Marriage Equality Referendum

Daith

The wording people will be asked to vote on

‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.’

Details here http://justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR15000009

Ash885

Fantastic wording, I find.

And given that car crash of scare mongering that was the Claire B. debate show, at least this should seperate the ssm and family bill once and for all.

Daith

Ash885 wrote: »

Fantastic wording, I find.

And given that car crash of scare mongering that was the Claire B. debate show, at least this should seperate the ssm and family bill once and for all.

The government still need to get the Child and Family Bill passed soon but I agree that the wording is clear.

floggg

Ash885 wrote: »

Fantastic wording, I find.

And given that car crash of scare mongering that was the Claire B. debate show, at least this should seperate the ssm and family bill once and for all.

I just finished watching that debate today.

I think the yes side seemed articulate, but extraordinarily unprepared for the easily anticipated sidetracking onto family issues.

I couldn't believe it took the woman from the adopted children's group to point out that fertility/assisted reproduction and adoption issues were issues also issues which also arose in straight couples (and I would imagine most couples who adopt or avail of assisted reproduction services will be straight).

I also thought it was naive of them to just try and bring it back to "its all about love." I understand that they were trying to convey it as a positive, non-threatening change, but people do have concerns (which are being amplified by the disinformation campaign) and these should be addressed.

I was crying out for somebody to point out that the biological parents of adopted children won't be on the scene anyway, so nobody is being deprived of their parents.

I think they sooner the family rights legislation is passed the better. It really should have been introduced last year to be honest, as now there will be accusations of it being rail roaded through and under cutting the democratic process.

Finally, everybody on the pro side reading this should consider donating to Marriage Equality, LGBT Noise or similar groups campaigning on the Yes side, and if possible getting involved in the campaign.

At the very least, let's all ensure as much of our friends and family get out to vote as possible.

alaimacerc

Ronan Mullen on the radio right now. When asked if the referendum wasn't actually about the right to get married (after one of his early-breaking "children's right sky falling" tangents, and hence the "unfairness" of the referendum wording not being ludicrously loaded the way he'd have liked), he said:

"If it was about that, people would find it very difficult to oppose it."

My heart bleeds for you, it really does. Reality's liberal bias making life "difficult" for you again, Ronan. Expect four months of solid "our rights for you not to have equal rights" deflection from this quarter.

floggg

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ronan Mullen on the radio right now. When asked if the referendum wasn't actually about the right to get married (after one of his early-breaking "children's right sky falling" tangents, and hence the "unfairness" of the referendum wording not being ludicrously loaded the way he'd have liked), he said:

"If it was about that, people would find it very difficult to oppose it."

My heart bleeds for you, it really does. Reality's liberal bias making life "difficult" for you again, Ronan. Expect four months of solid "our rights for you not to have equal rights" deflection from this quarter.

Who is he debating against? Which radio station?

alaimacerc

floggg wrote: »

Who is he debating against? Which radio station?

Over now, sorry, waxed too long and too slow.

RTER1 Drivetime. Not a debate as such, but they'd Frances Fitzgerald on first, sounding very measured and reasonable, and the RM on immediately afterward... not.

alaimacerc

floggg wrote: »

I was crying out for somebody to point out that the biological parents of adopted children won't be on the scene anyway, so nobody is being deprived of their parents.

When they say "a child's right to their father and their mother", don't assume they necessarily mean the biological parents. Any ol' heterosexuals will do, really!

I think they sooner the family rights legislation is passed the better. It really should have been introduced last year to be honest, as now there will be accusations of it being rail roaded through and under cutting the democratic process.

Oh, we'd have had those anyway. I saw on another site over a year ago someone saying there should judicial review (or some such nonsense) over any change to the family rights law, because it would be breaching the McKenna judgement and unfairly influencing the referendum. i.e. somewhat reducing their scope to deflect onto their makey-uppy "equal rights for children to have their parents kinda-sorta compelled to do what we want them to do, though not actually quite even that".

Annasopra

The Yes side will need active campaigners and canvassers on the ground. I would strongly urge everyone in favour to go out and actively assist local Yes campaigners as much as possible.

Yes Equality is the umbrella campaign consisting of Marriage Equality, Gay and Lesbian Equality Network and Irish Council for Civil Liberties.

marienbad

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The Yes side will need active campaigners and canvassers on the ground. I would strongly urge everyone in favour to go out and actively assist local Yes campaigners as much as possible.

Yes Equality is the umbrella campaign consisting of Marriage Equality, Gay and Lesbian Equality Network and Irish Council for Civil Liberties.

Donate

Text LOVE to 50300 to donate €4. 100% of text cost goes to GLEN across most network providers. Some providers may apply VAT which means that a minimum of €3.25 will go to the campaign. Service Provider: LIKECHARITY. Helpline: 0766805278. After you donate you will receive the following text response.

SILVAMAN

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ronan Mullen on the radio right now. When asked if the referendum wasn't actually about the right to get married (after one of his early-breaking "children's right sky falling" tangents, and hence the "unfairness" of the referendum wording not being ludicrously loaded the way he'd have liked), he said:

"If it was about that, people would find it very difficult to oppose it."

My heart bleeds for you, it really does. Reality's liberal bias making life "difficult" for you again, Ronan. Expect four months of solid "our rights for you not to have equal rights" deflection from this quarter.

Is he actually straight?

alaimacerc

SILVAMAN wrote: »

Is he actually straight?

What he is, is "mentally reserved" to the point of extreme twistedness.

HIB

Just watching the news there and they asked the pro gay marriage guy what is the difference between marriage and civil partnership. He said something about being treated as equal citizens. Didn't give any tangible examples though. Can anyone elaborate ? What will be the actual, tangible differences? E.g. will marriage as opposed to civil partnership sort out some inheritance issues? Or maybe the right to a say in medical treatment of your partner?

Annasopra

HIB wrote: »

Just watching the news there and they asked the pro gay marriage guy what is the difference between marriage and civil partnership. He said something about being treated as equal citizens. Didn't give any tangible examples though. Can anyone elaborate ? What will be the actual, tangible differences? E.g. will marriage as opposed to civil partnership sort out some inheritance issues? Or maybe the right to a say in medical treatment of your partner?

All of them? Theres over 160.

http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/full-list

alaimacerc

HIB wrote: »

Just watching the news there and they asked the pro gay marriage guy what is the difference between marriage and civil partnership. He said something about being treated as equal citizens. Didn't give any tangible examples though. Can anyone elaborate ? What will be the actual, tangible differences? E.g. will marriage as opposed to civil partnership sort out some inheritance issues? Or maybe the right to a say in medical treatment of your partner?

There's so many that Top Nerds have made a spreadsheet! http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/full-list

Of course, the "no" side say that these can be addressed separately in primary legislation, which is to some extent perhaps true. But at some ill-defined point this tends to run into a) constitutional difficulties, and b) opposition from the very people who a moment ago were advising going down that route.

alaimacerc

Well, since I was beaten to the punch on that one, here's the ones from the FAQ from that same site:

"For example, Civil Partnership:

• does not permit children to have a legally recognised relationship with their parents - only the biological one. This causes all sorts of practical problems for hundreds of families with schools and hospitals as well as around guardianship, access and custody. In the worst case, it could mean that a child is taken away from a parent and put into care on the death of the biological parent.
• does not recognise same sex couples' rights to many social supports that may be needed in hardship situations and may literally leave a loved one out in the cold.
• defines the home of civil partners as a "shared home", rather than a "family home" , as is the case for married couples. This has implications for the protection of dependent children living in this home and also means a lack of protection for civil partners who are deserted.

"

HIB

alaimacerc wrote: »

There's so many that Top Nerds have made a spreadsheet! http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/full-list

Of course, the "no" side say that these can be addressed separately in primary legislation, which is to some extent perhaps true. But at some ill-defined point this tends to run into a) constitutional difficulties, and b) opposition from the very people who a moment ago were advising going down that route.

That's very interesting. Thanks. A lot of the items in green I.e. those addressed under civil partnership, had 'married' wording. Any idea how/why these were successfully ammended to include civil partnership, while others (in red) were not. Was the civil partnership bill ( I think thats the name?) just badly drafted.

alaimacerc

HIB wrote: »

That's very interesting. Thanks. A lot of the items in green I.e. those addressed under civil partnership, had 'married' wording. Any idea how/why these were successfully ammended to include civil partnership, while others (in red) were not. Was the civil partnership bill ( I think thats the name?) just badly drafted.

I dunno about the detail, I'd have to look much more closely. Then likely still wouldn't know. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

But I'm given to understand that part of the drafting process deliberately left a number of differences, on the basis that making it too similar to "proper" marriage would be open to constitutional challenge. On the reasoning of, "this is 'marriage' by another name, therefore changing the definition of 'family', therefore outside the scope of primary legislation, therefore struck down."

marienbad

Even if there were no difference it would still be wrong , just the Irish version of 'separate but equal'

floggg

marienbad wrote: »

Even if there were no difference it would still be wrong , just the Irish version of 'separate but equal'

This. If there was no dofference between the two other than in name, then the only purpose for maintaining the distinction would be to mark them out as different or unequal - even though there would be no actual material difference.

It would serve no purpose other than to maintain an artificial sense of otherness about same sex relationships.

Annasopra

In other counties or constituencies they not be using the Yes Equality banner

alaimacerc

floggg wrote: »

This. If there was no dofference between the two other than in name, then the only purpose for maintaining the distinction would be to mark them out as different or unequal - even though there would be no actual material difference.

Or as a handy reference for the convenience of discrimination down the line.

Personally I'd be delighted with "civil unions all round", on the continental model of "whatever happens in church, stays in church". But I'm not holding my breath for that being offered in these parts any time foreseeable.

Irish Aris

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

All of them? Theres over 160.

http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/full-list

thanks for this Joey (and for the links for the groups).
Not sure if I read this correctly, are the highlighted red that aren't currently covered by civil partnership and will do so under marriage equality?

floggg

If anybody is interested in volunteering, canvassing or campaigning in any shape or form over the coming months, I would suggest getting in touch with Marriage Equality, GLEN, LGBT Noise or other group of your choosing to express your interest now so that they can include you in any volunteer circulars which they send out.

I know Marriage Equality are planning a training event in the next few weeks, and I'm sure the other groups will lovely run something similar.

Daith

floggg wrote: »

If anybody is interested in volunteering, canvassing or campaigning in any shape or form over the coming months, I would suggest getting in touch with Marriage Equality, GLEN, LGBT Noise or other group of your choosing to express your interest now so that they can include you in any volunteer circulars which they send out.

I know Marriage Equality are planning a training event in the next few weeks, and I'm sure the other groups will lovely run something similar.

I really hope that's it a coordinated effort between groups.

Annasopra

Daith wrote: »

I really hope that's it a coordinated effort between groups.

Glen, Iccl and ME are running a joint campaign called yes equality. See above.

Get involved.

Daith

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Glen, Iccl and ME are running a joint campaign called yes equality. See above.

Get involved.

Good stuff! Will do.

ninty9er

Daith wrote: »

The wording people will be asked to vote on

‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.’

Details here http://justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR15000009

That's the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment, most people don't read the bill

Here's what they'll get on a piece of paper

Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution contained in the undermentioned Bill

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015

An Bille um an gCeathrú Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Comhionannas
Pósta), 2015

Annasopra

Frances Fitzgerald gave a good speech in Cork last night.

http://www.finegael.ie/latest-news/2015/speech-by-the-minister-fo/index.xml

marienbad

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Frances Fitzgerald gave a good speech in Cork last night.

http://www.finegael.ie/latest-news/2015/speech-by-the-minister-fo/index.xml

Great speech , who taught we would live to see the day !

Ten of Swords

The referendum is about who can marry. It is not about parental rights for children. That issue will be addressed in the Children and Family Relationships Bill which I will publish very shortly.

Shame this won't stop the usual suspects spouting their particular brand of nonsense...