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

Delirium

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

whats your point? that somebody on the No side was honest about this once?

Mills has been banging on about surrogacy over the last week. He knows that it should be discussed separately but is willing to use it as a red herring now that it seems likely a Yes vote will happen.

B_Wayne

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

He is spoling his vote by not voting or to put it another way "abstaining"

Abstaining a vote is a core part of democracies and democratic parliaments around the world but on this issue its not acceptable ?????

It disappoints me whenever people fail to vote and they are capable of doing so. I've always exercised my right to vote and inform myself on various referenda. Not unique to this.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

whats your point? that somebody on the No side was honest about this once?

Keith still doesn't believe it has anything to do with the referendum, he openly admitted it was for purpose of muddying the waters. So I think SW is merely pointing out the dishonesty.

Delirium

B_Wayne wrote: »

Keith still doesn't believe it has anything to do with the referendum, he openly admitted it was for purpose of muddying the waters. So I think SW is merely pointing out the dishonesty.

Yep.

apologies to ohnonotgmail for not being clearer in my post

ohnonotgmail

SW wrote: »

Mills has been banging on about surrogacy over the last week. He knows that it should be discussed separately but is willing to use it as a red herring now that it seems likely a Yes vote will happen.

apologies, i misunderstood what you were saying.

ohnonotgmail

BoardsMember wrote: »

That's kind of what I suspected alright.

I have to say, given a perfect situation, I would prefer that marriage didn't exist outside of the religious sphere, i.e. that neither the constitution nor legislature referred to it.

If constitution & legislature were confined to referring to Civil Union, it would make things much more "normal" and straightforward.

For me, it's hard to get beyond the idea of marriage being a religious thing, something a man and a woman enter into.

marriage isnt exclusive to religion. it never has been.

NuMarvel

BoardsMember wrote: »

That's kind of what I suspected alright.

I have to say, given a perfect situation, I would prefer that marriage didn't exist outside of the religious sphere, i.e. that neither the constitution nor legislature referred to it.

If constitution & legislature were confined to referring to Civil Union, it would make things much more "normal" and straightforward.

For me, it's hard to get beyond the idea of marriage being a religious thing, something a man and a woman enter into.

Marriage predates any of the current major faiths , so if anything it's more appropriate that it's a civil matter and not a religious matter.

And of course, religions can maintain their own rules about marriage and won't be obliged to marry anyone they don't want to; in other words, as things stand now.

BoardsMember

Interesting perspective, seems like my feeling on marriage is not at all backed up by history.

I suppose I have always had a problem with our constitution, and the "special position" that the church is held in. I tie this in with marriage too, when perhaps I should not. My gut just tells me that it would all be so much more straightforward if marriage was purely religious, and civil union was the only thing in constitution/law.

I personally dont have an issue with any religion not respecting same sex union, and not allowing same sex marriage. I dont understand why gay couples would either. Let them do what they want, why should a perfectly upstanding gay couple need the catholic church to give them the thumbs up.

shruikan2553

BoardsMember wrote: »

See this is what annoys me:

"your decision will have far-reaching consequences for children, education, employment law, equality legislation, freedom of speech and religious liberty".

With so much on the line (I say this tongue in cheek), surely they can substantiate a load of significant consequences in each category above?? Cant they? No? My bad.

That tends to be how it goes.

Make a claim like there will be consequences. Ask what they are. Silence or just repeating the same line.


The best answer I could get for how surrogacy was relevant was that you require a man and a woman for surrogacy and if you agree with that statement then they are right. You are probably wondering "wha?" and Im still at that stage. If you try to get any more answers it becomes man and woman to raise children, my beliefs etc etc.

NuMarvel

BoardsMember wrote: »

I suppose I have always had a problem with our constitution, and the "special position" that the church is held in. I tie this in with marriage too, when perhaps I should not. My gut just tells me that it would all be so much more straightforward if marriage was purely religious, and civil union was the only thing in constitution/law.

Regardless of what you call it, it's the civil/legal aspect of marriage that gives it its weight, not the religious. Civil only marriages have the same status as those marriages created in a civil & religious ceremony, so we're already at the stage where the constitution and law is concerned only with the civil aspect.

That too is what the referendum is about; giving that legal and constitutional recognition to same sex couples. Each faith can decide themselves what they want to do in respect of solemnising the marriages of same sex couples.

crestglan

Lets keep it simple marriage is the joining of two people vowing to spend the rest of their lives together what does it matter whether the are opposite sex or same sex couples and the thing about kids children will thrive in any environment once its a good one

BoardsMember

That's what I was on about, maybe it doesn't make sense, re marriage versus civil.

Take marriage out of the constitution/law, so legal and constitutional recognition only relates to civil.

Then let the religions do as they please, "call" that marriage. Problem solved?

ohnonotgmail

BoardsMember wrote: »

That's what I was on about, maybe it doesn't make sense, re marriage versus civil.

Take marriage out of the constitution/law, so legal and constitutional recognition only relates to civil.

Then let the religions do as they please, "call" that marriage. Problem solved?

that is the situation at the moment. legal and constitutional recognition only applies to civil marriage. it does not apply to religious marriage. The constitution has nothing to say about religious marriage.

BoardsMember

crestglan wrote: »

Lets keep it simple marriage is the joining of two people vowing to spend the rest of their lives together what does it matter whether the are opposite sex or same sex couples and the thing about kids children will thrive in any environment once its a good one

Marriage is just a word. Like with all words, people assign different meanings to words, their meanings change over time, they mean different things to different people, and mean different things in different societies/religions/eras etc. For me, marriage means a religious ceremony/union between a man and a woman.

BoardsMember

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is the situation at the moment. legal and constitutional recognition only applies to civil marriage. it does not apply to religious marriage. The constitution has nothing to say about religious marriage.

I understand that. What I am suggesting is that we take the word marriage out of constitution/law and call it civil union. I dont understand why there has to be law for both civil union and civil marriage, it makes no sense to me.

kunst nugget

BoardsMember wrote: »

Marriage is just a word. Like with all words, people assign different meanings to words, their meanings change over time, they mean different things to different people, and mean different things in different societies/religions/eras etc. For me, marriage means a religious ceremony/union between a man and a woman.

If that's what you want marriage to mean for you, that's grand. But the marriage referendum is about what the rest of us want the definition of marriage to be when it is enshrined in the Constitution and the possible reprecussions of that vote on the rights of gay couples to marry.

ohnonotgmail

BoardsMember wrote: »

I understand that. What I am suggesting is that we take the word marriage out of constitution/law and call it civil union. I dont understand why there has to be law for both civil union and civil marriage, it makes no sense to me.

civil partnerships will be defunct if this referendum passes. the existing ones will be left as they are but no new ones will be created. You seem to think that religion owns the word marriage. it doesnt.

BoardsMember

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

civil partnerships will be defunct if this referendum passes. the existing ones will be left as they are but no new ones will be created. You seem to think that religion owns the word marriage. it doesnt.

That's kind of a pejorative way to put it, but as I have said, I do personally associate it with religion, and it has been pointed out to me that this is not correct, which I accept.

I'd put it another way, I don't want religions associated with the word "marriage" when they deny same sex couples their version of the word "religious marriage".

What we seem to be doing is taking civil partnerships out of the equation, and enabling all couples to avail of civil marriage. They are just words. All I am saying is to do it the other way around.

Ave Sodalis

I think what BoardsMember is saying is that he wants the church and the state to be seen as separate and therefore if the church want to say that marriage is blah blah blah and have to involve the Church part, then the state can say well Civil Union is this. It doesn't really matter what names are on them and doesn't just include same sex marriage. Basically, let the church have their marriage if they want but have clearer divides between state and church by taking the word marriage out of the state part.

kunst nugget

BoardsMember wrote: »

That's kind of a pejorative way to put it, but as I have said, I do personally associate it with religion, and it has been pointed out to me that this is not correct, which I accept.

I'd put it another way, I don't want religions associated with the word "marriage" when they deny same sex couples their version of the word "religious marriage".

What we seem to be doing is taking civil partnerships out of the equation, and enabling all couples to avail of civil marriage. They are just words. All I am saying is to do it the other way around.

Don't let anyone marry?

Bananas, feet, aeroplanes. These are just words too. I really don't know what you're getting at…

Bannasidhe

BoardsMember wrote: »

Marriage is just a word. Like with all words, people assign different meanings to words, their meanings change over time, they mean different things to different people, and mean different things in different societies/religions/eras etc. For me, marriage means a religious ceremony/union between a man and a woman.

But as it stands marriage is a simple one stop shop for creating a 'family' where the principles are not related by blood. It is a (sort off) combination of a partnership which holds property/goods together in joint ownership and close biological relationship - except that it takes precedence over biological relationship (e.g. prior to marriage one parents are next of kin, afterwards its spouse).

It confers certain rights to do with inheritance/taxation/next of kin that a purely civil and have nothing to do with any religious denomination.

The way our Constitution is worded means the Courts tend to conflate 'family' with 'married' - so unmarried couple with children not 'family'/ married couple no children are 'family'.

Because of the same Constitution families enjoy a great deal of protection from State but this is usually taken to refer only to when the principles are married.

Essentially - We can say that Marriage belongs to the Civil State. It exists because the State recognizes, licences it and rewards those who enter into it.

The religious aspect is purely ceremonial and has no legal standing. Jumping over a broom stick while singing 'Girls just want to have fun' dressed only in straw is legally as valid as what happens in churches.

Perhaps the State should keep the word 'marriage' and the religious can have 'matrimony'.

BoardsMember

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But as it stands marriage is a simple one stop shop for creating a 'family' where the principles are not related by blood. It is a (sort off) combination of a partnership which holds property/goods together in joint ownership and close biological relationship - except that it takes precedence over biological relationship (e.g. prior to marriage one parents are next of kin, afterwards its spouse).

It confers certain rights to do with inheritance/taxation/next of kin that a purely civil and have nothing to do with any religious denomination.

The way our Constitution is worded means the Courts tend to conflate 'family' with 'married' - so unmarried couple with children not 'family'/ married couple no children are 'family'.

Because of the same Constitution families enjoy a great deal of protection from State but this is usually taken to refer only to when the principles are married.

Essentially - We can say that Marriage belongs to the Civil State. It exists because the State recognizes, licences it and rewards those who enter into it.

The religious aspect is purely ceremonial and has no legal standing. Jumping over a broom stick while singing 'Girls just want to have fun' dressed only in straw is legally as valid as what happens in churches.

Perhaps the State should keep the word 'marriage' and the religious can have 'matrimony'.

Nice post! I'm happy to give "marriage" word to the state, and matrimony (or, dare we say it "holy" matrimony) to the religions. Or maybe only "holy" to the RC church seeing as they are in the constitution and all....

On a point of information, I understood that civil partnership conferred all the same rights for inheritance etc as civil marriage. Is that not right? Are you saying it is not right?

BoardsMember

sup_dude wrote: »

I think what BoardsMember is saying is that he wants the church and the state to be seen as separate and therefore if the church want to say that marriage is blah blah blah and have to involve the Church part, then the state can say well Civil Union is this. It doesn't really matter what names are on them and doesn't just include same sex marriage. Basically, let the church have their marriage if they want but have clearer divides between state and church by taking the word marriage out of the state part.

That's pretty much it, I think the later post makes it sound a bit less mad, as in call one matrimony, the other marriage, especially in light of kunst fair observations :D

Bannasidhe

BoardsMember wrote: »

Nice post! I'm happy to give "marriage" word to the state, and matrimony (or, dare we say it "holy" matrimony) to the religions. Or maybe only "holy" to the RC church seeing as they are in the constitution and all....

On a point of information, I understood that civil partnership conferred all the same rights for inheritance etc as civil marriage. Is that not right? Are you saying it is not right?

160 differences but the main two which cause concern are:

Civil Partnership is the result of legislation and could be repealed by any future Dáil - unlike marriage which is protected by the Constitution. So, theoretically, say 10 years down the line it could be repealed and all those Civil Partnerships rendered void.

Because of the way the courts interpret the Constitution (married = family) - people in a Civil Partnership have no guarantee that the courts would consider them a 'family' .

ohnonotgmail

BoardsMember wrote: »

Nice post! I'm happy to give "marriage" word to the state, and matrimony (or, dare we say it "holy" matrimony) to the religions. Or maybe only "holy" to the RC church seeing as they are in the constitution and all....

On a point of information, I understood that civil partnership conferred all the same rights for inheritance etc as civil marriage. Is that not right? Are you saying it is not right?

it is not right. there are many rights that married couples have that civil partners do not.

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.

more here http://www.odonovanandco.ie/solicitors-cork/our-blog/item/Civil-Marriage-vs-Civil-Partnership/2

BoardsMember

Bannasidhe wrote: »

160 differences but the main two which cause concern are:

Civil Partnership is the result of legislation and could be repealed by any future Dáil - unlike marriage which is protected by the Constitution. So, theoretically, say 10 years down the line it could be repealed and all those Civil Partnerships rendered void.

Because of the way the courts interpret the Constitution (married = family) - people in a Civil Partnership have no guarantee that the courts would consider them a 'family' .

You're sounding like the NO brigade now. My question was specifically in relation to tax/inheritance etc, i.e to the status of civil partnership versus civil marriage, and my understanding is that there is no difference.

ohnonotgmail

BoardsMember wrote: »

You're sounding like the NO brigade now. My question was specifically in relation to tax/inheritance etc, i.e to the status of civil partnership versus civil marriage, and my understanding is that there is no difference.

even if that were true what difference does it make? are the other differences not important?

BoardsMember

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it is not right. there are many rights that married couples have that civil partners do not.

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.

more here http://www.odonovanandco.ie/solicitors-cork/our-blog/item/Civil-Marriage-vs-Civil-Partnership/2

Thanks for this, that's exactly what I was looking for. Even more reason to vote YES, not that I needed any more.

BoardsMember

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

even if that were true what difference does it make? are the other differences not important?

It just sounds to me more like what might happen, but in reality what is unlikely to happen, a bit like the NO campaign scare mongering. I mean that specifically in relation to the first point

Civil Partnership is the result of legislation and could be repealed by any future Dáil - unlike marriage which is protected by the Constitution. So, theoretically, say 10 years down the line it could be repealed and all those Civil Partnerships rendered void.

ohnonotgmail

BoardsMember wrote: »

It just sounds to me more like what might happen, but in reality what is unlikely to happen, a bit like the NO campaign scare mongering. I mean that specifically in relation to the first point

if it is scaremongering it is nothing compared to the scaremongering from the No side. at least it has some basis in fact unlike what the No side are putting out.

BoardsMember

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if it is scaremongering it is nothing compared to the scaremongering from the No side. at least it has some basis in fact unlike what the No side are putting out.

Agreed, there's no comparison at all.