How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Hyzepher

Interesting that only 59% of marriages last year were Roman Catholic

Flem31

seenitall wrote: »

The two aspects are already split just grand. I got married in a registry office, church had naught to do with it.

What are you talking about?

It would help if you read the post that I was responding to, it was only just above mine.
For a church wedding, the civil process is performed at the end of the ceremony in the very same building. Split it out completely and treat them as two distinct parts at separate venues.

Zubeneschamali

seenitall wrote: »

The two aspects are already split just grand. I got married in a registry office, church had naught to do with it.

Today, if you get married in a Church ceremony, there is a separate step after all the religious baloney where you sign the register, which is the bit that makes the marriage legally recognized.

The bishops are threatening to stop priests doing that step. In other cases where this happens, for example if you want to get married in a church in Italy, the church will tell you to get the civil ceremony done here first, then go over there for the sacrament. I'd assume the rules here would be similar - get civil married at the office, then have the Church bit.

What Flem31 is suggesting is that this would be a better arrangement all round than the current one, where a lot of people are confused between the sacrament and the civil ceremony.

I would certainly think the numbers of people bothering to get Church weddings would drop in this situation.

seenitall

Flem31 wrote: »

It would help if you read the post that I was responding to, it was only just above mine.
For a church wedding, the civil process is performed at the end of the ceremony in the very same building. Split it out completely and treat them as two distinct parts at separate venues.

Oh, I see your point now, silly me.

Heaven forbid the priest has to desecrate himself by having anything to do with the civil side of things once the state starts honouring gay people's right to marry, too.

And how right you are.

seenitall

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Today, if you get married in a Church ceremony, there is a separate step after all the religious baloney where you sign the register, which is the bit that makes the marriage legally recognized.

The bishops are threatening to stop priests doing that step. In other cases where this happens, for example if you want to get married in a church in Italy, the church will tell you to get the civil ceremony done here first, then go over there for the sacrament. I'd assume the rules here would be similar - get civil married at the office, then have the Church bit.

What Flem31 is suggesting is that this would be a better arrangement all round than the current one, where a lot of people are confused between the sacrament and the civil ceremony.

I would certainly think the numbers of people bothering to get Church weddings would drop in this situation.

Um no, I don't think it's about people getting confused about the situation as it stands, all of a sudden, at all. See my above post.

Or am I just being very cynical?

Hyzepher

Hyzepher wrote: »

Interesting that only 59% of marriages last year were Roman Catholic

Yeah I thought that seemed very low myself. I suppose it might be explained by the ongoing 'statistical glut' caused by the 'honeymoon period' of the divorce referendum, and civil partnerships, if civil partnerships are included in the figure.

It would be interesting to learn what proportion of the 41% were second marriages/ CPs.

Combining that with information on the non-Catholic religious weddings, it would be a useful indicator of religious trends in Ireland.

Flem31

seenitall wrote: »

Oh, I see your point now, silly me.

Heaven forbid the priest has to desecrate himself by having anything to do with the civil side of things once the state starts honouring gay people's right to marry, too.

And how right you are.

Regardless of the Referendum, is splitting the two aspects out anyway, not a good thing ?.
This would reduce the power of the Church and their own move out of spite would backfire on them. It would also eliminate this snob attitude that still prevails from some people unfortunately about whether someone was married in a church or a registry office.
All would be married in a registry office and the church aspect would be for decoration and a backdrop for photos.

seenitall

Flem31 wrote: »

Regardless of the Referendum, is splitting the two aspects out anyway, not a good thing ?.
This would reduce the power of the Church and their own move out of spite would backfire on them. It would also eliminate this snob attitude that still prevails from some people unfortunately about whether someone was married in a church or a registry office.
All would be married in a registry office and the church aspect would be for decoration and a backdrop for photos.

No, as I said, I think that your above opinion is just the smokescreen for a much uglier attitude toward homosexuality that I described earlier.

Ridiculous idea that such a change would eliminate snobbism/bigotry regarding people's marriages. The religiously bigoted will always look down on any marriage that wasn't preformed as a sacrament, there's no changing that.

Because to them, of course, it is NOT just the decoration and purely for show. That's why they would be in such a hurry to dissociate it completely from civil marriage, at this particular point in time. Which means that they have begun to understand that this referendum will pass.

rainbow kirby

RCC behaving like a bunch of children again when people aren't bending to their will, what a surprise. :rolleyes:

OldNotWIse

rainbow kirby wrote: »

RCC behaving like a bunch of children again when people aren't bending to their will, what a surprise. :rolleyes:

They've a short fuse these days since the supply of altar boys dried up.

Zubeneschamali

seenitall wrote: »

Um no, I don't think it's about people getting confused about the situation as it stands, all of a sudden, at all.

Of course the RCC are not threatening this because of confusion, they are threatening because of homophobia.

But there certainly are lots of people who are confused, and think that a Yes vote means gays getting married in Church, an attack on their religion etc.

I hope the Bishops follow through on this threat - it'll makes things more transparent.

Flem31

seenitall wrote: »

No, as I said, I think that your above opinion is just the smokescreen for a much uglier attitude toward homosexuality that I described earlier.

Ridiculous idea that such a change would eliminate snobbism/bigotry regarding people's marriages. The religiously bigoted will always look down on any marriage that wasn't preformed as a sacrament, there's no changing that.

Because to them, of course, it is NOT just the decoration and purely for show. That's why they would be in such a hurry to dissociate it completely from civil marriage, at this particular point in time. Which means that they have begun to understand that this referendum will pass.

And the Church's attitude won't change regardless of the result of the referendum. That will take years at least for the change you seem to be looking for.

For me, on a practical level, I would have no issue using the Church's threat as a means to further weaken their control on marriage and that if everyone could only be married in a location other than a church, I think it could achieve that.
It may have an impact, it may not, but is there any harm in that change happening or do we wait and let time pass by with the status quo

seamus

Flem31 wrote: »

For me, on a practical level, I would have no issue using the Church's threat as a means to further weaken their control on marriage and that if everyone could only be married in a location other than a church, I think it could achieve that.

You see, that's deliberately divisive - you're in effect banning marriage from taking place in a church.

Which is unnecessarily restrictive and unfair.

What we need is liberalisation of where a ceremony can be performed - in effect it should be possible to perform a ceremony anywhere. Provided that the relevant people are in attendance, then the location is irrelevant.

The main issue at present is that it's not possible for anyone off the street to get on the register of solemnisers (for no good reason), and if you want a HSE employee to marry you somewhere other than a registry office, then for health and safety reasons you have to jump through a pile of hoops just to get certified for a bland venue.

This is of course unrelated to SSM, but if you want to erode the power the church has over weddings then you need to remove its special status as being the only place you can hold a big ceremony.

Banning the civil part from the church won't do that. People will have a quiet registry wedding and big flashy church wedding.

But opening up the list of possible venues to be limitless, might just take the sheen off the church, as people realise they can get legally married hanging upside down from a bridge over the Suir.

galljga1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Where on earth did you get this out of my post?

I don't believe in fining a broadcaster simply for failing to divide air-time on a 50-50 basis. It should be the prerogative of the individual broadcaster or media outlet to determine who gets the most airtime. If both sides can advance credible arguments, then by all means, give both sides equal air time.

We had the same problem during the Children's Referendum, where the only opponents to it were cuckoo.

Rules like this give a voice to people like Mina Bean Uí Chroibín.

There is nothing democratic about giving 50% of air time to a person whose views are shared by a tiny minority of the public.

Let a free exchange of ideas prevail over a prescriptive debate.

I have not come across reference to Bean Uí Chroibín in a long time, grand auld soul that she was. Used to work with her son. I think he was kind of embarrassed.

Some of her battles are listed here, the crowning glory being the Roscommon incest case.

http://www.thejournal.ie/mine-bean-ui-chribin-dies-550439-Aug2012/

seenitall

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course the RCC are not threatening this because of confusion, they are threatening because of homophobia.

But there certainly are lots of people who are confused, and think that a Yes vote means gays getting married in Church, an attack on their religion etc.

I hope the Bishops follow through on this threat - it'll makes things more transparent.

I don't believe in pandering either to bigotry, or pure misinformed ignorance. Inform rather than change so as to accomodate ignorance.

But then, I also believe that most no voters are not as thick, so as not to know to distinguish between the church marriage and the civil marriage. They just choose not to.

As to the Bishops, who cares what they do. After 22/05 whatever they do or don't do will be yesterday's news, and they know it.

Flem31

seamus wrote: »

You see, that's deliberately divisive - you're in effect banning marriage from taking place in a church.

Which is unnecessarily restrictive and unfair.

What we need is liberalisation of where a ceremony can be performed - in effect it should be possible to perform a ceremony anywhere. Provided that the relevant people are in attendance, then the location is irrelevant.

The main issue at present is that it's not possible for anyone off the street to get on the register of solemnisers (for no good reason), and if you want a HSE employee to marry you somewhere other than a registry office, then for health and safety reasons you have to jump through a pile of hoops just to get certified for a bland venue.

This is of course unrelated to SSM, but if you want to erode the power the church has over weddings then you need to remove its special status as being the only place you can hold a big ceremony.

Banning the civil part from the church won't do that. People will have a quiet registry wedding and big flashy church wedding.

But opening up the list of possible venues to be limitless, might just take the sheen off the church, as people realise they can get legally married hanging upside down from a bridge over the Suir.

Ok, perhaps not the best explanation of my point when I used the phrase marriage

At the moment the church perfoms two roles
- the legal contract of joining two people in a partnership
- a religious ceremony

Call it marriage, a union whatever, it is the legal aspect that I think should be removed from the church building. Couples if they wish can have a religious ceremony afterwards but in the eyes of the state it would have no legal bearing.

I agree with your other point re the choice of venue as from personal experience some only get married because it's in a cathedral so an alternative choice of venues on a grand scale would be a good development

haveringchick

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Funny how this was nowhere to be seen when someone was claiming children should be taken away from their parents if they are gay.

But someone claiming that children should be taken away from their parents is good for the yes vote. You know that.
it make the holder of that opinion appear bigoted blinded and idiotic.
Your stating that your not sure how no voters ever learned to breath has exactly the same effect.

seenitall

Flem31 wrote: »

And the Church's attitude won't change regardless of the result of the referendum. That will take years at least for the change you seem to be looking for.

For me, on a practical level, I would have no issue using the Church's threat as a means to further weaken their control on marriage and that if everyone could only be married in a location other than a church, I think it could achieve that.
It may have an impact, it may not, but is there any harm in that change happening or do we wait and let time pass by with the status quo

I don't see that threat/change having any impact on the social mores (i.e. the special holiness of getting married in the church etc) as they stand, I see it as the church throwing their toys out of the pram and nothing more.

However, I am not here advocating against the change either, I just want marriage equality in this country, and that will come to pass whatever the next little trick the RCC comes up with in order to put people off voting for it.

P_1

Flem31 wrote: »

And the Church's attitude won't change regardless of the result of the referendum. That will take years at least for the change you seem to be looking for.

For me, on a practical level, I would have no issue using the Church's threat as a means to further weaken their control on marriage and that if everyone could only be married in a location other than a church, I think it could achieve that.
It may have an impact, it may not, but is there any harm in that change happening or do we wait and let time pass by with the status quo

No I wouldn't remove their ability to do so, that would be too inflammatory. However what I would do would be to introduce some healthy competition by liberalising the ability to perform civil marriage. Think of it as a form of taxi deregulation for the marriage industry.

BoatMad

the state should remove the ability of the church to perform a state marriage ceremony. it has no place in a religious service

endacl

BoatMad wrote: »

the state should remove the ability of the church to perform a state marriage ceremony. it has no place in a religious service

That's the way it is already. The solomniser validates the signatures, but the registrar formalises it, once it has been returned to them. The priest is no more involved in validating the civil marriage than the organist or flower girl is.

floggg

seamus wrote: »

You see, that's deliberately divisive - you're in effect banning marriage from taking place in a church.

Which is unnecessarily restrictive and unfair.

What we need is liberalisation of where a ceremony can be performed - in effect it should be possible to perform a ceremony anywhere. Provided that the relevant people are in attendance, then the location is irrelevant.

The main issue at present is that it's not possible for anyone off the street to get on the register of solemnisers (for no good reason), and if you want a HSE employee to marry you somewhere other than a registry office, then for health and safety reasons you have to jump through a pile of hoops just to get certified for a bland venue.

This is of course unrelated to SSM, but if you want to erode the power the church has over weddings then you need to remove its special status as being the only place you can hold a big ceremony.

Banning the civil part from the church won't do that. People will have a quiet registry wedding and big flashy church wedding.

But opening up the list of possible venues to be limitless, might just take the sheen off the church, as people realise they can get legally married hanging upside down from a bridge over the Suir.

I don't think anybody has actually said they should be banned from doing so - it's the RCC who are throwing their toys out of the pram and refusing to do so.

But if they did take that stance, it would serve to quickly dispel the notion that marriage is solely a religious thing and give far more prominence to the legal commitment made.

In fact, their toy throwing may well work against them by highlighting that the religious and legal concepts of marriage are separate matters. There is a number of people on here who claimed to be voting no because they thought it would force churches to marry same sex couples. The churches tantrum will only serve to clarify for these people that they are indeed separate matters.

floggg

haveringchick wrote: »

But someone claiming that children should be taken away from their parents is good for the yes vote. You know that.
it make the holder of that opinion appear bigoted blinded and idiotic.
Your stating that your not sure how no voters ever learned to breath has exactly the same effect.

But where are you when the no side says something cruel, disposable or disparaging?

If one is as bad as the other, why is there only selective outrage about inappropriate comments?

Moonriver99

I'm putting cap locks in so people understand lol

PASSING THE MARRIAGE REFERENDUM WILL NOT HAVE ANY INFLUENCE ON GAY PEOPLE ADOPTING

BECAUSE they can already adopt without having to give sexual orientation.

PEOPLE NOT ALLOWING GAY PEOPLE TO MARRY BECAUSE OF THIS NEED TO DO SOME RESEARCH

There are thousands of lone parents across the country who have children.

This referendum is about two people who love each other to marry. The no voters need to understand that.

Thanks

aloyisious

Flem31 wrote: »

Perhaps it would be a good idea to split the two aspects out, the civil process and the religious aspect.
As a society we have been moving away from the religion for a while now so to avoid confusion perhaps a clear line between the two is now needed. It may delay the wedding reception by an hour but it will provide a requirement for more jobs as the current numbers in registry offices wont be enough to cater for this demand.

I appreciate your thought but if the church is saying that it will not allow priests perform the registry bit for the state, because the Gov't say's it agrees with same-sex marriage, then it doesn't really matter how much time there is between part 1 and part 2 of the entire marriage ceremony, if that is what you meant there. If you meant the following (to make a proper legal divide between parts 1 and 2 of marriage, when it comes to priestly/religious involvement in it) I can't really see anyone on the Gov't benches proposing that priests be removed from the official marriage registrars list on behalf of the state. Maybe the church (under guidance from abroad) might offer or declare it's church policy not to allow it's clergy to fill in state registrars documents, and that would satisfy honour on both sides. I'm not sure if there is a time limit between the writing-up of parts 1 and 2, except to allow for the nuptials under both church and state law on the same day.

OK, have just read your's at 11.06-ish to seenitall. It answer's mine above, ignore mine. Ta.

aloyisious

Joe Duffy will be discussing the rights and wrongs of Mary McAleese advocating for a YES vote with us this afternoon.

Annasopra

aloyisious wrote: »

Joe Duffy will be discussing the rights and wrongs of Mary McAleese advocating for a YES vote with us this afternoon.

Huh?

Penn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Huh?

From Liveline's Twitter:
"On #Liveline from 1.45 - Was Mary McAleese right to share her opinion on the upcoming #MarRef as she's not President any more? 1850 715 815"

Idiotic question though. Nobody is allowed to share their opinion on the referendum unless they're currently the President?

I'm seeing a lot of people with "Vote yes to equality" or things along those lines. That's great and all to show support, but it means diddlysquat if you don't get to your local voting station and actually vote. If you are eligible and can vote, go do it.

endacl

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm seeing a lot of people with "Vote yes to equality" or things along those lines. That's great and all to show support, but it means diddlysquat if you don't get to your local voting station and actually vote. If you are eligible and can vote, go do it.

A twatbook status update doesn't count?!?