SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Muise...

Announced today: http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0701/627828-same-sex-marriage-referendum/

In the Spring a fuller crimson comes upon the robin's breast;
In the Spring the wanton lapwing gets himself another crest;

In the Spring a livelier iris changes on the burnish'd dove;
In the Spring a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love.

Sometimes it looks like it's in the bag, other times I wonder if I'm just surrounded by family and friends and internet-faeries who are all supportive of same sex marriage, so I only think this referendum will be won.

I don't want to start a thread to discuss the issue itself - just wondering if boardsies could share information on the opinions that they hear around them. Are people you know for or against it? Any surprising thoughts from people you know?




MOD NOTE: Make sure you're registered to vote. Check at www.checktheregister.ie

Reformed Character

Anyone I have heard talk about it is in favour of it, but then again what is
there to be against?

shopaholic01

I think a lot of people are largely indifferent. I'd imagine the turnout will be quite low. Those that it will directly affect will vote, as will the militant Christians.

I hope it's passed, it will be a huge step forward for equal rights.

comongethappy

Anecdotally I'm hearing mixed opinions.

It will be a close call, but if I had to call it this far out, I'd say the SSM referendum will be narrowly defeated (sadly).

Iwasfrozen

Why set the date so far away? Will definitely be defeated anyway imo.

Muise...

comongethappy wrote: »

Anecdotally I'm hearing mixed opinions.

It will be a close call, but if I had to call it this far out, I'd say the SSM referendum will be narrowly defeated.

Janey! Is the opinion against SSM coming from a particular quarter, or people from all walks of life?

_Redzer_

In an ideal world it's something that should be automatically made legal, instead of a referendum like what happened with mix race marriage in America, where there was feck all reason to oppose that too -unless you were a high-class gobshíte.

Sauve

I'd presume it's a given that it'll be passed, going on conversations I've had. I can't think of one person I know who's outwardly against same sex marriage.

Then again, I'm sure there are many who are all for it in public, but it could be a whole different story in the privacy of a polling booth...

comongethappy

Muise... wrote: »

Janey! Is the opinion against SSM coming from a particular quarter, or people from all walks of life?

Personally the older people I know are fairly OK with it.
The more religious & men (I find) are more against it

Muise...

_Redzer_ wrote: »

In an ideal world it's something that should be automatically made legal, instead of a referendum like what happened with mix race marriage in America, where there was feck all reason to oppose thart too -unless you were a high-class gobshíte.

True, but

1. The Constitution
2. In the absence of 1., the Government (any Irish Govt.) wouldn't have the balls.

PopePalpatine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why set the date so far away? Will definitely be defeated anyway imo.

Keep on deluding yourself. :rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

Muise... wrote: »

True, but

1. The Constitution
2. In the absence of 1., the Government (any Irish Govt.) wouldn't have the balls.

Well it's not really a matter of the government having balls. They legally can't. Balls or not.

comongethappy

Muise... wrote: »

True, but

1. The Constitution
2. In the absence of 1., the Government (any Irish Govt.) wouldn't have the balls.

I think the constitution doesn't specify gender?
(I'm probably wrong of course).

Iwasfrozen

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Keep on deluding yourself. :rolleyes:

I'm voting in favour.

Foxhound38

Everyone I know has been pretty strongly for it. I presume this will fairly sail in - or at least I hope so in order to give the fundementalist loonies a public reminder as to the current discourse in Ireland.

comongethappy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm voting in favour.

As will I & I also think it will be defeated.

Especially if the government campaign strongly for it.
When it comes to referendums there are those so anti-government, they will vote 'No' no matter the question.... Im looking at you Donegal!

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I actually think there might be a chance it could not pass just from low turnout. The sane among us who support it generally fail to see it as a big deal, the retarded bigots who oppose it generally feel quite strongly. So those against will make a deliberate effort to vote, those supporting could just assume it's going to pass and not bother.

Maximus Alexander

Muise... wrote: »

Janey! Is the opinion against SSM coming from a particular quarter, or people from all walks of life?

There's a massive catholic element in Irish society even now. A lot of them will get out to vote against it. Even though I believe they're outnumbered by people in favour of SSM, it might be a struggle to motivate a lot of straight people who, while generally supportive, aren't affected by it and might not be bothered to get to the polling booth.

I hope I'm wrong about this. Surely at this stage everyone knows at least one openly gay person whose rights they'd want to fight for.

_Redzer_

Muise... wrote: »

True, but

1. The Constitution
2. In the absence of 1., the Government (any Irish Govt.) wouldn't have the balls.

I completely get that, I just said in an ideal world.

Human rights shouldn't be up for debate. Especially with some of the idiots who show up to fight it for the sake of it, they're far more vocal and likely to get off their arse to vote against it, while the majority who wouldn't be bothered about it would be less likely too.

Muise...

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well it's not really a matter of the government having balls. They legally can't. Balls or not.

That's why I said "in the absence of the Constitution"

comongethappy wrote: »

I think the constitution doesn't specify gender?
(I'm probably wrong of course).

No, but it states that marriage is the foundation of the family so there are far too many possible tangles and arguments that could be made in appeals. We really need to ditch at least half of that little book of Ireland in the past.

PopePalpatine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm voting in favour.

Ah, I didn't see that from your post. I thought it was self-delusion of the Iona flavour.

I think this might be a bit closer than what the opinion polls suggest, going on the discrepancy between opinion polls and the final result in the Childrens' Rights Referendum. Just as the anti- side in that referendum were dedicated in their opposition, I'd expect the same level of dedication from the anti-SSM side.

Shane-KornSpace

It's about time.
I'm not directly affected by it.
Despite that, I feel very strongly about the need for a yes vote and I'll be sure to ensure every one in my family gets off their asses and votes.

Links234

God knows, myself and herself might actually be able to tie the knot, how wonderful?

dxhound2005

There appears to be no prohibition in law preventing same sex marriage. It is not mentioned in this list of prohibitions. So there is no need for a referendum. The people on this list could make a case that they should be allowed to marry as well as could people who are prohibited by reason of their age.

Consanguinity – blood relationships

A man may not marry his:
•Grandmother
•Mother
•Father’s sister (aunt)
•Mother’s sister (aunt)
•Sister
•Father’s Daughter (half sister)
•Mother’s Daughter (half sister)
•Daughter
•Son’s Daughter (granddaughter)
•Daughter’s Daughter (granddaughter)
•Brother’s Daughter (niece)
•Sister’s Daughter (niece)

A woman may not marry her:
•Grandfather
•Father.
•Father’s Brother (uncle)
•Mother’s Brother (uncle)
•Brother
•Father’s Son (half brother)
•Mother’s Son (half brother)
•Son
•Son’s Son (grandson)
•Daughter’s Son (grandson)
•Brother’s Son (nephew)
•Sister’s Son (nephew)

Affinity – relationship by marriage

A man may not marry his:
•Grandfather’s Wife (step-grandmother)
•Father’s Wife (stepmother)
•Father’s Brother’s Wife
•Mother’s Brother’s Wife
•Son’s Wife
•Son’s Son’s Wife
•Daughter’s Son’s Wife
•Brother’s Son’s Wife
•Sister’s Son’s Wife
•Wife’s grandmother (grandmother-in-law)
•Wife’s Mother (mother-in-law)
•Wife’s Father’s Sister
•Wife’s Mother’s Sister
•Wife’s Daughter (stepdaughter)
•Wife’s Son’s Daughter
•Wife’s Daughter’s Daughter
•Wife’s Brother’s Daughter
•Wife’s Sister’s Daughter

A woman may not marry her:
•Grandmother’s Husband (step-grandfather)
•Mother’s Husband (stepfather)
•Father’s Sister’s Husband
•Mother’s Sister’s Husband
•Daughter’s Husband
•Son’s Daughter’s Husband
•Daughter’s Daughter’s Husband
•Brother’s Daughter’s Husband
•Sister’s Daughter’s Husband
•Husband’s Grandfather (grandfather-in-law)
•Husband’s Father (father-in-law)
•Husband’s Father’s Brother
•Husband’s Mother’s Brother
•Husband’s Son (stepson)
•Husband’s Son’s Son
•Husband’s Daughter’s Son
•Husband’s Brother’s Son
•Husband’s Sister’s Son

Maximus Alexander

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

It's about time.
I'm not directly affected by it.
Despite that, I feel very strongly about the need for a yes vote and I'll be sure to ensure every one in my family gets off their asses and votes.

I'm exactly the same and, fortunately, I know a lot of people who feel the same too which is what gives me some confidence.

I've said it before in other threads on this topic, but in 40 years the fact that this was ever an issue will be as unbelievable to the new generation as the notion that racial segregation was happening as recently as the 60s is to mine.

That was an awkward sentence.

P_1

To be honest I also have my concerns that it mightn't pass. The conservative side will be very organised at getting their vote out. The key will be in getting as high a turnout as possible and possibly keeping the parties as far away from the campaign as possible.

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why set the date so far away? Will definitely be defeated anyway imo.

So that the adoption legislation is in place first

dxhound2005

P_1 wrote: »

To be honest I also have my concerns that it mightn't pass. The conservative side will be very organised at getting their vote out. The key will be in getting as high a turnout as possible and possibly keeping the parties as far away from the campaign as possible.

So if political parties don't campaign what campaign will there be?

Muise...

P_1 wrote: »

To be honest I also have my concerns that it mightn't pass. The conservative side will be very organised at getting their vote out. The key will be in getting as high a turnout as possible and possibly keeping the parties as far away from the campaign as possible.

Yeah, but think of the campaign parties and how sparkly and joyful and fabulous they will be! :P

_Redzer_

P_1 wrote: »

To be honest I also have my concerns that it mightn't pass. The conservative side will be very organised at getting their vote out. The key will be in getting as high a turnout as possible and possibly keeping the parties as far away from the campaign as possible.

Plus they love to fight dirty, outrightly lie and paint themselves as the victims. That all seems to play in their favour in this country and they actually get a podium to spout their crap.

Tbh I've never seen any organisation who opposed same sex marriage that wasn't full of scum bags and nutcases

Annasopra

Links234 wrote: »

God knows, myself and herself might actually be able to tie the knot, how wonderful?

They'll have to sort out the Gender recognition act first.

Woodville56

Just another government whim imo - more pressing issues requiring government attention ! Is it an element of Kenny's new politics or a sop to the ailing Labour Party ?? Either way, of no great relevance to most of the electorate , low poll but expect fiery rhetoric from the opposing camps !!

Ten of Swords

Here is a flavour of the anti-ssm campaign

Manach

I'd say it will be closer than the media pundits expect, inspire of the ill will and name calling on behalf of those who would overturn traditional marriage. Hopefully given the judicial activism in other countries that have overturned democratic votes against this re-definition, there will be a no vote that will safeguard marriage.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

P_1 wrote: »

To be honest I also have my concerns that it mightn't pass. The conservative side will be very organised at getting their vote out. The key will be in getting as high a turnout as possible and possibly keeping the parties as far away from the campaign as possible.

It's going to be very interesting watching where the money funding the NO side is coming from too. I wouldn't be too surprised if American conservative lobby groups stick their oar in the way they do with Youth Defence et al. If I remember right the dollars were laid on good and heavy to buy advertising space, provide buses to transport pensioners to polling stations etc during the last abortion thingie.

Although I'm not sure how much even conservative Americans give a **** about SSM anymore.

comongethappy

Woodville56 wrote: »

Just another government whim imo - more pressing issues requiring government attention ! Is it an element of Kenny's new politics or a sop to the ailing Labour Party ?? Either way, of no great relevance to most of the electorate , low poll but expect fiery rhetoric from the opposing camps !!

Its a big government & the day is long.

There is plenty of time to address issues both big & small.

(Having equal rights with your fellow man is as big as it gets)

Annasopra

dxhound2005 wrote: »

So if political parties don't campaign what campaign will there be?

I presume groups like GLEN, TENI, Marriage Equality, ICCL, Belong To will all do some sort of campaign.

comongethappy

Manach wrote: »

I'd say it will be closer than the media pundits expect, inspire of the ill will and name calling on behalf of those who would overturn traditional marriage. Hopefully given the judicial activism in other countries that have overturned democratic votes against this re-definition, there will be a no vote that will safeguard marriage.

You do know that if the "Yes" prevails, marrying someone gay won't be compulsory & existing marriages are still valid?

PopePalpatine

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Plus they love to fight dirty, outrightly lie and paint themselves as the victims. That all seems to play in their favour in this country and they actually get a podium to spout their crap.

Manach wrote: »

I'd say it will be closer than the media pundits expect, in spite of the ill will and name calling on behalf of those who would overturn traditional marriage. Hopefully given the judicial activism in other countries that have overturned democratic votes against this re-definition, there will be a no vote that will safeguard marriage.

As sure as night follows day...

Muise...

Woodville56 wrote: »

Just another government whim imo - more pressing issues requiring government attention ! Is it an element of Kenny's new politics or a sop to the ailing Labour Party ?? Either way, of no great relevance to most of the electorate , low poll but expect fiery rhetoric from the opposing camps !!

I find it hard to be cynical about this one. I'm straight, so it doesn't affect me directly, but there are quite a lot of excellent and lovely people I care about, whom it will affect. There are several weddings I want to dance at, but can't yet.

It also affects me indirectly insofar as the Constitution is a document of the ideals and intentions of the people, and I am one of the people. It's flawed as hell, that old document, but I want it to at least say something good about love.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Manach wrote: »

I'd say it will be closer than the media pundits expect, inspire of the ill will and name calling on behalf of those who would overturn traditional marriage. Hopefully given the judicial activism in other countries that have overturned democratic votes against this re-definition, there will be a no vote that will safeguard marriage.

It doesn't matter what the words used to express that opinion are, it's still stupid, so put away the thesaurus, it doesn't make a difference.

Woodville56

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Everyone I know has been pretty strongly for it. I presume this will fairly sail in - or at least I hope so in order to give the fundementalist loonies a public reminder as to the current discourse in Ireland.

So, is everyone who opposed SSM or who is (like myself) ambivalent to the whole idea a " looney fundamentalist " Foxhound ? The campaign hasn't even begun yet this is where the "discourse" is pitched already - bound to polarise opinion and won't bring many undecided to the SSM cause imo

Maximus Alexander

comongethappy wrote: »

You do know that if the "Yes" prevails, marrying someone gay won't be compulsory & existing marriages are still valid?

Way to rain on my parade. I was looking forward to being forced to get gay married after the referendum.

It would be a great way to get rid out of a relationship for us straight folks.

"I'm sorry love, you know I'd rather marry you, but they're not giving me a choice. You voted for this!"

GLaDOS

Looking forward to reading the ludicrous posters the no side come out with

major bill

I will be voting and it will be in favour of it.

I would be interested in knowing why anyone would vote no?

Foxhound38

Woodville56 wrote: »

Just another government whim imo - more pressing issues requiring government attention ! Is it an element of Kenny's new politics or a sop to the ailing Labour Party ?? Either way, of no great relevance to most of the electorate , low poll but expect fiery rhetoric from the opposing camps !!

Presumably the Government can pay attention to more than one thing at the same time?

Either way, there will always be reasons not to run it at this time or that time - let's just do it and join the 21st century on this issue sooner rather than later. Our backwards, arch-catholic attitude in law towards these things is enough of a source of embarassment for one century.

Foxhound38

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Here is a flavour of the anti-ssm campaign

Here's a better taste of it! :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wopoEJxFYQw

Maximus Alexander

Woodville56 wrote: »

So, is everyone who opposed SSM or who is (like myself) ambivalent to the whole idea a " looney fundamentalist " Foxhound ? The campaign hasn't even begun yet this is where the "discourse" is pitched already - bound to polarise opinion and won't bring many undecided to the SSM cause imo

I think it's hard, or even impossible, for people in favour of SSM to see the other side of it since nobody has been able to demonstrate any negative effects that would be put upon people who don't want to marry someone of the same sex.

It comes across as hate for it's own sake, though I'd love to hear a cogent argument against it. Not that it would change my opinion mind. It might at least allow me to stop viewing the opposition as nasty people.

PopePalpatine

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Looking forward to reading the ludicrous posters the no side come out with

I won't. I find such wilful ignorance peddled by the anti-LGBT shitlords as just frustrating. It's frustrating to see people take such glee in denying equality to other human beings, it's frustrating to see people peddle such hatred.

P_1

Camron Stale Witch wrote: »

It's going to be very interesting watching where the money funding the NO side is coming from too. I wouldn't be too surprised if American conservative lobby groups stick their oar in the way they do with Youth Defence et al. If I remember right the dollars were laid on good and heavy to buy advertising space, provide buses to transport pensioners to polling stations etc during the last abortion thingie.

Although I'm not sure how much even conservative Americans give a **** about SSM anymore.

I actually think that could be a veryuseful tactic for the Yes side to employ.

Basically play the 'people from outside out society are trying to influence us' card.

Only worry is that chances are the No side will try to ape it

Doctor Strange

Manach wrote: »

I'd say it will be closer than the media pundits expect, inspire of the ill will and name calling on behalf of those who would overturn traditional marriage. Hopefully given the judicial activism in other countries that have overturned democratic votes against this re-definition, there will be a no vote that will safeguard marriage.

Bite. Me.

There is NO reason two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to get married. You can carry your delusions of "traditional" marriage all you want, but guess what? Your life won't change because people who love each other can now get married. Frankly, I find it abhorrent and slightly creepy that people wish to stick their unwanted opinion into the relationship of two consenting, loving adults. Will society change fundamentally if I can marry a man? Or if Links can marry a woman? No. So leave your opinion in the 17th century where it belongs.