights to more groups.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a silly argument. You should have just let the GP die in shame rather than put the "same right as everyone else" argument up. You see, the same thing was said about gays. Hell, I even made the same argument. All gays can get married anywhere and have the same rights as everyone else, all they have to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. Now to say the singles have the same rights and married, all they need to do is conform to whatever dictates are out there is the exact same argument. Either civi
Re: (Score:2)
Only to be replaced by what? Yet another dogmatic ideology that usurps freedom? As an atheist, I don't see this as much improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
but having multiple lovers is even more widespread than homosexuality
Multiple lovers maybe, but multiple primary partners? I doubt that, personally. I don't think mere lovers need to be recognised in law. I don't see the case for it.
yet nobody is in any hurry to generalize marriage to support both polyandry and polygyny
That's because it's far, far too complicated. Marriage between a couple is simple: one dies, the other gets all the stuff with no tax (actually it's complicated enough if the dying partner le
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
civil unions is your civil right, I support it - having sex with Jesus is not!
Well, *I* want to get down on my knees and please Jesus.
And since civil rights seem to include freedom of religion, I'll thank you to not tell me that I can't feel his salvation all over my face.
Re: (Score:3)
Hi, antiperimetaparalogo
I am sorry for the bad responses you are getting here. It is the symptom of a larger problem you're not going to see resolved. Many outspoken Slashdotters treasure worldly freedom and intelligence. Remember the warning that "We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one" (1 john 5:19).
On this forum you always hear celebration about "choice" and multiple distros and "voting with your wallet," and making "informed decisions" and so on.
what I found most surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
The graciousness and politeness of the losing side. Their statements of congratulations are certainly not what you'd see from the religious right here in the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as married gay men still can't get abortions, they are fine with it.
Re: (Score:2)
They lost...overwhelmingly. Its hard to be vengeful when you get curb stomped.
Re: (Score:2)
"Religious Right" in the USA is a euphemism for "sex obsessed control freaks".
Correction: "pleasure-obsessed control freaks". Marijuana has (almost) nothing to do with sex, yet these are the people who are promising, at the state level, to undo the laws passed by citizen referendums, and, at the federal level, to force those states back into compliance with federal law. (Presumably by storming DEA assaults throughout the states, since the feds have absolutely 0 ability to direct local law enforcement's day-to-day operations.)
funny part (Score:4, Funny)
Doesn't belong here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's IT. I've had it with the politics on /. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess you failed to notice the last sentence - the growing influence of social media allowed the YES side to publicly show that there was a lot of support, as opposed to the church just preaching to the choir.
If people don't know that others feel the same way they do, they're less likely to express their own views. Thanks to the Internet, those days are gone. Just another way that tech is affecting our society, so it IS news for nerds, stuff that matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like how every patent is new if you add "WITH A COMPUTER" to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's IT. I've had it with the politics on /. (Score:5, Insightful)
If 10% of people are gay, then this impacts 10% of nerds. I don't run Apache, but I don't bitch when they put an Apache story on the front page. Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the CEO.
Re: new type of marriage. (Score:2)
Unfortunately for you a goat is not a legal entity, and also doesn't have the ability to understand the question (do you take this person?), nor answer it.
So, sorry, you won't be able to do that. At least not until goats evolve sufficiently.
Re: (Score:2)
A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.
The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.
They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.
"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.
Re: Wait, before you start cheering (Score:2)
That was also put to a referendum, and the people overwhelmingly stopped it. So it's the will of the people.
A new referendum may come around in time. In the interim, there are laws allowing abortion in cases where the life of the mother is at risk.
Re: Why is this "news for nerds"? (Score:3)
A lot of nerds care about this stuff...
Re: (Score:2)