The issue of marriage equality.

KDII

There seems to be an increasing level of public awareness and discourse regarding this issue in Ireland. The thread on local councils voting on marriage equality is one example that this issue is on the radar of many of the Irish populace that are not members of the LGBT community. Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore dubbed it the "civil rights issue of our generation" this year.

Personally, marriage equality is something that I feel really strongly about.
On a personal level I would love to marry my girlfriend, slip out a few babies and watch them grow safe in the knowledge that our rights as a family are safe. On a broader spectrum, to have grown up in an Ireland where gay people were married I think I personally would have struggled far less with my sexuality, with coming out and would have spared my parents the worry about me "becoming a minority"- their main concern about my sexuality.

As a gay individual/couple, do you feel that civil partnership is adequate? Do you feel that the issue of full marriage rights is warranted and a necessary civil right?

Julie Graham

I believe that everyone should have the right to live together if they wish and what they do inside their own homes is nobody's business provided their behaviour doesn't impinge on other people including children or each other (as in violence or abuse). If two people, irrespective of their gender want to live together and have rights such as inheritance and next of kin-type rights there should not be a barrier to such rights. However, when it comes to marriage, I believe that only a man and woman should have that right. Nobody has a right to get married, because unless they meet someone who wants to marry them, they can not force such a situation, therefore, it is not a right. Also, recently I read somewhere that the right for gay people to marry should include that they should have the right to marry in a church. I think that is where the gay community etc. is really pushing it because most if not all Christian religions and indeed others such as Jewish and Muslim do not support gay marriage because, especially Christian faith is based on the teachings of Christ and Christ forbids marriage between same sex couples. This is part of the teachings and the moves nowadays to force Catholic Priests to 'marry' same sex couples is totally unfair and takes away the right of freedom of religion for those priests because when you force someone against his/her conscience to do something tht is against that persons beliefs and faith, you are taking away freedom of religion for that person. I think that there is a tendency to talk about rights for people but Catholics and members of other religions are being deprived of rights to practise their religion even though these rights are supposed to be upheld under various constitutions and EU laws.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

I would have thought 99.99999% of LGBT people think full marriage equality was the only way to go.

dreamer_ire

I still do not understand how people fail to grasp that marriage is a "legal state" and not a "religious one". I do accept the argument that people are concerned that marriage equality may mean their church would have to offer marriage to all couples but that does not excuse the state from preventing access to marriage for same sex couples. It is similiar to preventing mixed race marriages, which of course is discriminatory. I expect we will have some people say it's the start of a slippery slope and will see silly things such as "what next, marrying an animal?". Homosexuality was decriminalised many years ago (though not nearly as long ago as it should have been) and surely common sense must dictate that the legal privileges that are afforded to straight couples should be afforded to gay couples? Though as was once said to me, common sense isn't all that common!

Annasopra

Julie Graham wrote: »

Nobody has a right to get married

Yes they do.

Article 16 of the Universal declaration on human rights

Article 9 of the EU charter of fundamental rights

Chick_chick

I'm in a civil partnership, and if the government extended that to protect my whole family (meaning my partner, I and child) in the future, I'd accept that as a step. I'm not too pushed on what they call it. The religious lobby are using the word "marriage" as a way to accentuate the movement against equality. I just want to be able to function as a family safe under the protection of the state as is my constitutional right.

floggg

Julie Graham wrote: »

I believe that everyone should have the right to live together if they wish and what they do inside their own homes is nobody's business provided their behaviour doesn't impinge on other people including children or each other (as in violence or abuse). If two people, irrespective of their gender want to live together and have rights such as inheritance and next of kin-type rights there should not be a barrier to such rights. However, when it comes to marriage, I believe that only a man and woman should have that right. Nobody has a right to get married, because unless they meet someone who wants to marry them, they can not force such a situation, therefore, it is not a right. Also, recently I read somewhere that the right for gay people to marry should include that they should have the right to marry in a church. I think that is where the gay community etc. is really pushing it because most if not all Christian religions and indeed others such as Jewish and Muslim do not support gay marriage because, especially Christian faith is based on the teachings of Christ and Christ forbids marriage between same sex couples. This is part of the teachings and the moves nowadays to force Catholic Priests to 'marry' same sex couples is totally unfair and takes away the right of freedom of religion for those priests because when you force someone against his/her conscience to do something tht is against that persons beliefs and faith, you are taking away freedom of religion for that person. I think that there is a tendency to talk about rights for people but Catholics and members of other religions are being deprived of rights to practise their religion even though these rights are supposed to be upheld under various constitutions and EU laws.

I don't know if this is what the thread was intended to be about, but there are some things in the above which I have to address.

Firstly, there appears to be a logical inconsistency between your stated view that "I believe that only a man and woman should have that right" [to marry] and your subsequent assertion that "nobody has a right to get married."

If your suggestion is that it is only couples rather than individuals alone who can have the right to marry, you fail to provide any rationale whatsoever for your view that only a man and a woman should have that right.

In any event, the Supreme Court of Ireland has previously found that citizens of Ireland do have a personal unenumerated to right to marry under the Irish Constitution. This is a right granted to each individual in the State. The position is therefore pretty clear as a matter of law, though debate remains as to the scope of the term "marriage."

As for Joshua ben Joseph, or "Christ" as you call him, he does didn't ever forbid gay marriage. In fact not only did he never mention gay marriage, he never mentioned gays once. You can point to the old testament if you want for support for religious discrimination against homosexuality, though since the old testament views marriage as a polygamous property owning institution, that would undermine any argument that marriage is between a man and a woman (alternatively support can be had from certain new testament passages which also endorse slavery).

I am not aware of anybody calling for the Catholic Church or any other church to be compelled to perform same sex weddings. As a matter of law, the Catholic Church is free to discriminate against opposite sex couples who wish to get married on religious grounds (i.e. divorcees, atheists, irregular mass-goers) and nobody is proposing this change.

What is being called for is the right for religious groups to perform such weddings if they choose. There are many religious (including many christian and jewish denominations) who are in favour of marriage equality and who wish to be able to perform same sex weddings but would be prohibited from doing so if there was a ban on religious same sex marriage.

Introducing religious same sex marriage would in no way impinge upon the religious freedom of the catholic church with regard to who they may wish to marry. But prohibiting religious marriage would be very much an attack on the religious freedom of those denominations who wish to perform same sex weddings but who would be prohibited from doing so.

And that is in the context of religious marriage only.

The freedom of religion argument gets more absurd when it is used to try and argue for the fixing one or some religion's views (e.g. Catholic Church) on marriage as the standard for civil marriage. to do so is an unjust attack on the religious freedom of people of faiths who support same sex marriage and those of no faith.

In the the absence of any objectively justifiable and legitimate policy arguments against it (which I have yet to see), I think it is only proper that the state respects the equality protections in the Constitution and provides for marriage equality, and leave it to the religious groups to decide which they will perform and recognise for religious purposes.

only proper course for the State with regard to civil marriage is to remain neutral on the religious aspect, and provided there are no (of which I am yet to see any in the context of same sex marriage) to adopt a permissive approach and allow couples of any gender, faith, ethnic background etc to marry, and leave it up to the religions to decide which they will recognise for religious purposes and/

floggg

Chick_chick wrote: »

I'm in a civil partnership, and if the government extended that to protect my whole family (meaning my partner, I and child) in the future, I'd accept that as a step. I'm not too pushed on what they call it. The religious lobby are using the word "marriage" as a way to accentuate the movement against equality. I just want to be able to function as a family safe under the protection of the state as is my constitutional right.

Separate but equal is never equal.

Apart from the fact it would be absurd to have two words to define the same thing, maintaining a different form of union will always send the message that LGBT people are not the same as heterosexual people and are outside the norm.

Annasopra

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

I would have thought 99.99999% of LGBT people think full marriage equality was the only way to go.

I would say maybe 80/90% (I'm talking generally - not just Ireland)

There are a lot of people who for radical and feminist and queer ideology reasons don't believe in the institution of marriage; they believe that the institution of marriage has been repressive, patriarchal and is about asserting heteronormativity.

A few examples

http://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/

http://blacknright.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/a-feminist-case-against-gay-marriage/


There are also lgbt people who support marriage equality but don't want to marry themselves.

Chick_chick

floggg wrote: »

Separate but equal is never equal.

Apart from the fact it would be absurd to have two words to define the same thing, maintaining a different form of union will always send the message that LGBT people are not the same as heterosexual people and are outside the norm.

I'm entitled to my stance though. And I said I'd accept it as a step. You're only outside the norm if you place yourself there. And I don't. I'm slap bang in the middle of the norm, with my civil partnership. Protections to extend rights to my family unit would be nice though.

brownej

I agree with alot of the above comments about the separation of Civil and religious marriage. The legal rights and obligations that one enters into when one commits to marriage are separate from the spiritual aspect of the religious part.

I believe there should be a clear separation of the two with the religious ceremony and the legal part being performed separately. This should not detract from the "big day" itself but should serve to underline and impress on the couple getting married that there are two separate things happening on the wedding day. Sometimes this is completely lost on people getting married.

I believe that in France this sort of situation already exists (I'm open to correction here)

I am about to enter into a civil partnership next month with my boyfriend. We were determined that it was not going to be a "wedding" in all but name. Of course it hasn't turned out like that and it's going to be a pretty standard irish affair. Ceremony - Dinner - Party.

periodictable

Go for it Sophia!

bodice ripper

mango salsa wrote: »

A few examples

http://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/

this is excellent.

Ambersky

I would like Lesbians and Gays to be able to have the same state recognition for their partners as heterosexuals have for their partners. So I will go along with the idea of marriage equality for now but ultimately I would like equality for those who are not in monogamous, sexual, romantic relationships as well. I dont like the history of marriage particularly and I dont like the superiority of the couple that seems to dominate our culture. It may be problematic to work out initially but I think it could be worked out on more of an equal footing than it is now. For example I would like to be able to designate a partner to be eligible for inheritance rights one who would not have to pay the state 30% of the worth of my house if I was to will it to her. And I dont see why I should have to pretend to civil partner her or marry her to do that.

ongarboy

Audience debate on Marriage Equality on Primetime (RTE1) right now.

df1985

I'm watchin the primetime debate on rte+1 getting more livid by the minute. I want to throw a brick at the tv..... "gay marriage is a threat to pro creation" - there's 7 billion of us on the planet, we'll be alright like.

Medme

Genuinely shocked and outraged by the bigotry on the PM debate tonight. Somebody remind me why I moved back to Ireland

Locker10a

By the sounds of things im glad i missed it!

Annasopra

Medme wrote: »

Genuinely shocked and outraged by the bigotry on the PM debate tonight. Somebody remind me why I moved back to Ireland

It's Susan Philips - she has a history of this stuff going back 20 years. She objected to gays having a picnic at Glendalough in 1994. She was laughed at 7 years ago on the late late when she said Katherine Zappone and Anne Louise Gilligan were not married.

http://www.mamanpoulet.com/political-analysis-ala-susan-phillips/

http://mamanpoulet.blogspot.ie/2006/03/lesbians-on-television-and-this-time.html

http://mamanpoulet.blogspot.ie/2006/02/whos-free-speech-is-it-anyway.html


Seriously don't take her seriously at all. She has been vilified on twitter. The world has moved on in 20 years but she hasn't.

paulmorro

I made bleddy sure to avoid this debate, the likes of her just would of pissed me off big time!

Medme

Thanks mango.
Yep I have seen the twitter posts, slightly eases the pain to see the general outrage at her comments. None the less, absolutely gobsmacked! Referring to gay relationships as 'friendships', I'm generally not easily offended but that comment - FFS!

Cosmic Maybe

mango salsa wrote: »

It's Susan Philips - she has a history of this stuff.

In all fairness why did they bring her on? I'm all for a bit of debate but seriously all she did was trivialise the whole thing with her talk of gay friendships demeaning her marriage. Personally, I would have thought someone like David Quinn or Brenda Power would have been better options for the anti side to have on, while I don't agree with their views at least they would have had a coherent responses.

Glad though that Miriam was having none of her giberish! Had to lol when at the end the pro gay guy said that Susan's marriage must be in trouble if its threatened by gay marriage!

Annasopra

Cosmic Maybe wrote: »

In all fairness why did they bring her on? I'm all for a bit of debate but seriously all she did was trivialise the whole thing with her talk of gay friendships demeaning her marriage. Personally, I would have thought someone like David Quinn or Brenda Power would have been better options for the anti side to have on, while I don't agree with their views at least they would have had a coherent responses.

Glad though that Miriam was having none of her giberish! Had to lol when at the end the pro gay guy said that Susan's marriage must be in trouble if its threatened by gay marriage!

Maybe its an RTE conspiracy to win the argument for us. Nah I think RTE don't want to be trotting out David Quinn constantly so they look for different voices and also they try to gender balance the panels a bit.

1ZRed

mango salsa wrote: »

It's Susan Philips - she has a history of this stuff going back 20 years. She objected to gays having a picnic at Glendalough in 1994. She was laughed at 7 years ago on the late late when she said Katherine Zappone and Anne Louise Gilligan were not married.

http://www.mamanpoulet.com/political-analysis-ala-susan-phillips/

http://mamanpoulet.blogspot.ie/2006/03/lesbians-on-television-and-this-time.html

http://mamanpoulet.blogspot.ie/2006/02/whos-free-speech-is-it-anyway.html


Seriously don't take her seriously at all. She has been vilified on twitter. The world has moved on in 20 years but she hasn't.

I thought she was hilarious, an old lady that lost her screw. She got smoked and if that's the best they can do on the opposition side, I ain't worried much.

I played a game to see if I could pick out everyone who was apposed to the debate, it wasn't a hard game in fairness.

One thing I was surprised they didn't challenge though was the "substantial evidence" that raising children without both male and female parenting figures was somehow detrimental to the child. B&C posted scientific evidence that it meant SFA and wasn't superior to the outcome of the child. What mattered was having two loving parents only.

LookingFor

There were two points that came through from the anti-side - neither of which were made by the people on the panel, but the more reasonable looking people in the audience.

Both boiled down to ideas about the necessity to motivate things that need no motivation at all.

Point number 1 from 'the practising Roman Catholic' seemed to be that marriage was protecting propagation of the species and that gay marriage threatened that protection. Does he think people will stop having sex and having babies if marriage is defined to include gay people? What does he think happened with the species before marriage existed?!

Point number 2 at the end from the author of the 'anti' report was that it was about having an ideal and promoting an ideal. Is this to imply that he thinks the idea of heterosexual marriage needs to be fundamentally motivated, or else everyone will turn around and enter into 'non-ideal' or gay relationships?! Who does he want to 'promote' straight marriage to? Straight people who want to get married and have kids will get married and have kids as they always have. It's not something you need to incentivise, it's something people naturally want to do. That John & Joe down the road can get married isn't going to some life-altering affect on what John & Jane want to do. If they wanted to get married and have babies they're still going to want to do that afterwards.

Marriage isn't about motivating or promoting behaviour. People are forming the families they want to form. Marriage is about state recognition and support of families (be it two adults, or two adults and children). It's about adapting to what's already happening out there and supporting citizens. This notion that we have to legally motivate men and women into relationships with each other and to have babies is crazy. Did that Susan Philips one get married and have kids because it's what was written down in a law book?!

None of those arguments make sense at all unless they think they can 'motivate' gay people into straight marriages to have children...surely they can't really think like that?

Annasopra

1ZRed wrote: »

I thought she was hilarious, an old lady that lost her screw. She got smoked and if that's the best they can do on the opposition side, I ain't worried much.

I played a game to see if I could pick out everyone who was apposed to the debate, it wasn't a hard game in fairness.

One thing I was surprised they didn't challenge though was the "substantial evidence" that raising children without both male and female parenting figures was somehow detrimental to the child. B&C posted scientific evidence that it meant SFA and wasn't superior to the outcome of the child. What mattered was having two loving parents only.

It's not the best they can do on the opposition side at all. Iona are probably really pissed off now cause they always try to sound reasonable.

There is always back and forth arguments over reports on children.

bikeman1

I was well and truly appalled and offended by Prime Time last night. How can RTE even allow those people on to trot out their out dated ideals and belief's?

I came in the door and my housemate said you wont believe what has just been on prime time. He said it was like a debate from the 30s. He said twitter was booming with people going mad over it. He like all my friends (in their 20s) believe that this is a non issue and marriage must be open for everyone.

He was frankly embarrassed as a straight man that other similar people could even want to deny same sex marriage.

Anyway, one day I will be able to marry my boyfriend in Ireland, it is only a matter of time. Hopefully it will be in time that my parents will still be here to see me being treated equally by the state.

eviltwin

I just happened on PT last night, couldn't believe some of the comments from that lady on the panel. I wanted to punch the tv when she addressed the other lady on her "friendship".

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. Everytime I see or hear a debate on the issue I once again shocked its even up for debate. Surely we've reached a point where its a total non issue, people in same sex relationships having to fight for the basic right of marriage in 2013 is nuts!!

I know marriage equality is now inevitable but how much longer do people have to wait?

Annasopra

eviltwin wrote: »

I just happened on PT last night, couldn't believe some of the comments from that lady on the panel. I wanted to punch the tv when she addressed the other lady on her "friendship".

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. Everytime I see or hear a debate on the issue I once again shocked its even up for debate. Surely we've reached a point where its a total non issue, people in same sex relationships having to fight for the basic right of marriage in 2013 is nuts!!

I know marriage equality is now inevitable but how much longer do people have to wait?

The thing is

Social change in Ireland can be a long slow cumbersome process. It happened with divorce, condoms, gay male sex, married women working - these took a long time for Irish politicians to catch up with the general populace.

Marriage equality is on its way but the lgbt community has to keep the pressure on politicians and has to actively engage in a referendum campaign because marriage equality the organisation is on the point of closing. As of August its funding stream from Atlantic philanthropies is gone. So there is no room for complacency or assumptions that it will all just happen automatically. In some senses the battle is already won but in other senses the battle is only beginning.

I'm not shocked at what Susan Philips said at all. 20 years ago statements worse than hers were mainstream and being regularly aired in the lead upto decriminalisation.

So it doesnt shock me that this up for debate. It doesnt shock me that opponents are quite bilious. But I do feel that the movement for marriage equality could potentially fall flat due to complacency.

Cosmic Maybe

Anyone else see where Jeremy Irons said gay marriage will lead to fathers marrying sons for tax benefits!!!:eek:

Guardian have a very funny article on it:

Jeremy Irons's bizarre objection to gay marriage

Vojera

Cosmic Maybe wrote: »

Anyone else see where Jeremy Irons said gay marriage will lead to fathers marrying sons for tax benefits!!!:eek:

Guardian have a very funny article on it:

Jeremy Irons's bizarre objection to gay marriage

Well that's bizarre. And disappointing. I'll never watch Die Hard 3 again!

Ambersky

This is a really lovely story and so important to be happening in Africa. Saw it posted on another forum, thanks Bannasidhe, and just had to put up a post about it here too.
Africa’s first traditional gay wedding: Men make history as they marry in full tribal costume.
Awww



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306180/Africa-s-traditional-gay-wedding-Men-make-history-marry-tribal-costume--say-t-wait-parents.html#ixzz2PyLEbC5d

Annasopra

mango salsa wrote: »

It's Susan Philips - she has a history of this stuff going back 20 years. She objected to gays having a picnic at Glendalough in 1994. She was laughed at 7 years ago on the late late when she said Katherine Zappone and Anne Louise Gilligan were not married.

http://www.mamanpoulet.com/political-analysis-ala-susan-phillips/

http://mamanpoulet.blogspot.ie/2006/03/lesbians-on-television-and-this-time.html

http://mamanpoulet.blogspot.ie/2006/02/whos-free-speech-is-it-anyway.html


Seriously don't take her seriously at all. She has been vilified on twitter. The world has moved on in 20 years but she hasn't.

She was on vincent browne tonight and it was nasty. This is one of the reasons I don't really want a referendum - this nasty nasty underbelly of Ireland rearing its ugly head.

Medme

Highly offensive once again. She takes the biscuit. Appaling that such discrimatory views are somehow disguised as regigious or traditional or whatever. Drawing comparisons between marriage equality and incest - to say I'm angry, offended and shocked is an understatement.

Daith

Front page of Independent. David Quinn : "Who's mother and father in a gay marriage".

If this does come to a referendum I agree it will be a nasty one.

periodictable

The jerk Quinn conveniently forgets to acknowledge how single straight parents take on both roles.

Vojera

mango salsa wrote: »

This is one of the reasons I don't really want a referendum - this nasty nasty underbelly of Ireland rearing its ugly head.

Here is a blog on the Irish Times website that mentions that same feeling.

Ambersky

Thought you might like some of these.
Some of you may have seen them already but I think its no harm to refresh the humour muscles every now and again.

cx85

If this referendum is green lit and all (which it seems it is?), and there is no further obstacles does any one know how long approx. would it take to get to the actual polls?

Annasopra

cx85 wrote: »

If this referendum is green lit and all (which it seems it is?), and there is no further obstacles does any one know how long approx. would it take to get to the actual polls?

No - the convention is only making a reccomendation to government - the government can decide to do nothing - although given that the convention decision is large and FF, Lab, SF all support marriage equality I think that a referendum next year is likely.

cx85

Thanks for that Mango, its great to see momentum on this

Annasopra

Hot French guys protesting

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/france-most-homoerotic-anti-gay-protest-ever190413

Annasopra

Love this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCDEiaoEP2U

Cosmic Maybe

Seems to be real momentum building up around the whole area of marriage equality - 14 countries, 3 in the last month, hope we're not far behind.

The 14 countries that allow gay marriage

who is this

mango salsa wrote: »

No - the convention is only making a reccomendation to government - the government can decide to do nothing - although given that the convention decision is large and FF, Lab, SF all support marriage equality I think that a referendum next year is likely.

The government is only interested in avoiding doing its job regarding this issue -- governing.

Rather than accept there is uncertainty regarding the constitutional status, they consistently claim it is "explicitly defined" or "incompatible" etc., while simultaneously claiming to support it (FF, Labour except Bacik & co.), because doing so allows them to wash their hands of any decision. If they adopted the Bill proposed by Bacik (to remove the definition from legislation), they would no longer be spending state funds fighting the notion that it is compatible with the constitution as written (by fighting KAL case), but would be reversing the position and arguing with them. Either they (particularly Labour) believe it is a right or it is not. Something is just, or it is unjust. An injustice doesn't become justice just because a referendum goes that way, so if they believe SSM is justice they should not leave it to chance.

The second issue is, unless Shatter brings in adoption before a referendum, it is going to turn into "Think of the children!". I'm really not sure what's going on in that regard though. I remember seeing reports he would deal with "parenting" and "guardianship", but haven't heard anything in quite some time. Also if its not adoption (or at least adoption in all but name) it will still allow the "children issue" to be trotted out by No campaigners.

A referendum not only validates the spurious claim that the constitution prohibits it now, but also validates the idea that the majority have a right to decide the rights of a minority -- whatever the result it will be "right" simply by virtue of having been a referendum.

Not to mention, we've seen how our Constitution's addressing of issues most other nations handle by legislation, has unintended negative problems over and over: preventing children of married people being adopted, creating right to abortion for suicide*, etc.

(*I actually support abortion on demand, but the suicide right was, at the time the amendment initially passed, undeniably unintended.)

You're probably right that there will be a referendum (unless Bacik somehow gets her Bill through), but I don't think that's the right way to go, philosophically or practically.

Lyaiera

This is the best thing I have ever read on gay marriage.

A quote used in the (very long) article.

“When [conservatives] say that gay marriage threatens my marriage, I used to say, ‘That’s ridiculous.’ Now I say, ‘Yeah, it does. It’s asking you a crucial question about your marriage that you may not want to answer: If I’m a man, am I actually sharing the duties and responsibilities of married life equally with my wife?’ Same-sex marriage gives us another image of what marriage can be.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/06/the-gay-guide-to-wedded-bliss/309317/3/

The article deals with so much it's unreal: gay culture, feminism, parental duties, household duties, inequality in the work place, stay-at-home fathers and mothers, the problems in gay marriage, the problems in straight marriage, sexual inequality, sexual openness. It's fantastic. Get in your pyjamas, make a cup of tea and read it. It eloquently lays out one of the best analyses of what marriage really is that I have ever read.

DubArk

My partner and I have been together going on 27 yrs. We met in our early 20's. Through thick and thin we have been side by side. I love him and I believe he loves me.

Marriage should be available to us the same as any m/f couple in this Republic of Ireland.

Those who argue against us receiving our rights only do so because they feel superior and that their lives are more valued then ours.They're Right.

Their lives are protected by this state unlike my partner and I, until full equality is achieved be all citizens the message is clear from the state we are second class citizens in this Republic..

lottpaul

DubArk wrote: »

My partner and I have been together going on 27 yrs. We met in our early 20's. Through thick and thin we have been side by side. I love him and I believe he loves me.

Marriage should be available to us the same as any m/f couple in this Republic of Ireland.

Those who argue against us receiving our rights only do so because they feel superior and that their lives are more valued then ours.They're Right.

Their lives are protected by this state unlike my partner and I, until full equality is achieved be all citizens the message is clear from the state we are second class citizens in this Republic..

Well said -- agree 110% -- and congratulations!

_Myg

I don't get it, are you guys/gals human like the rest of us or what?

From my recollections the state has never identified a person's rights based on genetic altercations within the "human" spectrum, unless you wish that to happen?

Annasopra

_Myg wrote: »

I don't get it, are you guys/gals human like the rest of us or what?

From my recollections the state has never identified a person's rights based on genetic altercations within the "human" spectrum, unless you wish that to happen?

I don't understand what you are trying to say?

periodictable

Just watched the marriage of Vincent Autin and Bruno Boileau in Montpelier, a happy couple like any other newly weds, just same sex.
A wonderful ray of sunshine on this glorious summers day in Ireland, and soon, I hope, to be experienced by Irish gay men and women, should they desire, in this country.