Civil Marriage Protest! 9th August!

Daisy D

I will be there....will you? Everyone is being asked to bring 10 people, friends, family, etc...There were about 1000 people at the last assembly so for this march they're thinking 10,000 people. Civil Partnerships (CP) doesn't give nearly enough rights to lgb people as they should be! Who's going to the march??

LGBT NOISE are asking you, your friends, your family and your co-workers to MARCH FOR MARRIAGE in Dublin on Sunday 9th August 2009 @ 1.30pm.
The march will gather at Dublin's City Hall, Dame Street, and will end with a rally at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on St Stephen's Green.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY

LGBT NOISE

kabuk1

My girlfriend and I are going. She's been rallying the troops.

Iwasfrozen

What do you hope to achieve ?

Daisy D

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What do you hope to achieve ?

Civil Marriage is already allowed for hetrosexual couples. By Irish law same sex couples who want to marry should be allowed, but Minister Dermot Ahern said no. Even though equality and justice as well as law reform are his brief. Civil Marriage has nothing to do with religion (I just want to mention that before someone mentions it) because it is civil it is only about the law. We want to be able to have the same rights as other married couples...CP does not give the same rights as Civil Marriage.

Have a read off this (taken from www.gcn.ie):

Amnesty International will not support the proposed civil partnership bill in Ireland- claiming it enshrines discrimination.
Tonight in Belfast, Colm O'Gorman, Amnesty International Ireland executive director, is set to speak out against the Irish parliament's civil partnership bill.
He described the proposed legislation in a statement as "a second-class form of marriage for what the government clearly feels is a second-class group of people."

O'Gorman said that Ireland was enshrining discrimination in its law while, at the same time, other countries around the world were moving on.
"This is not about the right to marry; it is about the right not to be discriminated against because of who you love," he said. "Failure to provide full marriage equality means that same-sex couples will not have full protection under the law."
Describing the proposal as "cowardly", the AI director also pointed to scare stories about "gay bogeymen" stealing children and a recent newspaper columnist who argued that women were more likely to have abortions than give a child up for adoption out of fear the baby could end up with a gay couple.
"This is the kind of thinking that sees gay people as something 'other', something to be afraid of and defended against, as a community that has no place in normal society," O'Gorman continued.
Previously, Minister Dermot Ahern ruled out gay marriage, claiming it would be in conflict with Ireland's constitution.

Daisy D

kabuk1 wrote: »

My girlfriend and I are going. She's been rallying the troops.

Delighted to hear this.

I have already rounded up some work colleagues and my family members extended included are very supportive of it and will be there. Once I sat down and talked logically to them about CIVIL marriage they were delighted to come...let's face it, as humans no one group deserves to be first class citizens while the other groups are still left behind.

The_Minister

Daisy D wrote: »

Fixed you youtube.

If you wanna post a video you only need the video's code, not the whole link.

Iwasfrozen

Daisy D wrote: »

Civil Marriage is already allowed for hetrosexual couples. By Irish law same sex couples who want to marry should be allowed, but Minister Dermot Ahern said no. Even though equality and justice as well as law reform are his brief. Civil Marriage has nothing to do with religion (I just want to mention that before someone mentions it) because it is civil it is only about the law. We want to be able to have the same rights as other married couples...CP does not give the same rights as Civil Marriage.

Have a read off this (taken from www.gcn.ie):

That may be all well and good. But Amnesty International does not set our laws, our Constitution does.
Here is the extract:

Article 41 P3,1* wrote:

3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

If you want more legal info I started a thread on the subject here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055623512

If you think this march is going to force the Government to override the constitution you are really overestimating the power of marches !!

ak27

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That may be all well and good. But Amnesty International does not set our laws, our Constitution does.
Here is the extract:


If you want more legal info I started a thread on the subject here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055623512

If you think this march is going to force the Government to override the constitution you are really overestimating the power of marches !!

Once upon a time divorce would have been considered unconstitutional based pretty much on the same reason you say same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Divorce is legal here now right? The government can make changes to the constitution if they so wish provided a majority of voters agree with the changes of course.

Good luck with the protest btw.

Daisy D

ak27 wrote: »

Once upon a time divorce would have been considered unconstitutional based pretty much on the same reason you say same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Divorce is legal here now right? The government can make changes to the constitution if they so wish provided a majority of voters agree with the changes of course.

Good luck with the protest btw.

Thank you AK27. The divorce thing is something that we are looking at as it was also as you said above unconstitutional!

IwasFrozen, we don't want the Government to look out the window and say,"crap lads :eek: the gays are here, quickly, we need a constitutional referendum!"

We simply want them to know that by passing this CP bill, you are not only leaving the entire community of LGB people out of the rights they deserve, they are also telling their families, we like your son/cousin/mother/brother/sister and love taking their taxes (which are higher for ALL LGB people than married couples) but we don't value them as highly as hetrosexuals!:mad:

We also need to keep drilling home the fact that the majority of surveys done by Landsdowne are all in favour in majority of civil marriage, equal rights, etc.:D

Iwasfrozen

ak27 wrote: »

Once upon a time divorce would have been considered unconstitutional based pretty much on the same reason you say same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Divorce is legal here now right? The government can make changes to the constitution if they so wish provided a majority of voters agree with the changes of course.

Good luck with the protest btw.

Ahem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Daisy D wrote:

We simply want them to know that by passing this CP bill, you are not only leaving the entire community of LGB people out of the rights they deserve, they are also telling their families, we like your son/cousin/mother/brother/sister and love taking their taxes (which are higher for ALL LGB people than married couples) but we don't value them as highly as hetrosexuals!

We also need to keep drilling home the fact that the majority of surveys done by Landsdowne are all in favour in majority of civil marriage, equal rights, etc.

So you want Civil Marriage but you don't want to push a referendum that would legalise it.
If the majority of people are pro-Civil marriage then the referendum would be passed and you would get you wish.
Why don't you want a referendum ?

mobius42

What annoys me most is that they are already holding a referendum for Lisbon 2. They could easily ask people to vote on gay marriage on the same day for little extra effort.

ak27

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ahem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Re-read the first line of that link again.

kabuk1

Daisy D wrote: »

Delighted to hear this.

I have already rounded up some work colleagues and my family members extended included are very supportive of it and will be there. Once I sat down and talked logically to them about CIVIL marriage they were delighted to come...let's face it, as humans no one group deserves to be first class citizens while the other groups are still left behind.

We are getting some family to come as well. It was easy enough as my girlfriend is Dutch; her parents are coming for the weekend.

Iwasfrozen

ak27 wrote: »

Re-read the first line of that link again.

As in ammended by popular vote ? :rolleyes:

ak27

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As in ammended by popular vote ? :rolleyes:

You missed the point of what I originally posted completely.

Iwasfrozen

ak27 wrote: »

You missed the point of what I originally posted completely.

No I didn't, you said that Divorce was illegal before being ratified by popular vote.
Civil marriage is illegal and can only be retified by popular vote.
What's your point ?

ak27

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No I didn't, you said that Divorce was illegal before being ratified by popular vote.
Civil marriage is illegal and can only be retified by popular vote.
What's your point ?

First off, let me clarify something for you. Civil marriage is legal in this country between heterosexual couples, marriage between same sex couples (religious or civil) illegal as things stand.

And yes you have misread me. My first point was that divorce was illegal here at one point for more or less the same reasons you're saying same sex marriage is illegal here now.

Iwasfrozen

ak27 wrote: »

First off, let me clarify something for you. Civil marriage is legal in this country between heterosexual couples, marriage between same sex couples (religious or civil) illegal as things stand.

Yes marriage between same sex couples is legal here, whats you point ?

ak27 wrote: »

And yes you have misread me. My first point was that divorce was illegal here at one point for more or less the same reasons you're saying same sex marriage is illegal here now.

And divorce was legalised via referendum,
Just as same sex marraige would require a referendum.

ak27

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Civil marriage is illegal and can only be retified by popular vote.

Originally Posted by Iwasfrozen

Originally Posted by ak27
First off, let me clarify something for you. Civil marriage is legal in this country between heterosexual couples, marriage between same sex couples (religious or civil) illegal as things stand.

Yes marriage between same sex couples is legal here, whats you point ?

You're confusing yourself.

Iwasfrozen

ak27 wrote: »

You're confusing yourself.

typo.

ak27

Iwasfrozen, re-read you're last couple of posts on this topic and you'll realise you've made the typo not me.:rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

ak27 wrote: »

Iwasfrozen, re-read you're last couple of posts on this topic and you'll realise you've made the typo not me.:rolleyes:

I meant that I wrote the typo.
Anyway regardless, my origional question still stands.

ak27

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I meant that I wrote the typo.
Anyway regardless, my origional question still stands.

Okay no worries, thought you were talking about me there. You implied civil marriages were illegal which isn't true. Heterosexual couples can go to their local registry to get married if they so wish and not have the religious ceremony.

hot2def

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I meant that I wrote the typo.
Anyway regardless, my origional question still stands.

my question is why should my rights hang on the permission of the popular vote? if that were the way it worked, would black people or women have gotten the vote in various countries?


plus the irish constitution (which is stupid, btw) also says I belongs in the kitchen. nuts to that, and its moron authors....

Iwasfrozen

ak27 wrote: »

Okay no worries, thought you were talking about me there. You implied civil marriages were illegal which isn't true. Heterosexual couples can go to their local registry to get married if they so wish and not have the religious ceremony.

When did ever say Hetrosexual couples couldn't be partnered ?

The_Minister

mobius42 wrote: »

What annoys me most is that they are already holding a referendum for Lisbon 2. They could easily ask people to vote on gay marriage on the same day for little extra effort.

Unfortunately one of the threats used by the No side last time was that the Lisbon Treaty would bring in gay marriage.

Having the two votes at the same time would lead to people to conflate and confuse the two. The Lisbon Treaty is too complex for another debate to occur alongside it, and holding another referendum on the same day would detract from the time that could be spent on the treaty.

mobius42

The_Minister wrote: »

Unfortunately one of the threats used by the No side last time was that the Lisbon Treaty would bring in gay marriage.

Having the two votes at the same time would lead to people to conflate and confuse the two. The Lisbon Treaty is too complex for another debate to occur alongside it, and holding another referendum on the same day would detract from the time that could be spent on the treaty.

Considering the crap the No side brought up the last time, that's a fair point.

ak27

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

When did ever say Hetrosexual couples couldn't be partnered ?

Well you did say this earlier about civil marriage which is why I brought that up:

Originally Posted by Iwasfrozen
Civil marriage is illegal and can only be retified by popular vote.

Iwasfrozen

ak27 wrote: »

Well you did say this earlier about civil marriage which is why I brought that up:

I suppose it's a case of RAI rather than RAW.

Daisy D

Ok, after just rereading all the quotes etc...I know where I am, LOL.

Right, I do want a referendum if needs be. BUT, I know the minister will not hold one as of yet, and this is what's pissing me off. Today it was announced that Albania will be passing gay marriage....ALBANIA!! I mean one of the only two muslim countries in the eurozone and surrounded by countries of the Soviet and they go from having NO RIGHTS.....to almost the opposite for gay people in no time! I think it is disgraceful, and I can see now why Ireland ranks one of the lowest countries in the Western World when it comes to human and equal rights!!

Iwasfrozen

Daisy D wrote: »

Ok, after just rereading all the quotes etc...I know where I am, LOL.

Right, I do want a referendum if needs be. BUT, I know the minister will not hold one as of yet, and this is what's pissing me off. Today it was announced that Albania will be passing gay marriage....ALBANIA!! I mean one of the only two muslim countries in the eurozone and surrounded by countries of the Soviet and they go from having NO RIGHTS.....to almost the opposite for gay people in no time! I think it is disgraceful, and I can see now why Ireland ranks one of the lowest countries in the Western World when it comes to human and equal rights!!

To be fair marriage is not a right.
The Brian and Co. proberbly don't want to hold a referendum as theres a chance it may be rejected. We're just going to have to wait and see how this Civil Partnership thing works out before complementing holding a referendum for Gay marraige.
I know this is going a little bit to slow for many homosexual people but we have just come out of 60 years of Catholic neo-socialist propaganda.
The Public will eventually warm to the idea, but it will take time.

Untense

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I know this is going a little bit to slow for many homosexual people but we have just come out of 60 years of Catholic neo-socialist propaganda.
The Public will eventually warm to the idea, but it will take time.

I can also say The Public are more than ready and welcoming of the change, and I really believe that. But it's all just guessing on both our parts. Until there is an actual referendum and the will of the majority is heard, this kind of argument will always just be the likes of myself and yourself putting words in other people's mouth.

The irony is that in the meantime there is an inequality, with no apparent logical reason other than conservation of a legal document - the purpose of which is to represent and enshrine the will of the majority.

kabuk1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

To be fair marriage is not a right.
The Brian and Co. proberbly don't want to hold a referendum as theres a chance it may be rejected. We're just going to have to wait and see how this Civil Partnership thing works out before complementing holding a referendum for Gay marraige.
I know this is going a little bit to slow for many homosexual people but we have just come out of 60 years of Catholic neo-socialist propaganda.
The Public will eventually warm to the idea, but it will take time.

There have been plenty of studies done recently that show the Irish are pretty much ready for this. Many statistic show 6 out of 10 Irish people are in favour of gay rights and feel that homosexuals are discriminated against. Of course, the government will tell you different.

Iwasfrozen

kabuk1 wrote: »

There have been plenty of studies done recently that show the Irish are pretty much ready for this. Many statistic show 6 out of 10 Irish people are in favour of gay rights and feel that homosexuals are discriminated against. Of course, the government will tell you different.

Do you have a link to these sources ?
The majority of these reports are compiled by Homosexual activists and only published if the results reflect the views of the activists.
The Government on the other hand is stuck between a Rock and a hard place, [the Constitution being the Rock and the activists being the hard place]. They are too afraid to compile any research for fear to will damage their standing with the Gay community.

Untense wrote:

I can also say The Public are more than ready and welcoming of the change, and I really believe that. But it's all just guessing on both our parts. Until there is an actual referendum and the will of the majority is heard, this kind of argument will always just be the likes of myself and yourself putting words in other people's mouth.

The irony is that in the meantime there is an inequality, with no apparent logical reason other than conservation of a legal document - the purpose of which is to represent and enshrine the will of the majority.

Yes I am guessing, but it is an estimated guess.
If you look at the History of Irish referendums [such as the divorce or abortion referendums] we see the a large portion of the populace, our Leaders included still hold onto the outdated teachings of the church.
60 years of Catholic popaganda will not dissapear over a few marches.

kabuk1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you have a link to these sources ?
The majority of these reports are compiled by Homosexual activists and only published if the results reflect the views of the activists.
The Government on the other hand is stuck between a Rock and a hard place, [the Constitution being the Rock and the activists being the hard place]. They are too afraid to compile any research for fear to will damage their standing with the Gay community.

Yes I am guessing, but it is an estimated guess.
If you look at the History of Irish referendums [such as the divorce or abortion referendums] we see the a large portion of the populace, our Leaders included still hold onto the outdated teachings of the church.
60 years of Catholic popaganda will not dissapear over a few marches.

The last one I remember was back in Feb of this year: http://www.marriagequality.ie/press/2009/02/26/new-report-reveals-strong-support-for-the-introduction-of-samesex-marriage-in-ireland/ and the Irish Times coverage of it: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0227/1224241892986.html

The fact that only LGBT organisations are conducting research and holding surveys says something about the government who should be doing the same and publishing their results before claiming the referendum won't pass.

The government response to the above: "Government ministers have ruled out same-sex marriage on the basis that it would require a referendum which, they say, would be the subject of a deeply divisive public debate."

This is not sufficient. Even if the LGBT organisations who are conducting most of the research only publish the positive, the government isn't doings it's job to prove them wrong. Also, I wouldn't exactly trust the government either. If they conducted their own research, I'm sure as the majority seem to have no interest in gay civil marriage being implemented, they will only publish findings to show that a referendum wouldn't be passed.

Iwasfrozen

kabuk1 wrote: »

The last one I remember was back in Feb of this year: http://www.marriagequality.ie/press/2009/02/26/new-report-reveals-strong-support-for-the-introduction-of-samesex-marriage-in-ireland/ and the Irish Times coverage of it: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0227/1224241892986.html

The fact that only LGBT organisations are conducting research and holding surveys says something about the government who should be doing the same and publishing their results before claiming the referendum won't pass.

Again the fact that this research was carried out by a pro-gay marraige group renders it voide. Rather like Libertas or Choir claiming the majority of Irish people are against Lisbon or abortion respectively.

kabuk1 wrote: »

The government response to the above: "Government ministers have ruled out same-sex marriage on the basis that it would require a referendum which, they say, would be the subject of a deeply divisive public debate."

Again the Government is stuck between a rock and a hard place, they can't be seen to support any side in the debate for fear of alienating their voter base on the opposite side.

kabuk1 wrote: »

This is not sufficient. Even if the LGBT organisations who are conducting most of the research only publish the positive, the government isn't doings it's job to prove them wrong. Also, I wouldn't exactly trust the government either. If they conducted their own research, I'm sure as the majority seem to have no interest in gay civil marriage being implemented, they will only publish findings to show that a referendum wouldn't be passed.

It's not the Governments job to prove any one wrong, it is the publics job to vote a party into Government that fits their belife, tyranny by the majority and all that.
Unless the public can give the Government water proof evidence from an unbiased source, the Government is not obliged nor entitled to initiate movement to change the constitution.

kabuk1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again the Government is stuck between a rock and a hard place, they can't be seen to support any side in the debate for fear of alienating their voter base on the opposite side.

This always seems to be the case. However, they are discriminating against many Irish citizens, EU nationals and many others legally residing in Ireland and paying taxes that go to waste. Politicians are meant to be leaders, not followers, and in this case they really need to lead.

I have no respect for FF and many other politicians in office in this country. If Labour, one party who is pro gay marriage, ever comes in to power, I will hold them to their current beliefs. However, I don't put much faith in anything that comes out of a politicians mouth, especially those in the Irish government.

Bottom line, politicians are elected to keep this country running properly (which they have failed at in terms of finances especially) and see to it that all people are treated equally. However, they don't. As a human being we all have the right to be treaty equally and without discrimination. We aren't here to prove things. The world isn't a court system and we haven't done anything wrong. However, like Panti stated at pride . . . murders, rapist and all sorts of criminals can get married and have kids, but loving and caring gay couples can't. Something is seriously wrong with this world.

Iwasfrozen

kabuk1 wrote: »

This always seems to be the case. However, they are discriminating against many Irish citizens, EU nationals and many others legally residing in Ireland and paying taxes that go to waste. Politicians are meant to be leaders, not followers, and in this case they really need to lead.

I have no respect for FF and many other politicians in office in this country. If Labour, one party who is pro gay marriage, ever comes in to power, I will hold them to their current beliefs. However, I don't put much faith in anything that comes out of a politicians mouth, especially those in the Irish government.

Bottom line, politicians are elected to keep this country running properly (which they have failed at in terms of finances especially) and see to it that all people are treated equally. However, they don't. As a human being we all have the right to be treaty equally and without discrimination. We aren't here to prove things. The world isn't a court system and we haven't done anything wrong. However, like Panti stated at pride . . . murders, rapist and all sorts of criminals can get married and have kids, but loving and caring gay couples can't. Something is seriously wrong with this world.

You don't seem to understand,

1) In a Democracy Governments must follow the whim of the general populace if they want to keep their seets.

2) The Government can only back Gay marriage if they believe that the majority of people want it.

3) The only research done on Gay marriage was done by Gay rights activists who selectively publish only positive results.

4) The Goverment cannot conduct it's own research as they will be accused of taking sides regardless of the outcome.

5) Even if 67% of people do want Gay marriage as claimed by Gay rights activists research then the Government still risks aleinating the 33%, or 1/3 of the populace who are against it.
And it just so happens that the mojority of that 1/3 live in rural areas and FF cannot risk losing more County councills around the country.

Basically at this time
Civil Partnership = Acceptable
Gay Marriage = Not Yet Acceptable.

The only real choice we have is to wait for the general populaces approval rating to raise to 85 - 90% that is really the only time FF [or any other Government] will be able to act on Gay activists demands.

Marshy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1) In a Democracy Governments must follow the whim of the general populace if they want to keep their seets.

I agree, thats a reality alright. It doesn't mean they can't go against them though.

2) The Government can only back Gay marriage if they believe that the majority of people want it.

That isn't entirely true. Yes, if the issue is put to a referendum the government must accept the majority vote. But otherwise no, if they think something would be beneficial to the country or its citizens at large they could go with it, perhaps to their detriment at the next election. For example, increased taxes (levies) aren't popular and won't get the government votes but it has to be done for the sake of economic recovery.

shoegirl

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And divorce was legalised via referendum,
Just as same sex marraige would require a referendum.

Not necessarily, though it is possible.

At the moment the constitution says:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1](1.1) The State recognizes the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
(1.2) The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
...
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1](3.1) The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.[/SIZE][/FONT]

However it does not define the family as being of any particular format. It is understood to mean men+woman (plus possible children).

The that the law would have somewhere to formally define "marriage" as being between a man and a woman (not sure if this is anywhere else, but it is implicit from article 1.3, which mentions womens position in the home)
AND
That gay marriage would have to be proven to be a "threat" to the instutition.

It would take a strong legal interpretation in order to establish that marriage didn't need a woman somewhere AND that permitting others to marry would be a threat to the institution.

The fear I think is that a well resourced conservative rearguard action could challenge a law that enabled gay marriage under those articles and shoot it down if supreme court ruled as such. Its very open to interpretation and I suspect that the government don't want to stick in any laws that are likely to be thrown to the higher courts (at huge expense).

In the event of a law being proposed for gay marriage AND the law being thrown out under the interpretation of the articles above as I suggest, then, yes, a referendum would be the only option.

The problem is that no such case has yet been thrown at the courts because such a law wasn't proposed in writing.

Iwasfrozen

That's what I thought, which is why I started this thread in the Legal Discussion forum.
Apparently all constitutions are Read as Intended (RAI) rather than Read as Written (RAW) and it is almost certain that the writers of Bunreacht Na hÉireann ment marriage between a Man and Woman.

kabuk1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You don't seem to understand,

Yes, I do understand.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1) In a Democracy Governments must follow the whim of the general populace if they want to keep their seets.

I don't believe the word whim would be appropriate. They wouldn't follow a whim of anything or anyone, it would be more of the beliefs/ideals/wants of majority (or what they believe to be the majority). I wouldn't back a government who acted on whims. Also, their seats shouldn't be their first priority, the people should be. Doing what is RIGHT should be.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

2) The Government can only back Gay marriage if they believe that the majority of people want it.

How does the government know if the majority of people are pro gay civil marriage? I mean, if what's been published is bias and the government doesn't get an independent research company to conduct a survey... will they ever know?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

3) The only research done on Gay marriage was done by Gay rights activists who selectively publish only positive results.

Is this true? Is it not? Unless there is hard evidence to prove otherwise, this is only an assumption. I don't see anyone rushing to it to prove them wrong.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

4) The Goverment cannot conduct it's own research as they will be accused of taking sides regardless of the outcome.

The government can have an independent research company conduct research. It isn't about taking sides. It's about finding out the truth and making an informed decision.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

5) Even if 67% of people do want Gay marriage as claimed by Gay rights activists research then the Government still risks aleinating the 33%, or 1/3 of the populace who are against it.
And it just so happens that the mojority of that 1/3 live in rural areas and FF cannot risk losing more County councills around the country.

Again, this shouldn't be about the seats. If they do what is right, they'll have plenty of seats. FF seem to lose plenty of seats in the local elections anyway.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The only real choice we have is to wait for the general populaces approval rating to raise to 85 - 90% that is really the only time FF [or any other Government] will be able to act on Gay activists demands.

A yes vote of 85% isn't needed. All that is needed is a majority, which, if the current surveys hold up, a referendum would get. This is a republic and it body of citizens is entitled to vote.

Iwasfrozen

kabuk1 wrote: »

Yes, I do understand.

Judging by your response you don't.

kabuk1 wrote: »

I don't believe the word whim would be appropriate. They wouldn't follow a whim of anything or anyone, it would be more of the beliefs/ideals/wants of majority (or what they believe to be the majority). I wouldn't back a government who acted on whims. Also, their seats shouldn't be their first priority, the people should be. Doing what is RIGHT should be.

You concentrated your whole post to just one word ?
How about actually attacking the idea that the Government must act solely on the behalf of the public at large ?

kabuk1 wrote: »

How does the government know if the majority of people are pro gay civil marriage? I mean, if what's been published is bias and the government doesn't get an independent research company to conduct a survey... will they ever know?

They will know when Public attention turns towards Gay Marriage and it becomes an important electional issue.

kabuk1 wrote: »

Is this true? Is it not? Unless there is hard evidence to prove otherwise, this is only an assumption. I don't see anyone rushing to it to prove them wrong.

A lobby set up for one reason would never provide evidence contrary to their position. It stands to sense.

kabuk1 wrote: »

The government can have an independent research company conduct research. It isn't about taking sides. It's about finding out the truth and making an informed decision.

It's not quite as simply as this, as it is only possible to be in two states in relation to this issue [Gay marriage, no Gay marriage] initiating research into the possibility of introducing Gay marriage would be seen by the public as supporting Gay marriage which is of course, some thing the Government cannot do.

kabuk1 wrote: »

Again, this shouldn't be about the seats. If they do what is right, they'll have plenty of seats. FF seem to lose plenty of seats in the local elections anyway.

Welcome to Politics, everything is about keeping your seat. If you don't like it start a lobby group.

kabuk1 wrote: »

A yes vote of 85% isn't needed. All that is needed is a majority, which, if the current surveys hold up, a referendum would get. This is a republic and it body of citizens is entitled to vote.

No, a yes vote of 51% is needed. And as Anti Gay marriage groups are abit more, ahem, militant one can imagine that attendance on the no side would be alot higher.

D.U.M.B

Good luck with the protest

jady4ever

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

2) The Government can only back Gay marriage if they believe that the majority of people want it.

That is utterly false, where on earth did you come up with this little "fact". Ever heard of taxation?

kabuk1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Judging by your response you don't.

Actually, you don't seem to have a clue. Do you know what a Republic is? Also, see the post just above. Hell, if the government did everything the people wanted, there wouldn't be tax, or they would you the taxes properly.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You concentrated your whole post to just one word ?
How about actually attacking the idea that the Government must act solely on the behalf of the public at large ?

I concentrated on that word in regards to one statement, not the entire post. Also, it is a huge misuse of the word, especially in an argument such as this.

Again, back to what a Republic is, which I'll use a dictionary definition in hopes that it will be completely clear:
"a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They will know when Public attention turns towards Gay Marriage and it becomes an important electional issue.

So, gay marriage isn't an issue? I believe there is plenty of noise in Ireland that says it is. The fact the the Labour party is pro-gay marriage and out and about in regards to it, says it's an important issue. They also gained lots of support in the recent elections, especially in Dublin and in my voting area. Also, I know many country folks who are pro gay marriage, as long as it isn't forced on the church, and civil marriage would provide that. This is coming from older folks in Achill. That's pretty rural to me.

I'm not quite sure how you see it as not an issue. It's the politicians in power who are working so hard to try to make it seem like it's not an issue. If it weren't an issue, then the CP bill would never have been passed and the comment in regards to it not being a step towards marriage would never have been made.

More of an issue this becomes for the people and not for the government, the more likely the government will lose some hard-working citizens to other countries. (I know many couples, highly-skilled workers, who have moved to Canada and the Netherlands and other countries, especially where one partner was a citizen of a country where gay marriage is a right. This will continue to happen.) This is very sad as this country should be focused on it's citizens, and yet, it never seems to be (this includes more than just this issue).

shoegirl

kabuk1 wrote: »

If it weren't an issue, then the CP bill would never have been passed and the comment in regards to it not being a step towards marriage would never have been made.

I think this is the whole crux of the problem. The CP bill bill has NOT been passed. When the 120 page initial draft was published last year Senator Jim Walsh put forward a party motion to counter the proposal. According to the newspaper reports there was between 20 and 30 representatives in the Senate and Dail who backed him. Should these be mobilized, they would be enough to counter the bill. I suspect that this was the reason that the final proposed changes were delayed to such an extent.

There is no guarantee that the CP bill will pass. Throwing the bill out on the grounds of it not being enough is one thing, and very noble. However, given that there is some evidence of a conservative backlash that has plenty of time to mobilize itself, I am worried that rejecting the bill is playing straight into their hands.

kabuk1

shoegirl wrote: »

I think this is the whole crux of the problem. The CP bill bill has NOT been passed. When the 120 page initial draft was published last year Senator Jim Walsh put forward a party motion to counter the proposal. According to the newspaper reports there was between 20 and 30 representatives in the Senate and Dail who backed him. Should these be mobilized, they would be enough to counter the bill. I suspect that this was the reason that the final proposed changes were delayed to such an extent.

There is no guarantee that the CP bill will pass. Throwing the bill out on the grounds of it not being enough is one thing, and very noble. However, given that there is some evidence of a conservative backlash that has plenty of time to mobilize itself, I am worried that rejecting the bill is playing straight into their hands.

My apologises. I chose the wrong word there as I was rushing my post. I understand that it hasn't been passed. Sometimes I do wonder if writing it is all for show with the intention of it not getting passed, but that's another story and shows what little faith I have in this government.

Either way, I'm glad my partner is Dutch as we can get married in the Netherlands and complete any adoptions there as well. If this must be the case, I will chose to take on Dutch Citizenship as soon as I am able.

Daisy D

So anyway, GETTING BACK TO THE TOPIC!

In Cork Friday we will be hosting a Marriage Equality meeting with a representative from the group and will be explaining why and what Marriage Equality are looking for. I can't wait for Sunday...In Cork we have organised a bus to bring us to Limerick and collect other people and up to Dublin then for the march! You can find out all about the bus, etc... for Cork HERE and for Limerick HERE and the Cork Marriage Equality meeting HERE. It's shaping up to be a huge event!!

Iwasfrozen

kabuk1 wrote: »

Actually, you don't seem to have a clue. Do you know what a Republic is? Also, see the post just above. Hell, if the government did everything the people wanted, there wouldn't be tax, or they would you the taxes properly.

Seeing as you have just compared Tax laws with Gay marriage it is quite obvious that you don't understand my posts. Without Tax we will be plunged into Anarchy, somehow I don't think the none existance of Gay marriage would have nearly the same effect... :rolleyes:

kabuk1 wrote: »

I concentrated on that word in regards to one statement, not the entire post. Also, it is a huge misuse of the word, especially in an argument such as this.

Again, back to what a Republic is, which I'll use a dictionary definition in hopes that it will be completely clear:
"a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."[/quote]
Again I know what a Republic is but the Government is not obliged to act on an issue that can't even be proven popular.

kabuk1 wrote: »

So, gay marriage isn't an issue? I believe there is plenty of noise in Ireland that says it is. The fact the the Labour party is pro-gay marriage and out and about in regards to it, says it's an important issue. They also gained lots of support in the recent elections, especially in Dublin and in my voting area. Also, I know many country folks who are pro gay marriage, as long as it isn't forced on the church, and civil marriage would provide that. This is coming from older folks in Achill. That's pretty rural to me.

If it where a big an issue as you say it is then it wuld have featured in the election debates back in 2007 don't you think ?

kabuk1 wrote: »

I'm not quite sure how you see it as not an issue. It's the politicians in power who are working so hard to try to make it seem like it's not an issue. If it weren't an issue, then the CP bill would never have been passed and the comment in regards to it not being a step towards marriage would never have been made.

If the politicians are trying so hard to cover over the un-deniable "fact" that Gay marriage is desired by the unwashed masses of Ireland why would they have published the CP bill in the first place ?
Oh and Gay marriage will not happen in Ireland for many years yet, possibly not in our lifetime. Sorry to burst your bubble but there are alot of backwards facing people in this country.

kabuk1 wrote: »

More of an issue this becomes for the people and not for the government, the more likely the government will lose some hard-working citizens to other countries. (I know many couples, highly-skilled workers, who have moved to Canada and the Netherlands and other countries, especially where one partner was a citizen of a country where gay marriage is a right. This will continue to happen.) This is very sad as this country should be focused on it's citizens, and yet, it never seems to be (this includes more than just this issue).

You do know that there are 5million people in this country right ?
The Government will not force legislation through on the back of a couple hundred people emmigrating.

hot2def

what if the majority didn't want black people to vote, or own land?


anyway, I'm going to this, in part to spite I Was Frozen.