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

MrPudding

BoardsMember wrote: »

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?

Even if it did, there is still a fairly significant issue. Let's say they were both absolutely identical, apart from the name, as it was in California. By saying marriage is for opposite sex couples and CP is for same sex couples the state is perpetuating the idea that gay people are lessor. Everyone knows that marriage is better than CP, so when the state says that marriage is not for gay people that sets a certain tone. People think it is ok to think being gay is a bad thing, after all, the state thinks it is otherwise they would allow them to marry.

In addition to this, there are lots of little things that might seem inconsequential to people that can get marriage to the person they love. Things like what to call them or how to introduce them to strangers. If you say 'this is my wife/husband' people instantly know what you mean. When you mention your partner some further clarification is often needed. As an example, one of the couples that was involved in the proposition 8 case in California spoke of trying to open a joint bank account. Having said they wanted to open an account with their partner they were offered a business account. That might seem like a small thing, and maybe a little funny, but it was neither small nor funny to them at the time.

This is about legal issues, or about how CP differs from marriage, well more specifically it isn't just about these things, it is about how people in a same sex relationship are seen by the state and other members of society. It is about trying to give them equality of opportunity, not just in marriage but in other aspects of society. And one really important aspect of this is for the state to show that it does not make a difference between same sex and opposite sex couples.

MrP

Bannasidhe

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.

Harsh and I feel unfair.

Married couples have a status that can only be removed via a referendum.
Civil partnered couples are reliant on future Dáils to be liberal. Given some of the actions sanctioned by previous Irish governments (Magdalene laundaries anyone?) I don't think it is unreasonable for Gay couples to seek the protection of the Constitution and not the 'good will' of some future politicians.

That is certainly not a small deal.

Nor is having the Courts decide that technically one is not a family.

MrPudding

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

It is not scaremongering in the sense that the NO campaign are scaremongering. It is a perfectly valid concern. Any right given in legislation can be removed in legislation. Whilst it might seem unlikely, and in realty probably is unlikely, it is something that could happen. Getting one's rights enshrined in the constitution is a pretty big deal.

In a vaguely related point, and again in California, another of the couples involved had an issue, I can't remember what it was right now, but one of the solutions offered to them was to 'simply dissolve their CP and then just get a new one.' Can you imagine a married couple been given the suggestion to just get divorced and them remarried to fix an administrative problem? This was taken, quite rightly, as an indication that, whilst legally identical to marriage, CP was still perceived as lessor, or not as important than marriage.

MrP

BoardsMember

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Harsh and I feel unfair.

Married couples have a status that can only be removed via a referendum.
Civil partnered couples are reliant on future Dáils to be liberal. Given some of the actions sanctioned by previous Irish governments (Magdalene laundaries anyone?) I don't think it is unreasonable for Gay couples to seek the protection of the Constitution and not the 'good will' of some future politicians.

That is certainly not a small deal.

Nor is having the Courts decide that technically one is not a family.

If you mean harsh as in personal, apologies, I did not mean it that way.

It's not that it would not be a big deal, it's that it would never happen. It's scaremongering to think that a future Dail would eradicate the notion of civil partnerships, it's technically correct to say it could happen, but in reality is is not going to happen.

In my opinion, it really is an argument that does no service to YES campaign, especially considering the many compelling real arguments there are. That's the point I was trying to make.

BoardsMember

MrPudding wrote: »

By saying marriage is for opposite sex couples and CP is for same sex couples the state is perpetuating the idea that gay people are lessor. Everyone knows that marriage is better than CP, so when the state says that marriage is not for gay people that sets a certain tone. People think it is ok to think being gay is a bad thing, after all, the state thinks it is otherwise they would allow them to marry.

I dont agree with that at all.

I'm totally a YES voter, just to be clear.

MrPudding

BoardsMember wrote: »

It's not that it would not be a big deal, it's that it would never happen. It's scaremongering to think that a future Dail would eradicate the notion of civil partnerships, it's technically correct to say it could happen, but in reality is is not going to happen.

You can't possibly know that. Yes, it may be highly unlikely, but it is most certainly possible.

Many people in the UK might once have said that principle like access to justice and a fair trial, as well as other basic human rights would never be eroded, but that is what is happening every day. Clearly the UK is different. constitutionally, to Ireland, but the point is, never say never.

MrP

Bannasidhe

BoardsMember wrote: »

If you mean harsh as in personal, apologies, I did not mean it that way.

It's not that it would not be a big deal, it's that it would never happen. It's scaremongering to think that a future Dail would eradicate the notion of civil partnerships, it's technically correct to say it could happen, but in reality is is not going to happen.

In my opinion, it really is an argument that does no service to YES campaign, especially considering the many compelling real arguments there are. That's the point I was trying to make.

You obviously have far more faith in politicians than I have...
Me - I prefer there is some sort of legally binding document they cannot interfere with to suit political whims.

You may not think it is a concern but for many gay couples it is a huge concern and part and parcel of the impetus behind the desire for marriage equality. Many of us are old enough to remember it took the European Court of Human Rights to intervene and force Ireland to decriminalise male homosexuality in the first place.

MrPudding

BoardsMember wrote: »

I dont agree with that at all.

I'm totally a YES voter, just to be clear.

I know you are a yes voter.

Is there any particular reason why you don't agree with it? It was one of the points raised by the anti proposition 8 side, and accepted by the court, in the Proposition 8 cases.

MrP

BoardsMember

MrPudding wrote: »

I know you are a yes voter.

Is there any particular reason why you don't agree with it? It was one of the points raised by the anti proposition 8 side, and accepted by the court, in the Proposition 8 cases.

MrP

Maybe I should have been more selective in my quotes.

I don't agree with this:

By saying marriage is for opposite sex couples and CP is for same sex couples the state is perpetuating the idea that gay people are lessor

why lessor?

Everyone knows that marriage is better than CP

I know a lot of people who chose not to get married, and I hear that lots of gay people have no interest in getting married. I don't accept that marriage is "better", in fact I cant get my head around the suggestion of what "better" might mean.

when the state says that marriage is not for gay people that sets a certain tone. People think it is ok to think being gay is a bad thing, after all, the state thinks it is otherwise they would allow them to marry.

I would have concerns that this might be the case, and hopefully the major effect of the YES winning will be to address the "nuances" like this in society

Madame_Diem

Labour are in government. Why not ask them to expand Civil partnership.

If you think its bad wait till the child custody hearings start resulting form gay divorce.

Bannasidhe

Madame_Diem wrote: »

Labour are in government. Why not ask them to expand Civil partnership.

If you think its bad wait till the child custody hearings start resulting form gay divorce.

Child custody hearings are horrible regardless of sexual orientation. They are horrible for unmarried straight couples. They are horrible for married couples. They also have nothing to do with this referendum.

Stop with your s*it stirring.

BoardsMember

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Child custody hearings are horrible regardless of sexual orientation. They are horrible for unmarried straight couples. They are horrible for married couples. They also have nothing to do with this referendum.

Stop with your s*it stirring.

Hear hear, another bit of bullsh1t that has nothing to do with anything.

One eyed Jack

Madame_Diem wrote: »

Labour are in government. Why not ask them to expand Civil partnership.

It's already been pointed out (only a few posts up actually!) that CP is a legislative process, that could be withdrawn on the whim of a political will. By placing an amendment in the constitution, that creates a much more solid grounding for guidance in legislation built on that amendment. There would have to be another referendum to amend the constitution to nullify the previous amendment (the constitution is littered with contradictions, it's about time a new constitution was drafted really IMO).

If you think its bad wait till the child custody hearings start resulting form gay divorce.

I remember similar mumblings being made about divorce when that was being introduced. Irish society didn't fall apart and people still got married, and fathers weren't taken away in spaceships and all sorts of other nonsense that I'm not going to bother with, well, because at this point I think you just want some attention, you haven't contributed anything other than scaremongering and scornful nonsense to the discussion so you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your opinion too seriously tbh.

Madame_Diem

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Child custody hearings are horrible regardless of sexual orientation. They are horrible for unmarried straight couples. They are horrible for married couples. They also have nothing to do with this referendum.

Stop with your s*it stirring.

There used to be an LGBT site I used to frequent when I lived in Ameirca. Anyway it had an entire section called Lesbians behaving badly. And 9/10 times it was Lesbians women denying their partners custody to children. Which was even more complicated because one mother was the birth mother. If gay marriage is coming there needs to be legal frameworks in place to deal with the fallouts. Ireland lawyers are already some of the richest in Europe.

One eyed Jack

Madame_Diem wrote: »

There used to be an LGBT site I used to frequent when I lived in Ameirca. Anyway it had an entire section called Lesbians behaving badly. And 9/10 times it was Lesbians women denying their partners custody to children. Which was even more complicated because one mother was the birth mother. If gay marriage is coming there needs to be legal frameworks in place to deal with the fallouts. Ireland lawyers are already some of the richest in Europe.

I'm really struggling here, but genuinely, what has any of the above got to do with the upcoming referendum on marriage equality?

There already are legal frameworks in place that have been put in place specifically before the referendum, and they will be applied regardless of the outcome of the referendum, so you really have nothing to worry about in that respect.

Other than that, I'm not really sure where you're coming from or where you're going because it's like you're just randomly throwing out sentences and it's almost impossible to decipher your logic.

You've said already you were voting no, because you don't want to have to explain to people why you don't want to get married or it's bourgeois or some other nonsense. I really can't fathom what you're at tbh.

Madame_Diem

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm really struggling here, but genuinely, what has any of the above got to do with the upcoming referendum on marriage equality?

There already are legal frameworks in place that have been put in place specifically before the referendum, and they will be applied regardless of the outcome of the referendum, so you really have nothing to worry about in that respect.

Other than that, I'm not really sure where you're coming from or where you're going because it's like you're just randomly throwing out sentences and it's almost impossible to decipher your logic.

You've said already you were voting no, because you don't want to have to explain to people why you don't want to get married or it's bourgeois or some other nonsense. I really can't fathom what you're at tbh.

You know there are some that want to add to LGBT to include Intersex. We're a big community. I have my right to state my opinion. Don't like it. Ignore me. I have my worldview you have yours.

Ave Sodalis

Madame_Diem wrote: »

You know there are some that want to add to LGBT to include Intersex. We're a big community. I have my right to state my opinion. Don't like it. Ignore me. I have my worldview you have yours.

You have a right to an opinion... but what's it got to do with SSM?

Lollipops23

Madame_Diem wrote: »

If gay marriage is coming there needs to be legal frameworks in place to deal with the fallouts. Ireland lawyers are already some of the richest in Europe.

You do realise that this will happen regardless of the referendum? Couples sometimes break up-fact of life. As you know, gays and lesbians are no different to anyone else.

S.O

Shrap wrote: »

It'd be hard to hold back a young one who is being so insulted by the likes of those posters. I'm not sure you realise how hurtful they are. My eldest wanted to know yesterday "did they not realise that a child (like himself) could have a great relationship with both parents, even if they're not together and not married?". Most of his friends are from non-traditional families, two of them from gay parents, and ALL of his friends are feeling highly insulted from on high (the posters) for the first time in their lives.

It was hard to persuade him that it would be counter-productive to take them down as tbh, I'm so sick of these fundamentalists coming out and saying whatever the fcuk they like about me and my friends, if I was his age I'd be looking for the nearest ladder myself.

So I'm looking at the list of "crimes" against free speech so far and coming up with:
a) Shutting down an extremist hate speech website for a day by posting a message in opposition to their extreme views.
b) Taking down posters that are saying something extremely insulting on a very personal level to a very great number of people, especially young people.

Y'know, it's a fecking joke in this country that posters full of lies and slurs like this can go up in the first place. This fundie w*nkfest of Iona's and Opus Dei types has pissed off enough people now that the "youth" are all taking it personally now. This is not just a referendum about gay marriage any more as far as they're concerned (from what I hear) - this is mobilising and encouraging an AntiFa response to an extreme right poster campaign.

I have said this before there is a difference if a kid misses out on a mom or a dad by circumstance if the parents break up and separate, as breakups happen in life, vs the creation by deliberate design of motherless or fatherless households by allowing same sex couples to adopt or have access to assisted human reproduction.

osarusan

Madame_Diem wrote: »

Ignore me.

Good advice. Will do.

S.O

freshpopcorn wrote: »

There's a tweet attached about 16 YES posters being removed from areas around Dublin.
Elections/referendums are always messy with one side taking down the others posters. I even think I saw a joke in a Pat Short film about the local politician taking down posters.(Would have being in the early 2000s). When I was in college some people used just bring them home for the laugh!
The NO side also put up NO posters illegaly in Mallow(for tidy town reasons)

If true, one has to question if they would of been taken down if the no campaign posters had of being left alone- that said I 100% condemn the removal of any posters be it yes or no posters.

One eyed Jack

Madame_Diem wrote: »

You know there are some that want to add to LGBT to include Intersex.

Well aware of it actually, although it's been a while since I heard acronyms like QUILTBAG and I know there was another one, FABULOUS or something?


EDIT: I just remembered, I think it was GLITTER?


Thing about all these acronyms and lumping a whole bucketload of people in together for political purposes, you tend to lose sight of who these people actually are as individuals, and even the individuals themselves within that umbrella term begin to feel like their voices are not being listened to, they don't fit the "profile". That's one of the reasons I in particular have no love lost for advocate groups, but that's probably a whole other discussion.

We're a big community.

In comparison to what other community exactly? Because from my perspective, even if we were to use the QUILTBAG acronym, you're still only a very small community in comparison to other minority groups, and you're definitely, unquestionably a very small community in comparison to other majority groups which are classified as communities.

I have my right to state my opinion. Don't like it. Ignore me. I have my worldview you have yours.

Of course you have a right to state your opinion, and I welcome you standing up to be counted. I don't want you to be ignored. I just wish I knew what the hell you were talking about and if you could somehow relate your opinion to marriage equality that'd be wonderful, because at least then I could understand where you're coming from and perhaps you might be surprised that our world views may not be all that different after all. We may have a difference of opinion on some issues, but right now on this particular issue I'm no closer to understanding what you're actually trying to say at all, and that's a shame really, because I don't want you to feel like you're being pushed out of the discussion. I actually want simply just to understand where you're coming from.

S.O

Ctrl Alt Delete

Video proves my point perfectly when she says "cleaning up the city from homophobia" and she admits she knows its anti democratic.

Anyone who dares to say they are voting no are labelled with the homophobe tag immediatly. The hypocricy I pointed out earlier in this thread is as evident as ever there in that video.

shruikan2553

S.O wrote: »

I have said this before there is a difference if a kid misses out on a mom or a dad by circumstance if the parents break up and separate, as breakups happen in life, vs the creation by deliberate design of motherless or fatherless households by allowing same sex couples to adopt or have access to assisted human reproduction.

If it is ok in some situations then it can't be that bad then.

If having a mother and a father was such an important requirement then it would apply to all children.

Ave Sodalis

S.O wrote: »

I have said this before there is a difference if a kid misses out on a mom or a dad by circumstance if the parents break up and separate, as breakups happen in life, vs the creation by deliberate design of motherless or fatherless households by allowing same sex couples to adopt or have access to assisted human reproduction.

And you've been asked multiple times to explain this difference, because I can't see it. In fact, the only difference I see is that in one, the child grows up in a happy home, and the other, the child has to go through mammy and daddy fighting and then breaking up.

S.O wrote: »

As I asked earlier... why are you so fixated on the posters and ignoring the content?

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Video proves my point perfectly when she says "cleaning up the city from homophobia" and she admits she knows its anti democratic.

Anyone who dares to say they are voting no are labelled with the homophobe tag immediatly. The hypocricy I pointed out earlier in this thread is as evident as ever there in that video.

No, they aren't labelled with a homophobe tag immediately. Same question: why is taking down posters so much worse than the insults and dehumanising lies the No side have been using?

One eyed Jack

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Video proves my point perfectly when she says "cleaning up the city from homophobia" and she admits she knows its anti democratic.

Surely you can see that it was never democratic in the first place to deny people in society equal representation and participation in that society, simply on the basis of their sexual orientation?

Anyone who dares to say they are voting no are labelled with the homophobe tag immediatly. The hypocricy I pointed out earlier in this thread is as evident as ever there in that video.

You're missing your own hypocrisy in the first place by claiming to be victimised because the State may soon no longer be able to discriminate against people in society.

I'm not going to label you with any homophobe tag btw as I don't think it makes any difference. It would only make a difference if you actually cared, instead of trying to push the responsibility for that label onto the people who are not responsible for your attitude.

Bannasidhe

Madame_Diem wrote: »

There used to be an LGBT site I used to frequent when I lived in Ameirca. Anyway it had an entire section called Lesbians behaving badly. And 9/10 times it was Lesbians women denying their partners custody to children. Which was even more complicated because one mother was the birth mother. If gay marriage is coming there needs to be legal frameworks in place to deal with the fallouts. Ireland lawyers are already some of the richest in Europe.

When marriage equality comes in the same legislation as currently in place will apply equally. The framework is already in place.

Did you even bother to find this out prior to extrapolating based on what sounds like a charming web site in the U.S.?

What does this have to do with the Referendum?

Bannasidhe

S.O wrote: »

I have said this before there is a difference if a kid misses out on a mom or a dad by circumstance if the parents break up and separate, as breakups happen in life, vs the creation by deliberate design of motherless or fatherless households by allowing same sex couples to adopt or have access to assisted human reproduction.

But it's ok for heterosexual couples to adopt and use AHR?
What about single mothers where there is no 'father' - are you going to take their children away and give them to a nice hetro couple? - Oh, wait... that sounds familiar...

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE REFERENDUM?

Sometimes one just has to shout. :mad:

freshpopcorn

This might seem a bit odd but I actually nearly prefer when people are honest that there against/uncomfortable with homosexaulity. Than them hiding behind the rights of the child because they know it comes across better.