After a poll taken in Ireland this week showed that 66% of adults would support same sex marriage if it came to a referendum, the Irish Voice undertook their own random survey to ascertain whether Irish people living in New York would support same sex marriages.
We found that close to 50 of 65 the adults surveyed would indeed support the movement.
Support for same sex marriages has grown considerably in both the US and Ireland in recent years, with US President Barack Obama and Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore both declaring their support in recent months.
Maria Reilly, living in Manhattan, is in complete support of same sex marriages, stating that gay people can be just as devoted to each other and so should be allowed express that.
‘If two people are in love and they want to be there for each other forever then it should be the same as any marriage. What does it have to do with anyone anyway? The only difference is their sex life.’
Kerri B, undocumented and living in the Bronx, concurs with this and states that the sooner it is accepted and out in the open, the sooner people will shed their reservations.
‘I am so for it. I think if everyone just shut up about it, it won’t even be an issue anymore. They will just get used to it like everything else.’
Stephen L, also undocumented and working in Manhattan, states that his opinion has changed after living in New York.
‘If you asked me a few years ago I would have said no, but my eyes have been opened living here, I suppose. I’m friends with gay people, some are couples, and they seem as devoted to each other as straight couples.’
Orlagh Reilly, living in Queens and working in Manhattan, also supports same sex marriage and also cites her encounters with gay people as the main reason for this.
Read more: Two-thirds of Irish support gay marriage new poll shows
‘I had mixed views about it and have been thinking alot about it recently as I’ve had a few encounters with gay people over here and to be honest if they love each other, why not commit fully to each other and get married?’
Jarlath Moloney, living in Harlem and working in media design, feels that a civil partnership should suffice for gay people as they basically have the same rights, surmising that a same sex marriage would not be recognised by the church anyway.
‘Obviously they cannot get married in the Catholic sense. A priest or Christian will never see them as truly married in that sense but if they want to align themselves to each other in the eyes of the state then that’s their right. But I don’t think it’s necessary given the existence of a civil partnership. They have all the same rights.’
Jessica T, undocumented and living in Brooklyn, agrees with this stance and claims that the 2010 civil partnership act should be as far as gay people can go in the eyes of the state.
‘Marriage is marriage. It’s a man and a woman and I think it should be respected. I think the laws were stretched and very flexible to include a law that would allow same sex couples to have a lot of similar rights to married couples and that’s fine, that’s great but marriage is a different thing altogether.’
Geraldine Munnelly, living in Brooklyn, disagrees with this however, and feels that the only way to have a completely tolerant society in the future is to give same sex couples the exact same rights as heterosexual couples, including marriage.
‘It needs to be made normal so that it is accepted sooner rather than later I think. Like, leaving it taboo and having them fight for reform could impact on any children that a gay couple may adopt. They could be the best parents in the world but have a child that is bullied in school because their parents are so ‘different.’
But if it becomes more accepted and normal now there shouldn’t be as many problems in the future as there is nothing left to fight and argue for. Gay people are allowed marry and that’s that.’
39 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.BishopSean | Oct 27, 2012, 09:26 AM EDT
Hi again, Eiriamach. Please know that the Family Research Council (FRC) states on their webpage they “…refuted the charge they support execution of homosexuals in Uganda as soon as it appeared in 2010. FRC has publicly opposed the much-publicized bill (never adopted) in Uganda that would have imposed criminal penalties for various offenses related to homosexual conduct, and the death penalty for something known as ‘aggravated homosexuality.’" One must research their original statements before condemning them out of hand. The modern SPLC has a lot to answer for.
BishopSean | Oct 27, 2012, 08:27 AM EDT
Eiriamach, we know that a “text out of context is a pretext.” You claim that the Family Research Council (whom I did not quote) “misuses” Susan Holt statements. Please explain how could anyone possibly reinterpret Holt’s written statement that I quoted? The SPLC has changed its image and M.O. They called the Family Research Council a “hate group,” due to its views on marriage. Was this instrumental in setting off unbalanced Floyd Lee Corkins, who walked into the D.C. HQ of the Family Research Council and opened fire last August? Perkins may justifiably litigate against SPLC for this designation because it is a form of intimidation that discourages the important discussions that are an important part of a democratic society.
BishopSean | Oct 26, 2012, 04:21 PM EDT
Hi again, Eiriamach. Re; our notes from historians, I see in internet that Iver Bernstein is a reputable historian and author, and associate professor in Washington U. in St. Louis. I haven’t read him yet. However, I would advise against dismissing writings from William J. Stern, who is a contributing editor of “City Journal,” the USA’s premier urban policy magazine. This is the magazine of the prestigious Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Stern is also an author and regularly writes for several journals and magazines, e.g., the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Newsday, Albany-Times Union. His stature as a first-rate historian is such that it is unlikely he would be making false or unfounded statements about the 1863 riots, or Archbishop Hughes, such as those I quoted in these posts. I added them on this page as a fair response to Hollabackgirl’s statement regarding dearth of Roman Catholic moral leadership. It helps to address both sides of controversies. I regret that IC sometimes edits out responsible posts, such as has happened here. Regards.
Madeliene | Oct 26, 2012, 11:49 AM EDT
Why do you thinkn hillary picked NY? The Kennedys owned Mass. NY was the highest bastion of stupidity, so here she comes, carpet bag and all! NOBAMA!
Seanmor | Oct 26, 2012, 12:22 AM EDT
If an unwed aunt is madly in love with her adult nephew, should they be allowed to marry?
eiriamach | Oct 25, 2012, 11:03 PM EDT
BishopSean, the library is closed at this hour and I cannot retrieve a particular book I've quoted previously on Irish Central, but here's a little from my notes on Ivor Bernstein's 'The NYC Draft Riots': "As the [Civil] war progressed, [NY Archbishop] Hughes' attacks on emancipation and the Vatican's willingness to entertain Confederate diplomats at the papal court made the issue of Catholic loyalty to the Union even more worrisome" (page 197). See also page 112 on Hughes' animus toward Protestant employers. You'll probably find other references to the Archbishop in the Index. The advantage in using the work of disinterested historians is that they generally take their information from primary sources. Bernstein quotes Hughes' writings and speeches -- quite illuminating, much like that video of Romney speaking about the 43 percent!
BishopSean | Oct 25, 2012, 08:30 PM EDT
Hi again, Eiriamach. If you don’t mind, I will independently verify your statements to see if they are accurate. In one case here, concerning Bishop Hughes, my quoted source, Stern, disagrees with you. He states, “A then-dying Archbishop Hughes summoned the leaders of the (anti-draft) rebellion to meet with him. However disturbed he might have been that the Irish were being called on to do so much of the dying in the struggle against the South, he supported the war and was totally opposed to slavery, having preached against it since his ordination as a priest in 1826. He told the riot leaders that ‘no blood of innocent martyrs, shed by Irish Catholics, has ever stained the soil of Ireland’ and that they were dishonoring that impeccable history.” He stood up to the majority Protestants who were anti-Catholic at that time, but had the support of other Protestants and Jews. Of course, if you have a better source than Stern, please let me know. Regards.
eiriamach | Oct 25, 2012, 05:34 PM EDT
Yes, BishopSean, the Family Research Institute also misuses Susan Holt's and others' research on the lives of gays and lesbians. Its Chairman, Paul Cameron, ruminates about Obama being gay. On the other hand, in your preferred group, the Family Research Council, its president, Tony Perkins, supports Uganda's "Kill Gays" legislation and similar homophobic activities. The SPLC classifies it as a hate group--and you consider it "scholarly"?? Six of one, half a dozen of the other. . . . You can twist a sociological study to serve devious ends, and you can whitewash the life of a churchman like John Joseph Hughes to pretend that only his contributions to building up NYC happened, and not his murderous pro-slavery and anti-Protestant rabble rousing. The challenge is to follow ALL the truth rather than narrowing the facts to those that serve your bigotries.
BishopSean | Oct 25, 2012, 03:15 PM EDT
Hi, Eiriamach. Actually, I was not quoting the “Family Research Institute,” (I don’t know that organization) nor even the Family Research Council, which I know to be a serious scholarly group of professionals that are not given to “smear” persons, as you seem to affirm. I was quoting Susan Holt, the Direct of the Gay and Lesbian Center for Domestic Violence in Los Angeles. Eiriamach, it is refreshing and calming to research when you are free to follow the truth wherever it leads, rather than “cherry-picking” your arguments to fit your conclusions. Regards.
polearch | Oct 25, 2012, 02:57 PM EDT
I have no problem with two men or two women living together as long as they are not getting all the benefits of a conventional marriage.Call me old fashioned i guess!!
eiriamach | Oct 25, 2012, 01:41 PM EDT
BishopSean and hermitTalker have been drinking the tainted tea of the Family Research Institute's smear campaign. As long as homosexuals are denied the full civil rights others have, as long as they are excluded from social institutions such as marriage that are open to everyone else, discrimination and homophobia will continue. Take the surveys seriously: we are sick of living in the kind of society you prefer-- rife with discrimination and group hatreds. Why do you think you need to keep exclusion, discrimination, and hatred alive in order for your religion to thrive? It makes no civilized sense.
hermitTalker | Oct 25, 2012, 09:42 AM EDT
Seems I was nixed by the censor so try again. I see this as akin to abortion surveys; even in 1973 CBS NYT poll showed that most were opposed but most are now still opposed, but many favor "choice." The State has to regulate all unions and make laws to protect property, insurance and children in same-gender unions. Natural law demands they be treated as human beings with dignity even if we object to their actions. if people in Ireland and the USA saw videos of abortions and same-gender genital activity rather than abstract talk about "rights" and "choice" I guarantee the poll numbers would drop way down for being in favour
BishopSean | Oct 25, 2012, 07:44 AM EDT
Hi again, Hollabackgirl. Historian William J. Stern is unbiased and points out that “In 1847 about 40,000 [Irish on Coffin Ships] died making the voyage, a mortality rate much higher than that of African slaves in British vessels….” Stern also says Hughes was almost killed by nativists who burnt his home down. So easily we forget our history. I worked in Trenton State prison years back when most inmates were Black and Latinos. Some claimed they were POWs; one of them was a serial rapist. But looking back in the archives, most prisoners in 1800s were Irish and also not POWs. New York had 50,000 Irish prostitutes in 1850. Illegitimacy reached great heights -- and tens of thousands of abandoned Irish kids roamed, or prowled, the city's streets. Violent Irish gangs, wreaked havoc. Most arrested in New York in 1840s and 1850s were Irish, so that police vans were dubbed "paddy wagons" and brawls were called "donnybrooks." So, poor Irish immigrant Hughes helped raised up our people, with the help of God. We all need this, admit it or not.
hollabackgurl | Oct 24, 2012, 10:23 PM EDT
Marriage is a civil ceremony that creates legal entitlements. For some, but not most, it is also a religious event that has spiritual connotations that are not necessarily obvious to the rest of us. Gays aren't looking for religious blessings they are looking for civil rights and entitlements. BishopSean your repulsive caricature of the Irish community in the 19th century fails to mention the disaster of the famine and blames the Irish for their condition. That's a telling premise that you base your so-called Catholic salvation on. I have to say you sound like a No Nothing, not a native.
alisaann | Oct 24, 2012, 08:41 PM EDT
civil partnerships DON'T give ALL the same rights and protections as married people....gays have to spend MAJOR money to have all kinds of legal papers drawn up...and that doesn't mean, they won't still run into problems....and weither you get married in a church or at someone's home....you have GOT to have a MARRIAGE LICENSE, from the state....and those ARE recgonized in ALL states....but, that mean that CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS/UNIONS are.....LOVE IS LOVE, NO MATTER THE GENDER OR RACE OF THOSE INVOVLED.....AND LEAVE THE BIBLE OUT OF IT. ALISA
misneac | Oct 24, 2012, 08:06 PM EDT
These articles keep referring to a "survey " held in Ireland which alledgedly supported gay "marriage " .To my knowledge no such suvey ever was undertaken ,and your headline is propaganda in support of a gay agenda .Any Irish person with whom I have raised this issue treat it as a joke ,and accept that you can not have a marriage between people of the same sex .
BenThayer | Oct 24, 2012, 06:19 PM EDT
A deep philosophical analysis of this issue is in the article, "Marriage, essentially," by Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons. Please google it.
BishopSean | Oct 24, 2012, 05:51 PM EDT
Hi, Hollabackgirl. Re yr 10h04 post, you may like to know this. “A hundred years ago and more, Manhattan’s tens of thousands of Irish seemed a lost community, mired in poverty and ignorance, destroying themselves through drink, idleness, violence, criminality, and illegitimacy. But within a generation, New York's Irish flooded into the American mainstream. The sons of criminals were now the policemen; the daughters of illiterates had become the city's schoolteachers; those who'd been the outcasts of society now ran its political machinery. No job training program or welfare system brought about so sweeping a change. What accomplished it, instead, was a moral transformation, a revolution in values. A clergyman was the catalyst for the cultural change that liberated New York's Irish from their underclass behavior. He was John Joseph Hughes, an Irish immigrant gardener who became the first Catholic archbishop of New York. How he accomplished his task can teach us volumes about the solution to our own end-of-the-millennium social problems.” Historian William J. Stern.
mairint | Oct 24, 2012, 05:48 PM EDT
Sure, the mythical "NY Irish" would want marriage to include sodomy. Great societal progress! I would help NY to become famous for its degenerative behaviour like Amsterdam.
Gearoid4 | Oct 24, 2012, 05:05 PM EDT
Marriage has been traditionally defined as the union of a man and a woman in mutual love who are open to procreation, across multiple societies of different ethnic and religious complexions for thousands of years. One cannot just divide it simply into "civil" and "religious" zones, as marriage is what is and cannot be changed on the whim of legislators.
olovely | Oct 24, 2012, 04:38 PM EDT
What is marriage? It's a union in law that bestows legal rights. Let others have religious weddings if they so choose. Gays aren't after anyone's blessings, they're after their own legal equality, that is all.
Gearoid4 | Oct 24, 2012, 04:05 PM EDT
Although marriage in it's true essence cannot be changed by opinion polls or "progressive" legislators, social engineering attempts by politicians to overthrow it's definition, will have negative repercussions for it's definition in the public mind. Contraception, divorce and other social ills have landed serious blows on the institution and the current assault on it will have no less an effect. The true value of marriage in terms of it's contribution to the common good and demographic stability of countries must be recovered and supported at all levels.
Smyrnian | Oct 24, 2012, 02:44 PM EDT
IC loves any gay themed subject matter. Incredible. Think there is an agenda at work here? Nah! Couldn't be!
Springfield9 | Oct 24, 2012, 02:24 PM EDT
FLASH!!!!!!!! Nobody cares. We have bigger fish to fry then strange domestic arrangements.
jetsnoone | Oct 24, 2012, 01:20 PM EDT
Probably never. Ridiculous to walk in parade that honors a saint with a banner publicly proclaiming your sin. Same would apply to divorced Irish or Irish living together before marriage... have some dignity, keep your sins between you and God, don't ask the rest of us to condone your actions...GROW UP.
FastEddy | Oct 24, 2012, 01:17 PM EDT
You can marry a goat for all I care, as long as it does not raise my taxes.
pilib04 | Oct 24, 2012, 12:42 PM EDT
That's nice. Any idea when the ban on Gay Irish organizations participating in the NYC St. Patrick's Day Parade will be lifted?
SeamusMor | Oct 24, 2012, 12:37 PM EDT
"Gay Marriage" and "Same Sex Marriage" are poor choices as names for this movement, which is really about equal rights, not homosexuality. While the Church may not sanction such marriages as a Sacrament, based upon its doctrines, the State has no legitimate interest in the life style choices of citizens engaging in their pursuit of happiness. To impose one's religion upon others in the legislatures of our nation is not unlike the Taliban in Pakistan or Afghanistan, who demand that everyone, everywhere must follow their own interpretation of Islam.
mayoman | Oct 24, 2012, 11:58 AM EDT
Twenty years from now Gay Marriage will be the norm in most, if not all, Western Countries. Everyone, including all the rabid bigots and homophobes, that mistake their hate for morality, will have to find something else to fear, and to whine and cry about. Gay Marriage will be accepted. It will be the Law. It will be a benefit to everyone in society. Eventually everyone will know someone in a Gay Marriage. And everyone will wonder what all the fuss and noise was about. Curious isn't it, that the people who are always moaning and groaning about President Obama supposedly taking away their precious rights, are the very same folks that are willing to deny two people, who love each other, from the altar. The self-righteous haters will lose in the end. Get used to it.
miltonedunn | Oct 24, 2012, 11:55 AM EDT
Stupied is as stupid does ok
hollabackgurl | Oct 24, 2012, 10:52 AM EDT
No, in fact, at various points in our history (Prohibition) heterosexuals did have their rights stripped from them by sour nosy parkers like yourself JimmieM. Homosexuals do not have full legal equality with heterosexuals in terms of federal law, marriage, inheritance and taxes. Society HAS passed laws to prevent a small segment from enjoying that equality. No one is asking for your approval or disapproval, as you know no one cares about what you think, they are asking for legal equality not approval.
hollabackgurl | Oct 24, 2012, 10:51 AM EDT
There are no Irish people in NY just those with Irish and Scottish sounding names like Ben Dunne and Phil Mc Cracken who live the lifestyle
JimmieM | Oct 24, 2012, 10:16 AM EDT
"Heterosexuality is FULL of degenerates as is any bar along 3rd Avenue." Right and the point is that we don't pass laws forcing the teaching that this behavior is perfectly OK...perhaps better than what was formerly known as moral behavior.
johnozed | Oct 24, 2012, 10:07 AM EDT
It is a civil right, the same sex marriage. What is objectionable is the 1950's fears that apparently some 'people' have. Having sex with anyone who walks in a rest room? Where does this wankah use the loo? There is nothing wrong with teaching children that if they are gay or lesbian it is alright, after years of hateful shaming by the ignorant. How many lives were destroyed by these fools? And why do certain 'people' still choose to think this way? I guess they are unhappy with their 'sexual choice' and need to inflict their misery on everyone else.
cillowen | Oct 24, 2012, 10:06 AM EDT
most would naturally be - being largely bright and ghay blades.
hollabackgurl | Oct 24, 2012, 10:04 AM EDT
Are you about to tell us, Bishop Sean, that the Catholic Church has provided the best 'moral compass' for Irish people? I hope you are because I could use a good laugh.
johnnymac12 | Oct 24, 2012, 09:53 AM EDT
This comes as no surprise as all Irish Catholics have been brainwashed by paedophile priests and nuns. How can you expect them to accept the NORMAL Christian way of life.There are so many Catholics living in the States who have been born out of wedlock that the country is slowly becoming known to the outside world as the BASTARD country. Brilliant or what.
hollabackgurl | Oct 24, 2012, 09:24 AM EDT
Ever watched Jersey Shore, or MTV's Real World, or Real Housewives of New York, or Here Comes Honey Boo Boo Jimmie M? Have you seen the life and career of Britney Spears, or Lindsay Lohan, or Amy Winehouse, or Courtney Love or Charlie Sheen? Heterosexuality is FULL of degenerates as is any bar along 3rd Avenue. You need to tar humanity in full with your muck raker or be accused for the homophobe you are. I'm sure no one has ever asked you to have sex with them in a public restroom and that's the source of your angry post.
JimmieM | Oct 24, 2012, 08:26 AM EDT
The legal living together of two loving individuals who are trying to learn commitment loyalty, and all the higher strivings human beings go through is not objectionable. What is objectionable is the degenerate life style that is a big part of homosexual life....having sex with who ever happens into the public restroom. Mandatory teaching children that it is OK and that they should at least try same sex as well as opposite sex....Remember if it was so good and holy, and everyone did it the human race would be extinct in less that 100 years. That's the problem in all this discussion the degenerate side of homosexuality is ignored. We don't encourage heterosexuals to have sex with whom ever walks into the public restroom.