Why not "Same Sex Marriage" ?

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 10:48am #1

LGBT people want Same Sex Marriage, so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" in the Constitution, parallel and equivalent to man+woman marriage - say "Same Sex Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons of the same sex."

This referendum shall probably pass 60/40 say, but you have done immence damage to your own LGBT cause long term - by pissing off 40% of the public at least - and don't say they are all homophobes. And this conflict shall rumble for a generation or two when every court case or decision shall bring it back up

90 to 95% of the people would support Same Sex Marriage in parallel to man+woman marriage. You would not have to worry about the baggage of 100 years of existing case law, and hetero's would not have to worry about the confusion of the legal melting of same and opposite sex.

LBGT leaders can still do something now. It's 11'th hour but still not too late.
Do you want the current marriage referendum at any price, to the displeasure of over 40% of the people? OR do you want "Same Sex Marriage" with support of 90 to 95% of the people - your choice.

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 10:56am

I'll add:
a. I am totally fed up of LBGT people trying to magic away children.
b. There is/was the bullying of the no vote, on social media like this
It seems to have got more subtle, but LBGT are still hunting in packs, maybe desperate pretentending to be straight YES voters.

A campaign that depends so much on dishonesty shall not yield a good result.

L1011 · 20-05-2015 11:00am

"seperate but equal" isn't equal.

As goes "magic away children" - they're being irrelevantly forced in to the debate in the first place. This is the sole dishonesty here.

eviltwin · 20-05-2015 11:06am

No one is trying to "magic away children". Most people just recognise it for what it is, a complete red herring. Marriage is no longer about children, it was in the past but times have changed. Single people have children, married people have children before marriage, some never marry, some have no children at all...all those families and relationships are as valid as each other. If you start putting marriage on a pedestal what does that say about all other family types and the children they may have?

As for bullying...I commend the LGBT community for not rising to the bait. Its very difficult to hold your cool when you are reading and listening to comments about your "perversion" or about how your relationship is damaging to kids. That is real bullying. If you have an opinion on how someone else lives their life then you have to be prepared to be called out on it. That is not bullying.

Believe it or not there are a lot of straight people out there in favour of SSM. Its not just an LGBT issue.

qweerty · 20-05-2015 11:17am

gk5000 wrote: »

LGBT people want Same Sex Marriage, so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" in the Constitution, parallel and equivalent to man+woman marriage - say "Same Sex Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons of the same sex."

This referendum shall probably pass 60/40 say, but you have done immence damage to your own LGBT cause long term - by pissing off 40% of the public at least - and don't say they are all homophobes. And this conflict shall rumble for a generation or two when every court case or decision shall bring it back up

90 to 95% of the people would support Same Sex Marriage in parallel to man+woman marriage. You would not have to worry about the baggage of 100 years of existing case law, and hetero's would not have to worry about the confusion of the legal melting of same and opposite sex.

LBGT leaders can still do something now. It's 11'th hour but still not too late.
Do you want the current marriage referendum at any price, to the displeasure of over 40% of the people? OR do you want "Same Sex Marriage" with support of 90 to 95% of the people - your choice.

I'll add:
a. I am totally fed up of LBGT people trying to magic away children.
b. There is/was the bullying of the no vote, on social media like this
It seems to have got more subtle, but LBGT are still hunting in packs, maybe desperate pretentending to be straight YES voters.

A campaign that depends so much on dishonesty shall not yield a good result.

Because of the possibility that people deem gender to be an irrelevance in marriage. We don't distinguish between marriages of different religion, of different nationality, of different political persuasion, so there needs to be a logical reason to do so on the basis of gender.

Marriage is the recognition of a life-partnership that most people, from early childhood onwards, aspire to. Those heterosexual people who don't marry are perceived as being in some way odd or eccentric. It may seem perverse to you, but the passing of the referendum has the potential to bring about a society that sees no distinction between various sexual attractions. Though your proposal may bring about some of that, it would only be partial.

Who the fcuk do you think you are to be in a position to present a choice? What's more, the question was put to referendum by a government that is almost entirely made up of heterosexual people and will be voted on by an electorate that is overwhelmingly heterosexual. This is not something that the mythical gay community can change at their will.

Tl; dr: work on your punctuation, spelling, use of will/shall and logical reasoning.

Huntergonzo · 20-05-2015 11:22am

gk5000 wrote: »

This referendum shall probably pass 60/40 say, but you have done immence damage to your own LGBT cause long term - by pissing off 40% of the public at least - and don't say they are all homophobes. And this conflict shall rumble for a generation or two when every court case or decision shall bring it back up

So minority rules??? No may still win this vote but let's say Yes wins 60/40 as you put it, should we ignore the vote just to keep 40% of whatever the turnout is happy (don't forget the turnout, it's not 40% of 100%, it's maybe 40% of 70%), isn't that very anti democratic!

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 11:54am

Huntergonzo wrote: »

So minority rules??? No may still win this vote but let's say Yes wins 60/40 as you put it, should we ignore the vote just to keep 40% of whatever the turnout is happy (don't forget the turnout, it's not 40% of 100%, it's maybe 40% of 70%), isn't that very anti democratic!

No, but why not go for 90% like I proposed above? Why do you want disharmony?

L1011 · 20-05-2015 11:57am

gk5000 wrote: »

No, but why not go for 90% like I proposed above? Why do you want disharmony?

90% is a figure you've pulled out of the air. Its not based in fact, or anything beyond your rambling mind.

I highly doubt 90% of the population would support such a ridiculous, childish, divisive measure.

How do you think your apartheid-lite proposal would deal with your concerns about non-existent impacts on children, by the way?

Huntergonzo · 20-05-2015 12:05pm

gk5000 wrote: »

No, but why not go for 90% like I proposed above? Why do you want disharmony?

Haha 90%, you only pulled that from where the sun don't shine. On friday the Irish people will go to the polls and vote, either Yes or No will win that vote and that's how democracy works.

To suggest that we shouldn't listen to the majority (unless of course No wins, I take you have no problem with a disgruntled Yes minority) is a little bit petty to be honest and again it's anti democratic.

Lawliet · 20-05-2015 12:08pm

gk5000 wrote: »

b. There is/was the bullying of the no vote, on social media like this
It seems to have got more subtle, but LBGT are still hunting in packs, maybe desperate pretentending to be straight YES voters.

You're complaining about bullying only hours after a yes campaigner was told it was 'gods will' she had cancer. But I guess you don't blame every No campaigner for that sort of thing.

Yet people hold the entire LGBT community responsible for every rude remark on twitter, and then use it as an excuse to try and refuse us rights. As if we're a bunch of naughty children who don't deserve ice-cream.

Huntergonzo · 20-05-2015 12:18pm

Lawliet wrote: »

You're complaining about bullying only hours after a yes campaigner was told it was 'gods will' she had cancer. But I guess you don't blame every No campaigner for that sort of thing.

Yet people hold the entire LGBT community responsible for every rude remark on twitter, and then use it as an excuse to try and refuse us rights. As if we're a bunch of naughty children who don't deserve ice-cream.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, the Yes side are the bullies, remember??? No homosexual was ever bullied and the No campaigners are essentially freedom of conscience fighters, can't believe you forgot that, try and be more careful in future!

Mickeroo · 20-05-2015 12:28pm

So the butt buddies solution then, let them get married as long as it's somehow recognised as a separate thing to good wholesome hetero marriage.

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 1:17pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

So the butt buddies solution then, let them get married as long as it's somehow recognised as a separate thing to good wholesome hetero marriage.

It's simpler legally - and the laws for one group does not mess with the other. In fact there could be three groups based on the expectation of children and the degree of difficulty in having children

Man+Woman - generally has children - generally no need for outside help
Woman+woman - often has children - needs a little outside help
Man+Man - rarely has children - needs a lot of outside help

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 1:20pm

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Haha 90%, you only pulled that from where the sun don't shine. On friday the Irish people will go to the polls and vote, either Yes or No will win that vote and that's how democracy works.

To suggest that we shouldn't listen to the majority (unless of course No wins, I take you have no problem with a disgruntled Yes minority) is a little bit petty to be honest and again it's anti democratic.

Course - do you suggest a better number? I say 90 to 95% would support a separate Same Sex Marriage as a guestimate.

But you may get this current version, but having managed to piss off 40% or so of the populace whom you have to live with.

I'm saying it late, but not too late to aim for a solution which keeps many more people happy - but your choice.

Huntergonzo · 20-05-2015 1:21pm

gk5000 wrote: »

Man+Woman - generally has children - generally no need for outside help
Woman+woman - often has children - needs a little outside help
Man+Man - rarely has children - needs a lot of outside help

And?

Zaph · 20-05-2015 1:28pm

gk5000 wrote: »

It seems to have got more subtle, but LBGT are still hunting in packs, maybe desperate pretentending to be straight YES voters.

I don't know very many gay people, but I do know a great many straight people, myself included, who will be voting yes. It's disingenuous to suggest that the LGBT community need to masquerade as straight voters to drum up support. They already have the support of a huge number of straight voters.

Huntergonzo · 20-05-2015 1:32pm

gk5000 wrote: »

Course - do you suggest a better number? I say 90 to 95% would support a separate Same Sex Marriage as a guestimate.

But you may get this current version, but having managed to piss off 40% or so of the populace whom you have to live with.

I'm saying it late, but not too late to aim for a solution which keeps many more people happy - but your choice.

I have no idea how many people would support a 'separate but equal marriage' proposal, possibly not many because it would be akin to having separate water fountains for black people wouldn't it.

Again back to this nonsense of "pissing off 40%" of the people, well then surely we can never hold anymore elections or referendums because somebody always has to lose and therefore be pissed off, it's a completely illogical, anti democratic argument.

L1011 · 20-05-2015 1:36pm

gk5000 wrote: »

It's simpler legally - and the laws for one group does not mess with the other.

Its anything but. The referendum is probably the simplest change proposed since the last time we had an age adjustment (voting in the mid 60s or so); and the civil law change is about one line also.

Annasopra · 20-05-2015 2:00pm

gk5000 wrote: »

LGBT people want Same Sex Marriage, so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" in the Constitution, parallel and equivalent to man+woman marriage - say "Same Sex Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons of the same sex."

Will you "same sex marry" me?

No thanks

Annasopra · 20-05-2015 2:01pm

gk5000 wrote: »

LBGT leaders can still do something now. It's 11'th hour but still not too late.
Do you want the current marriage referendum at any price, to the displeasure of over 40% of the people? OR do you want "Same Sex Marriage" with support of 90 to 95% of the people - your choice.

Oh look this is just pointless. The vast vast majority of people accepted divorce.

Mickeroo · 20-05-2015 2:12pm

gk5000 wrote: »

It's simpler legally - and the laws for one group does not mess with the other. In fact there could be three groups based on the expectation of children and the degree of difficulty in having children

Man+Woman - generally has children - generally no need for outside help
Woman+woman - often has children - needs a little outside help
Man+Man - rarely has children - needs a lot of outside help

How is it simpler legally if it's literally the same thing apart from the name?

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 2:40pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

How is it simpler legally if it's literally the same thing apart from the name?

Can be constitutionally protected equally, but the actual laws for the 2 or 3 strands can be different.

A 2 man family has different needs that a 2 women family than a man-women family, so needs different laws. One size fits all will not work.

Now they shall all be cramed in the same small legal space, so every law/court case for man-man shall have to be checked for man-women or women-women. And that shall be slow and messy and no use for anybody.

jobbridge4life · 20-05-2015 2:43pm

gk5000 wrote: »

Can be constitutionally protected equally, but the actual laws for the 2 or 3 strands can be different.

A 2 man family has different needs that a 2 women family than a man-women family, so needs different laws. One size fits all will not work.

Now they shall all be cramed in the same small legal space, so every law/court case for man-man shall have to be checked for man-women or women-women. And that shall be slow and messy and no use for anybody.

What on Earth are you talking about? I mean it is beyond farcical at this stage. The law already has to take into account the huge differences that exist between straight married couples.

Mickeroo · 20-05-2015 2:44pm

gk5000 wrote: »

Can be constitutionally protected equally, but the actual laws for the 2 or 3 strands can be different.

A 2 man family has different needs that a 2 women family than a man-women family, so needs different laws. One size fits all will not work.

Now they shall all be cramed in the same small legal space, so every law/court case for man-man shall have to be checked for man-women or women-women. And that shall be slow and messy and no use for anybody.

What different needs have these families exactly? I don't see how the needs are more varied than they would be between just straight couples in the first place.

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 2:49pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

How is it simpler legally if it's literally the same thing apart from the name?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Will you "same sex marry" me?

No thanks

Well you do want a Same Sex Marriage I think?

So what is the problem in calling a spade a spade, while recognising it as distinct and equal to my shovel?

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 2:50pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

What different needs have these families exactly? I don't see how the needs are more varied than they would be between just straight couples in the first place.

Different in the way they have children.

jobbridge4life · 20-05-2015 2:50pm

gk5000 wrote: »

Well you do want a Same Sex Marriage I think?

So what is the problem in calling a spade a spade, while recognising it as distinct and equal to my shovel?

Are you truly so dedicated to a word that you would allow thousands of your fellow countrymen, women and children to languish in inequality?

Mickeroo · 20-05-2015 2:52pm

gk5000 wrote: »

Different in the way they have children.

How do they deal with these different ways already when straight couples avail of them?

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 2:53pm

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I have no idea how many people would support a 'separate but equal marriage' proposal, possibly not many because it would be akin to having separate water fountains for black people wouldn't it.

Again back to this nonsense of "pissing off 40%" of the people, well then surely we can never hold anymore elections or referendums because somebody always has to lose and therefore be pissed off, it's a completely illogical, anti democratic argument.

Should we abandon male and female toilets?

Timberrrrrrrr · 20-05-2015 2:53pm

gk5000 wrote: »

Should we abandon male and female toilets?

Some places already have.

LookingFor · 20-05-2015 2:58pm

If I ever get married, I've no problem with someone saying we're a 'married gay couple' if the distinction is important in the context of the conversation vs a 'married straight couple'.

In the law I think it's a problem for reasons other mentioned, but to get to the nitty gritty of what makes heterosexual marriage different, if it is a matter of procreation capability that defines the functional difference, marriage is already then not an exclusive term - it is used to describe varieties of couples who can and cannot procreate. If that's the functional difference that defines the semantic difference, it's already a difference that 'marriage' is agnostic to.

As for children, I think there is a relevance in the debate, and I've been very happy to discuss it with anyone. I think it's firmly in the interests of the children affected to pass this. I do not see the benefit of a no vote to a) any child being raised by same sex parents or b) any lgbt youth. I'm totally happy to get into nitty gritty details on that too, if anyone wants me to expand on that here; I have been doing that here on boards for yonks now.

Huntergonzo · 20-05-2015 3:00pm

gk5000 wrote: »

Should we abandon male and female toilets?

If you like, probably end up with court cases for perving though! Anyway what's you're opinion of elections and referendums in general, surely by your logic they should be all scrapped because a minority of people will be "pissed off"?

wisejohn · 20-05-2015 3:04pm

the intervention of mary mcaleese in the marriage referendum is to be abhorred she should mind her own business, by all means support her son, but refrain from using her former position to influence other people. the taxpayer provides her with a substantial pension, she should confine herself to her academic pursuits.

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 3:07pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Some places already have.

Should we ban single sex bathrooms, or require all to be unisex/multisex?

wakka12 · 20-05-2015 3:14pm

gk5000 wrote: »

I'll add:
a. I am totally fed up of LBGT people trying to magic away children.
b. There is/was the bullying of the no vote, on social media like this
It seems to have got more subtle, but LBGT are still hunting in packs, maybe desperate pretentending to be straight YES voters.

A campaign that depends so much on dishonesty shall not yield a good result.

The yes side are bullies? Ok just ignore some of the awful remarks made by people on the No side such as the Iona Institute and the religious people.

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 3:16pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

How do they deal with these different ways already when straight couples avail of them?

All straight couples are a man and women, husband and wife, and if with children fathers and mothers.

Gay couples are either two men or two women, so either two mothers and two fathers - but never father and mother.

The entire exiting law for married people (with children) is based on father and mother, so this shall have to change - legally.

L1011 · 20-05-2015 3:18pm

gk5000 wrote: »

Should we abandon male and female toilets?

And this is relevant to the debate how?

Mickeroo · 20-05-2015 3:21pm

gk5000 wrote: »

All straight couples are a man and women, husband and wife, and if with children fathers and mothers.

Gay couples are either two men or two women, so either two mothers and two fathers - but never father and mother.

The entire exiting law for married people is based on father and mother, so this shall have to change - legally.

But you said they're different in the way they have children? what is this different way homosexual couples have children that isn't already used by heterosexual couples that requires such a difference in the law?

Huntergonzo · 20-05-2015 3:22pm

wisejohn wrote: »

the intervention of mary mcaleese in the marriage referendum is to be abhorred she should mind her own business, by all means support her son, but refrain from using her former position to influence other people. the taxpayer provides her with a substantial pension, she should confine herself to her academic pursuits.

She's not the president anymore, she's under no obligation to stay neutral and she's entitled to her opinion, so relax lad.

LookingFor · 20-05-2015 3:23pm

gk5000 wrote: »

All straight couples are a man and women, husband and wife, and if with children fathers and mothers.

Gay couples are either two men or two women, so either two mothers and two fathers - but never father and mother.

The entire exiting law for married people is based on father and mother, so this shall have to change - legally.

It is not based on a father and mother... for marriage, the constitution makes no such prescriptions. Per our constitution two people become family upon marriage, with or without children. Parental roles are irrelevant in terms of simple access to marriage. In terms of our legislation it would be a matter of typically searching for 'wife' and replacing with 'spouse'.

The big question for this amendment is WHY the gender distinction matters, not that it exists. The only answer I've seen given is that a man and a woman can reproduce together, gay people cannot - but the capability of reproduction is not an exclusive bar to marriage. And so the gender mix matters because..?

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 3:35pm

wakka12 wrote: »

The yes side are bullies? Ok just ignore some of the awful remarks made by people on the No side such as the Iona Institute and the religious people.

Iona and the religious make their own choices and live with the consequences. The religions have lost lots of support...

Here I am talking about LGBT choices and whether these are the best choices for this group in the long run?

A yes vote in the referendum shall not be the end of it.
Every law or court case to do with marriage/family/children shall become a mini rerun of the referendum, and all the disharmony it produces.

I am a live and let live type of person - I have no need to interact with the gay community or vise-versa and that's fine for both I think.

But this referendum has encroached "legally" on my marriage, and I would much prefer if we could remain totally separate - opposite sex marriage for me and same sex marriage for you - equal but legallty distinct entities.

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 3:40pm

LookingFor wrote: »

It is not based on a father and mother... for marriage, the constitution makes no such prescriptions. Per our constitution two people become family upon marriage, with or without children. Parental roles are irrelevant in terms of simple access to marriage. In terms of our legislation it would be a matter of typically searching for 'wife' and replacing with 'spouse'.

The big question for this amendment is WHY the gender distinction matters, not that it exists. The only answer I've seen given is that a man and a woman can reproduce together, gay people cannot - but the capability of reproduction is not an exclusive bar to marriage. And so the gender mix matters because..?

I have edited my post to add:
The entire exiting law for married people (with children) is based on father and mother, so this shall have to change - legally.

And in the next post have said
But this referendum has encroached "legally" on my marriage, and I would much prefer if we could remain totally separate - opposite sex marriage for me and same sex marriage for you - equal but legallty distinct entities.

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 3:41pm

Bye Bye...its been fun...I'll just repeat where I started and leave it at that:

Why not "Same Sex Marriage" ?
LGBT people want Same Sex Marriage, so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" in the Constitution, parallel and equivalent to man+woman marriage - say "Same Sex Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons of the same sex."

This referendum shall probably pass 60/40 say, but you have done immence damage to your own LGBT cause long term - by pissing off 40% of the public at least - and don't say they are all homophobes. And this conflict shall rumble for a generation or two when every court case or decision shall bring it back up

90 to 95% of the people would support Same Sex Marriage in parallel to man+woman marriage. You would not have to worry about the baggage of 100 years of existing case law, and hetero's would not have to worry about the confusion of the legal melting of same and opposite sex.

LBGT leaders can still do something now. It's 11'th hour but still not too late.
Do you want the current marriage referendum at any price, to the displeasure of over 40% of the people? OR do you want "Same Sex Marriage" with support of 90 to 95% of the people - your choice.

LookingFor · 20-05-2015 3:47pm

gk5000 wrote: »

I have edited my post to add:
The entire exiting law for married people (with children) is based on father and mother, so this shall have to change - legally.

In terms of family law, as opposed to marriage law specifically, I think Refcom have said that simple textual references to 'mother' or 'father' won't have to be amended out of legislation.

But, a lot of that legislation - I assume - is not directly or exclusively tied to marriage, or at least not any more, and if one felt it needed revision because of same sex parents recognition in law, one could argue that would have to be changed anyway, given that such couples are already recognised in family law through adoption etc. as parents of kids.

These revisions, if they ever were made, would legally have no impact on your marriage or family. But again, Refcom says it's not a requirement in the event of a yes vote...

L1011 · 20-05-2015 3:48pm

gk5000 wrote: »

Bye Bye...its been fun...I'll just repeat where I started and leave it at that:

Why not "Same Sex Marriage" ?
LGBT people want Same Sex Marriage, so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" in the Constitution, parallel and equivalent to man+woman marriage - say "Same Sex Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons of the same sex."

This referendum shall probably pass 60/40 say, but you have done immence damage to your own LGBT cause long term - by pissing off 40% of the public at least - and don't say they are all homophobes. And this conflict shall rumble for a generation or two when every court case or decision shall bring it back up

90 to 95% of the people would support Same Sex Marriage in parallel to man+woman marriage. You would not have to worry about the baggage of 100 years of existing case law, and hetero's would not have to worry about the confusion of the legal melting of same and opposite sex.

LBGT leaders can still do something now. It's 11'th hour but still not too late.
Do you want the current marriage referendum at any price, to the displeasure of over 40% of the people? OR do you want "Same Sex Marriage" with support of 90 to 95% of the people - your choice.

Repeating something that has been comprehensively demolished as guesswork, flights of fancy and general lunacy doesn't mean people are going to re-evaluate it as anything other than that.

Moneyjojo.com · 20-05-2015 3:49pm

I remember a tutor I had for the LLB in NUIG saying marriage is dead and all marriages end in disaster. I would love to hear her take on the referendum.

Mickeroo · 20-05-2015 3:52pm

gk5000 wrote: »

Bye Bye...its been fun...I'll just repeat where I started and leave it at that:

Why not "Same Sex Marriage" ?
LGBT people want Same Sex Marriage, so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" in the Constitution, parallel and equivalent to man+woman marriage - say "Same Sex Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons of the same sex."

This referendum shall probably pass 60/40 say, but you have done immence damage to your own LGBT cause long term - by pissing off 40% of the public at least - and don't say they are all homophobes. And this conflict shall rumble for a generation or two when every court case or decision shall bring it back up

90 to 95% of the people would support Same Sex Marriage in parallel to man+woman marriage. You would not have to worry about the baggage of 100 years of existing case law, and hetero's would not have to worry about the confusion of the legal melting of same and opposite sex.

LBGT leaders can still do something now. It's 11'th hour but still not too late.
Do you want the current marriage referendum at any price, to the displeasure of over 40% of the people? OR do you want "Same Sex Marriage" with support of 90 to 95% of the people - your choice.

I checked your stats and it's actually 45% that would vote against what you're proposing rather than the 40% that will vote no this Friday. Easy mistake to make so i won't hold it against you. Do you really want to upset that extra 5%? It's the 11th hour I know but still not too late for you to vote yes.

Alf Veedersane · 20-05-2015 3:52pm

gk5000 wrote: »

Do you want the current marriage referendum at any price, to the displeasure of over 40% of the people?

How many of those 40% will it ever make a difference to?

Huntergonzo · 20-05-2015 3:55pm

gk5000 wrote: »

Bye Bye...its been fun...

Quitter :-)

ixoy · 20-05-2015 4:15pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

How many of those 40% will it ever make a difference to?

Hopefully it passes and they'll see it makes no difference what so ever.

LegacyUser · 20-05-2015 5:27pm

gk5000 wrote: »

No, but why not go for 90% like I proposed above? Why do you want disharmony?

The divorcee referendum passed by 1% but that still counts as a pass and twenty whatever odd years later the country is still in one piece. There is a minimum number of the electoral roll that has to vote for the vote to be considered legal and after that it's a straight vote. Trying to nit pick and demand 90% in favour vote is madness, we'd never have anything pass . Of the 33 Amendments we've had over the years only 3 have reached over 90%

Do you think civil rights would ever have come to the American south if they'd been asked to have 90% of the population in favour? Votes for women get 90% in favour? Nope - Disharmony is to be expected when social change takes place.

Why not "Same Sex Marriage" ?

Comments