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

BoatMad

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

We are five years into Civil Partnership now.

Ms Mullally is out and proud and good luck to her, but she is still shy about her "partner" . She has written lots about her life and partner, she is gung ho canvassing for Yes, but still is embarrassed about calling Sarah her Partner to a stranger in a hospital?

So how will Sarah becoming her "wife" change that embarrassment?

That is what puzzles me.

And BTW I am voting Yes... but I am totally amazed by someone saying they are embarrassed to say their partner is next of kin

So that embarrassment and shyness will suddenly disappear overnight once they are married, and she can call her partner her "wife".

I just don't understand that.

Can anyone else understand what I am saying, without resorting to rants!

no those are embarrassed by the term " partner " will no doubt be also embarrassed by the use of a wife in a same sex relationship

how this is germane to the referendum is perplexing. why are you debating a red herring.

Spanish Eyes

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not sure that Una Mullaly is civil partnered (open to correction!) - the article I read she referred to Sarah as 'girlfriend' which is not the same and legally, if the nurse was so inclined, she could refuse to recognise as a next-of-kin.

Trying telling the admitting nurse that your next-of-kin is your not civil partnered, long-term, same-sex 'partner' and you have no religion. It's a hoot. Especially when you have just been rushed there in an ambulance. My sister had to rush to the hospital as I was in a bad way and it was quite possible someone who could legally act as my next-of-kin be there to give permission for emergency treatment should be it necessary. My 'girlfriend' wasn't willinng to risk being told legally she could do it.

Wife is a legally recognised term - 'partner' is a bit wishy washy. I mean 'partner'.. what the hell does that mean? Business partner? Tennis partner? Bridge partner?

In the IT article she called Sarah her Girlfriend, Partner. and it seems to me that Sarah was allowed to stay and do all the next of kin things without question.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

You said:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The big difference is that the Constitution protects the family, and says the family is based on marriage.

So even if every other law said that civil partnership was equal to marriage (separate but equal, if you like), the Constitution does not agree, and it is the primary law of the land. A civil partnership can never be a Constitutionally protected family.

Separate but equal is bad for other reasons, but they do not matter here: in this case it is impossible without a referendum.

and then backed it up with a quote that, as I pointed out, does not define what is or is not a family.

The quoted section does nothing to say that a gay childless couple should not be protected by the state.

Spanish Eyes

BoatMad wrote: »

no those are embarrassed by the term " partner " will no doubt be also embarrassed by the use of a wife in a same sex relationship

how this is germane to the referendum is perplexing. why are you debating a red herring.

The reason is, Una Mullally subtly made reference to the fact that if a Yes vote comes in, all will be well. No embarrassment.

Now please, you must see that her article was a bit odd in that respect.

And this is in the context of the Referendum. The lady made reference to this, notwithstanding that she had just discovered that she was seriously ill.

Of course I wish her well. Cancer is an awful diagnosis.

It has reference to the Referendum because of the inclusion of her partner and the embarrassment in front of the nurse and so on. As if marriage would make her less embarrassed. Let's be honest.

So I don't know what her point was.

Nodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not sure that Una Mullaly is civil partnered (open to correction!) - the article I read she referred to Sarah as 'girlfriend' which is not the same and legally, if the nurse was so inclined, she could refuse to recognise as a next-of-kin.

Trying telling the admitting nurse that your next-of-kin is your not civil partnered, long-term, same-sex 'partner' and you have no religion. It's a hoot. Especially when you have just been rushed there in an ambulance. My sister had to rush to the hospital as I was in a bad way and it was quite possible someone who could legally act as my next-of-kin be there to give permission for emergency treatment should be it necessary. My 'girlfriend' wasn't willinng to risk being told legally she could do it.

Wife is a legally recognised term - 'partner' is a bit wishy washy. I mean 'partner'.. what the hell does that mean? Business partner? Tennis partner? Bridge partner?

.....she would be in an even more remote position again should she not hail from Cork.

Bannasidhe

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

We are five years into Civil Partnership now.

Ms Mullally is out and proud and good luck to her, but she is still shy about her "partner" . She has written lots about her life and partner, she is gung ho canvassing for Yes, but still is embarrassed about calling Sarah her Partner to a stranger in a hospital?

So how will Sarah becoming her "wife" change that embarrassment?

That is what puzzles me.

And BTW I am voting Yes... but I am totally amazed by someone saying they are embarrassed to say their partner is next of kin

So that embarrassment and shyness will suddenly disappear overnight once they are married, and she can call her partner her "wife".

I just don't understand that.

Can anyone else understand what I am saying, without resorting to rants!

It has to do with internalising societies view of one's relationship being 'lesser'.
Sometimes all that talk of 'disordered' and 'abnormal' gets to a person.
The nurse could have been a card carrying member of Iona for all Una knew. Imagine being in a vulnerable position and playing a form of homophobe roulette with your care giver. Will she/won't she make the sniff of disapproval... oh god..I have cancer... I can't cope with this ****e now...

BoatMad

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You said:



and then backed it up with a quote that, as I pointed out, does not define what is or is not a family.

The quoted section does nothing to say that a gay childless couple should not be protected by the state.

whats your point here PCB.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The reason is, Una Mullally subtly made reference to the fact that if a Yes vote comes in, all will be well. No embarrassment.

Now please, you must see that her article was a bit odd in that respect.

And this is in the context of the Referendum. The lady made reference to this, notwithstanding that she had just discovered that she was seriously ill.

Of course I wish her well. Cancer is an awful diagnosis.

It has reference to the Referendum because of the inclusion of her partner and the embarrassment in front of the nurse and so on. As if marriage would make her less embarrassed. Let's be honest.

So I don't know what her point was.

She says it herself:

What am I like? I guess it’s hard to accept yourself when your country doesn’t.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

BoatMad wrote: »

whats your point here PCB.

Section 41 of the Constitution does not define what a family is and does nto state why a childless couple can not be defined as a family.

I may have musunderstaood the poster I quoted, but it appeared that he was quoting it to say that a family was clearly defined - which it isn't - and that was the reason gay couples should not be defined as such.

Ave Sodalis

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Section 41 of the Constitution does not define what a family is and does nto state why a childless couple can not be defined as a family.

I may have musunderstaood the poster I quoted, but it appeared that he was quoting it to say that a family was clearly defined - which it isn't - and that was the reason gay couples should not be defined as such.

I think ye are both saying the same thing

Bannasidhe

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Section 41 of the Constitution does not define what a family is and does nto state why a childless couple can not be defined as a family.

I may have musunderstaood the poster I quoted, but it appeared that he was quoting it to say that a family was clearly defined - which it isn't - and that was the reason gay couples should not be defined as such.

And many have argued that because the 'family' is not defined there is no need for a Referendum. However, this is not the point of view taken by various AG's who have pointed to the fact that Irish courts have traditionally taken the view that being married is what defines a family unit. Married couple no children are family. Unmarried couple with a brace of children not family.
Under that (narrow, out of date, Victorian etc etc) definition civil partnered does not equal family because no marriage. Catch 22 really.

Spanish Eyes

Ricardo Jealous Mimicry wrote: »

She says it herself:

Yes I read that too.

I am a committed yes voter. But I have a difficulty with this.

We do accept same sex relationships. We do not discriminate under the law, we are having a ssm referendum. We have Civil Partnership.

A bit too much "victim" from the Yes side is turning people I know off.

Sadly.

So I am debating the issue here on their behalf.

I reckon the majority of gay people will not marry. Although I am happy to give them that right.

BoatMad

I reckon the majority of gay people will not marry. Although I am happy to give them that right.

then do not confuse yourself any further

Bannasidhe

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Yes I read that too.

I am a committed yes voter. But I have a difficulty with this.

We do accept same sex relationships. We do not discriminate under the law, we are having a ssm referendum. We have Civil Partnership.

A bit too much "victim" from the Yes side is turning people I know off.

Sadly.

So I am debating the issue here on their behalf.

I reckon the majority of gay people will not marry. Although I am happy to give them that right.

Look around you at the lampposts - 'we' do not accept same-sex relationships. Many of us do, perhaps most of us do, but not all of us. Some of us consider same sex relationships to be abominations - have a read of the Gay Mega thread in the Christianity forum and some of the stuff there would leave you with no doubts that there exists some real hatred out there and every time one comes out one risks experiencing that hatred.

BoatMad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Look around you at the lampposts - 'we' do not accept same-sex relationships. Many of us do, perhaps most of us do, but not all of us. Some of us consider same sex relationships to be abominations - have a read of the Gay Mega thread in the Christianity forum and some of the stuff there would leave you with no doubts that there exists some real hatred out there and every time one comes out one risks experiencing that hatred.

indeed and I have no issue myself with No people stating they are homophobic and will vote No. I do have issues with people that are not prepared to acknowledge their homophobia and in effect derail debates in cul-de-sacs to hide their hidden predjuices

bnt

It seems to me that the only tactic the "No" camp has is to bang on about children and "family", and that's about it. They're quite clearly divorced from reality on this. So what if a family has two dads or two mums? If it means that a kid ends up in a loving foster home or is adopted, versus living in a state-run insitution, I'm all for it. Kids are flexible and adaptive, they aren't so fragile that they can only thrive in a specific "traditional" family type.

StewartGriffin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Look around you at the lampposts - 'we' do not accept same-sex relationships. Many of us do, perhaps most of us do, but not all of us. Some of us consider same sex relationships to be abominations - have a read of the Gay Mega thread in the Christianity forum and some of the stuff there would leave you with no doubts that there exists some real hatred out there and every time one comes out one risks experiencing that hatred.

And these people will still not accept same sex relationships.The referendum will not change that.

BoatMad wrote: »

indeed and I have no issue myself with No people stating they are homophobic and will vote No. I do have issues with people that are not prepared to acknowledge their homophobia and in effect derail debates in cul-de-sacs to hide their hidden predjuices

I see nothing homophobic in Spanish Eyes posts. It's a very lazy impotent argument to wheel this out every single time.

BoatMad

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I see nothing homophobic in Spanish Eyes posts. It's a very lazy impotent argument to wheel this out every single time.

I wasn't commenting on his post

Bannasidhe

StewartGriffin wrote: »

And these people will still not accept same sex relationships.The referendum will not change that.



I see nothing homophobic in Spanish Eyes posts. It's a very lazy impotent argument to wheel this out every single time.

Never said it would change their opinion but it will help many gay people's sense of self worth and of being equal to other Irish citizens.

By the by - how are you getting BoatMad calling Spanish Eyes homophobic in a post that was agreeing with something I wrote

I don't think anyone thinks Spanish Eyes is even slightly homophobic, just having trouble understanding what it is like to be gay in Ireland and the toll it can take on one's self esteem and perception of self worth. Which is fair enough if you haven't lived it...

Sonics2k

StewartGriffin wrote: »

And these people will still not accept same sex relationships.The referendum will not change that.

Those people don't need to recognise them, but the State itself should, and that's what the referendum is all about.

One eyed Jack

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

In the IT article she called Sarah her Girlfriend, Partner. and it seems to me that Sarah was allowed to stay and do all the next of kin things without question.

Yeah, some medical care staff can be sound like that, but if push actually came to shove, legally speaking, Sarah as her partner, girlfriend, wouldn't be her actual next of kin unless they were actually in a civil partnership (and even then I'm not 100% for medical treatment advocate purposes?), and that's where a civil marriage would literally copper-fasten next of kin status in law.

I know the wife/partner thing may seem like mere semantics, but it's an important part in terms of social inclusion for people who are LGBT.

I remember the first time nearly 20 odd years ago Pat Kenny was presenting that Kenny Live show he used do on a Saturday night, and he was talking to an audience member who referred to her girlfriend, and Pat almost instantly interjected with "Your partner?", and then the woman said "Yes, my life partner". It seemed like such a bizarre and drawn out interaction at the time, until a couple of years later when I was at a function and I introduced my then girlfriend to another guest, who said "Oh so this is your life partner?", and I was in that instant transported back to how utterly patronised that woman must have felt on the show that night.

That's when I thought to myself - "Well we'll be taking care of that sharpish!", only took me another seven years and numerous facepalm inducing mentions of the word "partner", before I could actually call my girlfriend my wife. "Partner" simply always struck me as very impersonal and no warmth to it, no real connection to that other person, oh, "significant other", that's another one that can FOAD and all :rolleyes:

pl4ichjgy17zwd

Add in the confusion of the use of 'girlfriend' by some women to refer to someone who is just a friend.

marienbad

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

We are five years into Civil Partnership now.

Ms Mullally is out and proud and good luck to her, but she is still shy about her "partner" . She has written lots about her life and partner, she is gung ho canvassing for Yes, but still is embarrassed about calling Sarah her Partner to a stranger in a hospital?

So how will Sarah becoming her "wife" change that embarrassment?

That is what puzzles me.

And BTW I am voting Yes... but I am totally amazed by someone saying they are embarrassed to say their partner is next of kin

So that embarrassment and shyness will suddenly disappear overnight once they are married, and she can call her partner her "wife".

I just don't understand that.

Can anyone else understand what I am saying, without resorting to rants!

Sure I understand what you are saying , but the situation you are referencing just shows the effect on even the most educated of people what decades of social disapproval and exclusion can do to the individual.

There is no higher validation that that of the Constitution of the country voted on by all the people. Wait a generation of so and you will have no residual issues of self esteem with LGBT kids.

And so it has always been with the extension of civil rights.

You may not believe it but not so long ago some people were ashamed to ''admit'' they were divorced .

aloyisious

Dow99 wrote: »

Please back up with facts. I think we are being miss lead (on both sides) on what the difference actually are.

I have been told from the start that this referendum has very little to do with protecting the family, adoption ect.

Obviously (and I'm not being sarcastic here) you haven't seen or heard what the vote NO campaign have been saying or writing. I won't quote what they say, just suggest you read up on what David Quinn, Ronan Mullen, Brenda Power and Breda O'Brien, plus the Iona Institute and Mothers And Fathers Matter on the topic. That might enlighten you.

Spanish Eyes

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Look around you at the lampposts - 'we' do not accept same-sex relationships. Many of us do, perhaps most of us do, but not all of us. Some of us consider same sex relationships to be abominations - have a read of the Gay Mega thread in the Christianity forum and some of the stuff there would leave you with no doubts that there exists some real hatred out there and every time one comes out one risks experiencing that hatred.

I have read some of the Gay Mega Thread, and honestly, everyone is entitled to their views. Some of which may be mad, but that view may be from our own prism really.

Live and let live. And let them at it.

It should not affect anyone's perception of the majority of people out there really.

OK, some have slight reservations, as I do myself.

My questions surround the so called "panacea" of SSM being the cure for all the ills that some gays feel now.

But the reality is, that when the Referendum is passed on 23rd May (the boxes are open next day!), will there genuinely be any difference in the perception of gays from those who dislike or maybe fear them? Or on the other hand from gays who think SSM validation is going to solve everything in their lives going forward?

I ask this, as I personally think not.

If you were to ask me, (as a Yes voter, don't forget!), I would say that the SSM referendum has come a bit too soon TBH.

If some gays still feel discriminated today, I don't think that will change in three weeks time when a Yes vote is returned.

Personally, I think a a lot more thought, education, publicity, and so on should have gone on before this, and then maybe Maybe May 22 would not be such a divisive thing in our society. As it appears to be right now.

aloyisious

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The reason is, Una Mullally subtly made reference to the fact that if a Yes vote comes in, all will be well. No embarrassment.

Now please, you must see that her article was a bit odd in that respect.

And this is in the context of the Referendum. The lady made reference to this, notwithstanding that she had just discovered that she was seriously ill.

Of course I wish her well. Cancer is an awful diagnosis.

It has reference to the Referendum because of the inclusion of her partner and the embarrassment in front of the nurse and so on. As if marriage would make her less embarrassed. Let's be honest.

So I don't know what her point was.

The embarrassment was probably probably due to how the medical establishment is tied down by N.O.K law here, and can't (despite how much they might like to) ignore that fact of life when it come's to who has the N.O.K rights when it comes to one's partners care decisions. I listened to a woman last week on how she was advised by a HSE staffer (on filling in the spouse part of a HSE form) to list herself as her same-sex partner as her sister, as the HSE didn't recognize same-sex partners as spouses. I don't know what the current legal status or understanding of what spouse is now.

Spanish Eyes

aloyisious wrote: »

The embarrassment was probably probably due to how the medical establishment is tied down by N.O.K law here, and can't (despite how much they might like to) ignore that fact of life when it come's to who has the N.O.K rights when it comes to one's partners care decisions. I listened to a woman last week on how she was advised by a HSE staffer (on filling in the spouse part of a HSE form) to list herself as her same-sex partner as her sister, as the HSE didn't recognize same-sex partners as spouses. I don't know what the current legal status or understanding of what spouse is now.

Totally get that. But that is a fault of HR not updating staff who need to know the nok laws really isn't it? Nothing to do with prejudice or hatred or anything else I'd guess. No one would bat an eyelid today really.

Anyway, at the moment SS civil partners are NOT spouses, (Yet!) so that may be where the confusion lay.

I am not sure whether Ms Mullally's girlfriend is her SSP, but she got in to that hospital and had NOK access just the same!

osarusan

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

If some gays still feel discriminated today, I don't think that will change in three weeks time when a Yes vote is returned.

Personally, I think a a lot more thought, education, publicity, and so on should have gone on before this, and then maybe Maybe May 22 would not be such a divisive thing in our society. As it appears to be right now.

I don't think anybody claims that this referendum passing will somehow result in the end of all discrimination or cause wholesale change in how some people view homosexuality or SSM (although it may help).

What the referendum passing will do is mean that the state itself is no longer an agent of that discrimination.

I don't agree at all but we should wait until the issue is less divisive. Let the state lead the change, and let society follow.

marienbad

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I have read some of the Gay Mega Thread, and honestly, everyone is entitled to their views. Some of which may be mad, but that view may be from our own prism really.

Live and let live. And let them at it.

It should not affect anyone's perception of the majority of people out there really.

OK, some have slight reservations, as I do myself.

My questions surround the so called "panacea" of SSM being the cure for all the ills that some gays feel now.

But the reality is, that when the Referendum is passed on 23rd May (the boxes are open next day!), will there genuinely be any difference in the perception of gays from those who dislike or maybe fear them? Or on the other hand from gays who think SSM validation is going to solve everything in their lives going forward?

I ask this, as I personally think not.

If you were to ask me, (as a Yes voter, don't forget!), I would say that the SSM referendum has come a bit too soon TBH.

If some gays still feel discriminated today, I don't think that will change in three weeks time when a Yes vote is returned.

Personally, I think a a lot more thought, education, publicity, and so on should have gone on before this, and then maybe Maybe May 22 would not be such a divisive thing in our society. As it appears to be right now.

It is never to soon to extend Civil Rights , and I don't think anyone expects it to solve all their problems . The roof will not fall in the following day ,but neither will every problem be solved for LBGT community ( that's if it passes). But in time ,over a decade or so it will being in a gradual sea change .

Have a look at the outcome of the Divorce referendum and you will see a template of what will happen .

And these things will always be divisive, there is no point in running from that though . This is just an acceptance of what of said yourself 'live and let live'

Bannasidhe

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I have read some of the Gay Mega Thread, and honestly, everyone is entitled to their views. Some of which may be mad, but that view may be from our own prism really.

Live and let live. And let them at it.

It should not affect anyone's perception of the majority of people out there really.

OK, some have slight reservations, as I do myself.

My questions surround the so called "panacea" of SSM being the cure for all the ills that some gays feel now.

But the reality is, that when the Referendum is passed on 23rd May (the boxes are open next day!), will there genuinely be any difference in the perception of gays from those who dislike or maybe fear them? Or on the other hand from gays who think SSM validation is going to solve everything in their lives going forward?

I ask this, as I personally think not.

If you were to ask me, (as a Yes voter, don't forget!), I would say that the SSM referendum has come a bit too soon TBH.

If some gays still feel discriminated today, I don't think that will change in three weeks time when a Yes vote is returned.

Personally, I think a a lot more thought, education, publicity, and so on should have gone on before this, and then maybe Maybe May 22 would not be such a divisive thing in our society. As it appears to be right now.

Don't underestimate the importance of symbolism.

SSM is certainly not a 'cure' for all ills and I don't think anyone believes it is, however, it is a powerful symbol (no matter what happens!) of what kind of Ireland we have.

If it passes for Gay people it will mean The State - our country, our homeland - values us as equals. For Straight Yes supporters it will symbolise a move towards a more inclusive society.
If it fails... oh lordy...


Let me give you an example of symbolism in action. I was one of just many, many young lesbians and gay men who took the boat (or to be precise Slattery's Coach if anyone remembers those) to the liberal UK in the 80s - (even with Thatcher it was still more liberal than post-abortion referendum Ireland).
Post the 1993 decriminalisation of homosexuality we started to come back in our droves- especially the lesbians who were never 'criminal' in the first place. We were always Irish. We wanted to live in Ireland but felt Ireland didn't want us. Mary Robinson's election followed by David Norris' victory at the ECHR gave us the impetus to come back and fight for our home. Our time abroad taught us things could be different.
Did we think decriminalisation was the cure - no.
Did we think homophobia would curl up and die - no.
Did we think we could slowly change things - yes.
As a symbol Norris' victory was so powerful he was, for a while, a serious contender of the Presidency.

This is a also a symbol. A symbol that as far as Ireland is concerned we are welcome in the Parlour. Finally.

That is priceless.