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

Zubeneschamali

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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

Well. if you want to go chapter and verse, you also need to dig out what the Courts have said that quote means.

But you will find that they said it means what I told you it means, and that you are wrong. The Constitution protects the family, and the family is based on marriage.

No marriage, no Constitutional protection.

Now, I think it might have been a good idea to pass a law saying marriage was open to all, and let the Ionanist's challenge it in the Supreme Court, and then we'd find out which of our Supreme Court judges deserve to be on that bench, and we could still have a referendum afterwards.

But that would be rather slow, and lots of gay people would die without being able to marry while we were faffing about.

Spanish Eyes

It is refreshing to see responses that are not hysterical, and are playing the ball not the man/woman where necessary.

I thank those of the LGBT community who have pointed out things to me that have made me think again.

I won't change my voting intention which is Yes, but I certainly will chew over a lot of the experiences outlined here to further my own education!

matrim

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Civil Partnership is as a result of legislation and could be repealed by a future government rending all civil partnerships null and void. This cannot happen with marriage unless there is a referendum.

I've seen this mentioned a few times now but given that the amendment specifically states between two people in accordance with law, would it still be possible for a future government to change the law and make same sex marriages illegal?

Zubeneschamali

matrim wrote: »

I've seen this mentioned a few times now but given that the amendment specifically states between two people in accordance with law, would it still be possible for a future government to change the law and make same sex marriages illegal?

No, they could only make all marriage illegal.

The "in accordance with the law" is for stuff like 3 months notice, age of consent, incest, bigamy and so forth. These legal limits will apply to same sex and opposite sex marriages.

One eyed Jack

matrim wrote: »

I've seen this mentioned a few times now but given that the amendment specifically states between two people in accordance with law, would it still be possible for a future government to change the law and make same sex marriages illegal?

Not without also making marriage illegal full-stop.

(no distinction as to their sex, remember? So it wouldn't be referred to as "same-sex marriage", it would simply be referred to as marriage, regardless of the sexes of the parties involved in the marriage)

matrim

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, they could only make all marriage illegal.

The "in accordance with the law" is for stuff like 3 months notice, age of consent, incest, bigamy and so forth. These legal limits will apply to same sex and opposite sex marriages.

I don't mean to be trying to help the no side and muddy the waters with the whole "marry your sister" stuff but why can "according to the law" apply to things like incest but not same sex?

Bannasidhe

matrim wrote: »

I've seen this mentioned a few times now but given that the amendment specifically states between two people in accordance with law, would it still be possible for a future government to change the law and make same sex marriages illegal?

No. Not unless there is a referendum to amend the amendment.

Maximus Alexander

matrim wrote: »

I don't mean to be trying to help the no side and muddy the waters with the whole "marry your sister" stuff but why can according to the law apply to things like incest but not same sex?

Because if the amendment carries the constitution will explicitly state that you cannot legislate for marriage if you make a distinction between the sexes.

It will not say anything that impedes legislation from preventing marriage between siblings.

matrim

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Because if the amendment carries the constitution will explicitly state that you cannot legislate for marriage if you make a distinction between the sexes.

It will not say anything that impedes legislation from preventing marriage between siblings.

Thanks for the clarification. I get where I was reading it wrong now.

One eyed Jack

matrim wrote: »

I don't mean to be trying to help the no side and muddy the waters with the whole "marry your sister" stuff but why can according to the law apply to things like incest but not same sex?

Because nobody is allowed to marry a direct relative, that's not the discriminatory part of the legislation. The discriminatory part of the legislation is in regard to couples who are not already directly related to each other, but one couple is opposite sex (who are allowed enter into civil marriage), and the other couple is of the same sex (who are not allowed to enter into civil marriage).

WoolyJumper

Dow99 wrote: »

Folks,
As with my civil duty to this referendum I am looking into what exactly am I voting for in upcoming referendum.
I'm really struggling to find what is the actual difference between a civil partnership and marriage? I support gay partnership, call it what you want (civil partnership / marriage) but every technical reason why someone is telling me to vote yes is not correct ie inequality with tax, next of kin ect ect.

Can someone please let me know what is this referendum changing?

Besides the legal differences....I know it might seem like a small detail but the word marriage is important. No one is going to say Im getting civil partnered, no one is going to say this is my civil partner, they will say my husband or wife.

I want me and my relationship to be treated with the same respect and value as everyone else in society. I don't want to have a separate institution for "the gays" Like we are "equal" but different. I don't feel different to anyone else, I don't love differently to anyone else and my relationship is not all that different from most (good) relationships. If civil partnerships are the same as marriage (which they are not) then why is there a need to give it a different name.

PLL

' The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 provides that a step-parent, civil partner or cohabiting partner (of three years or more) will be able to apply to court to become the child’s guardian if they have had shared responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child for over two years. '

I don't agree with this. I'm all for same sex marriage, no doubt about it. At the moment I can understand how that might apply to them but if the marriage act came into effect. I would not agree with the above statement. For example, my mother had boyfriends that lived with us for more than 3 years, one of them assaulted me (my mother didn't believe me- long story) my point is, the idea that he (or any of the other boyfriends my mom had) could apply to get guardianship over me, terrifies me. Two years is not anywhere near long enough to be considered a guardian to someones child.

Ave Sodalis

PLL wrote: »

' The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 provides that a step-parent, civil partner or cohabiting partner (of three years or more) will be able to apply to court to become the child’s guardian if they have had shared responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child for over two years. '

I don't agree with this. I'm all for same sex marriage, no doubt about it. At the moment I can understand how that might apply to them but if the marriage act came into effect. I would not agree with the above statement. For example, my mother had boyfriends that lived with us for more than 3 years, one of them assaulted me (my mother didn't believe me- long story) my point is, the idea that he (or any of the other boyfriends my mom had) could apply to get guardianship over me, terrifies me. Two years is not anywhere near long enough to be considered a guardian to someones child.

Although I agree and that is a big concern for domestic violence centres across the country, it's unfortunately not going to change with this referendum whether it passes or not.

WoolyJumper

PLL wrote: »

' The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 provides that a step-parent, civil partner or cohabiting partner (of three years or more) will be able to apply to court to become the child’s guardian if they have had shared responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child for over two years. '

I don't agree with this. I'm all for same sex marriage, no doubt about it. At the moment I can understand how that might apply to them but if the marriage act came into effect. I would not agree with the above statement. For example, my mother had boyfriends that lived with us for more than 3 years, one of them assaulted me (my mother didn't believe me- long story) my point is, the idea that he (or any of the other boyfriends my mom had) could apply to get guardianship over me, terrifies me. Two years is not anywhere near long enough to be considered a guardian to someones child.

First of all I'm really sorry to hear that. No-one should have to go through that experience. And I certainly think the family and relationships bill needs some work. Especially regarding fathers rights. Just so we are clear though, this bill is completely separate to the referendum on may the 22nd. It will be introduced regardless of whether the ref passes or not.

I will say though, I assume the process of becoming a guardian of a step child will involve meeting with a social worker who will access the situation. This will hopefully give more protection to children who are in that situation.

One eyed Jack

PLL wrote: »

' The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 provides that a step-parent, civil partner or cohabiting partner (of three years or more) will be able to apply to court to become the child’s guardian if they have had shared responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child for over two years. '

I don't agree with this. I'm all for same sex marriage, no doubt about it. At the moment I can understand how that might apply to them but if the marriage act came into effect. I would not agree with the above statement. For example, my mother had boyfriends that lived with us for more than 3 years, one of them assaulted me (my mother didn't believe me- long story) my point is, the idea that he (or any of the other boyfriends my mom had) could apply to get guardianship over me, terrifies me. Two years is not anywhere near long enough to be considered a guardian to someones child.

The Act only allows for a non-parental guardianship application. It doesn't suggest that the person will be automatically entitled to guardianship.

The Bill does this by creating six new forms of guardianship:

o Parental guardianship – assigned by court order (Section 6A)

o Parental guardianship – assigned through a statutory declaration to civil partner and cohabitant (who meet the 12/3 month requirement) (Section 6B)

o Non parental guardianship (Section 6C) – assigned by court order to:
- married/civil partner/3 year cohabitant of the parent of a child who has shared parental responsibility for the child for 2 years; or
- a person who has provided day-to-day care for the child for 12 months and no parent is willing or able to exercise the rights and responsibilities of guardianship

o Foreign guardianship order – recognises guardianship assigned by foreign courts under Brussels II bis
and the Hague Convention (Section 6D)

o Temporary guardian – allows a guardian to nominate another individual to be the child’s guardian where he or she is incapable of carrying out this role due to serious illness or injury. The Child and Family Agency will be notified of such court applications (Section 6E)

o Testamentary guardian – allows a guardian to appoint another individual to be the child’s guardian in the event of his or her death (Section 7).

The important thing for you to remember in your particular circumstances is that your voice won't be ignored -

3) To ensure the participation of children in judicial decisions affecting them

Legislative provisions recognising the right of the child to have his or her voice heard in judicial decisionmaking in family law proceedings (under Children Act 1997) were never commenced and practice is ad hoc.

The Bill will ensure that a child’s voice is heard and considered when important life changing decisions are made in relation to guardianship, custody and access. It will provide for the appointment of an expert by the Court to determine the views of the child and convey these to the court. The cost of the expert must be borne by the parties to the cases (eg. the parent or guardian).

Source: Briefing Note on the Children and Family Relationships Bill 2015

B_Wayne

439 pages in, has there been a decent argument from no side yet?

galljga1

B_Wayne wrote: »

439 pages in, has there been a decent argument from no side yet?

Em.....er.....um.... surrogacy...oh....penis quota.........uh.....adoption.....family values....leviticus

For god's sake, think of the children.

Frank Bullitt

B_Wayne wrote: »

439 pages in, has there been a decent argument from no side yet?

Might it be because...there isn't one???

Annasopra

Dow99 wrote: »

Folks,
As with my civil duty to this referendum I am looking into what exactly am I voting for in upcoming referendum.
I'm really struggling to find what is the actual difference between a civil partnership and marriage? I support gay partnership, call it what you want (civil partnership / marriage) but every technical reason why someone is telling me to vote yes is not correct ie inequality with tax, next of kin ect ect.

Can someone please let me know what is this referendum changing?

http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html?m=1

Annasopra

PLL wrote: »

' The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 provides that a step-parent, civil partner or cohabiting partner (of three years or more) will be able to apply to court to become the child’s guardian if they have had shared responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child for over two years. '

I don't agree with this. I'm all for same sex marriage, no doubt about it. At the moment I can understand how that might apply to them but if the marriage act came into effect. I would not agree with the above statement. For example, my mother had boyfriends that lived with us for more than 3 years, one of them assaulted me (my mother didn't believe me- long story) my point is, the idea that he (or any of the other boyfriends my mom had) could apply to get guardianship over me, terrifies me. Two years is not anywhere near long enough to be considered a guardian to someones child.

Sorry to hear about your experiences.

We're not voting in a referendum on the Children and Family Act though.

Anita Blow

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.

I think Bannasidhe said it way better than I could about symbolism. I think what Una was describing in the article is that 'second thought' that almost all gay people have. That is, calculating the social risk of holding your partner's hand in public, or before you give them a kiss. Having to think will this get stares or will I attract trouble. You, like the majority, wouldn't care I'm sure. But for as long as there is a minority that do and as long as you hear about gay people getting beat up in Limerick or George's street in the last couple months, you're always going to have that second thought. And it's awful, and you hate yourself for thinking it.

Besides the obvious practical benefits of legalising SSM, I really think there'd be no symbolic gesture. Would Ireland be as progressive today in this regard had homosexuality not been decriminalised in 1993? Definitely not. We're far more inclusive and accepting, and no doubt this constitutional change will go a long way (not completely) towards the next generation being able to grow up without having to second guess.

Bannasidhe

Anita Blow wrote: »

I think Bannasidhe said it way better than I could about symbolism. I think what Una was describing in the article is that 'second thought' that almost all gay people have. That is, calculating the social risk of holding your partner's hand in public, or before you give them a kiss. Having to think will this get stares or will I attract trouble. You, like the majority, wouldn't care I'm sure. But for as long as there is a minority that do and as long as you hear about gay people getting beat up in Limerick or George's street in the last couple months, you're always going to have that second thought. And it's awful, and you hate yourself for thinking it.

Besides the obvious practical benefits of legalising SSM, I really think there'd be no symbolic gesture. Would Ireland be as progressive today in this regard had homosexuality not been decriminalised in 1993? Definitely not. We're far more inclusive and accepting, and no doubt this constitutional change will go a long way (not completely) towards the next generation being able to grow up without having to second guess.

She checked herself.

seamus

PLL wrote: »

' The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 provides that a step-parent, civil partner or cohabiting partner (of three years or more) will be able to apply to court to become the child’s guardian if they have had shared responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child for over two years. '

I don't agree with this. I'm all for same sex marriage, no doubt about it. At the moment I can understand how that might apply to them but if the marriage act came into effect. I would not agree with the above statement.

Just for clarification, the above act and this referendum are unrelated. The act will be signed into law regardless of the outcome of the referendum. So just bear that in mind if you're thinking about or talking about the referendum.

As others have pointed out, really the intention of that section is to open up guardianship in instances where the child's mother and father are deceased or gone away. At present it's quite strictly limited and children can be and have been given to homes where they know nobody, even though they have someone they consider to be close family right there, ready to take them.

While the child's (married) mother and father are alive, guardianship is automatically conferred on them. Other people can apply to become guardians, but without the consent of the current guardians it is very unlikely it will be granted unless there are massively extenuating circumstances.

aloyisious

I am listening to a debate (recorded by the Irish Time on it's Inside Politics section and adjudicated on by Hugh Linehan ) between Breda O'Brien and Noel Whelan. Both are I/T columnists. Be aware, the recording is approx 59 minutes long so you may have to set aside time to give it a full uninterrupted hearing. I had comments to make but won't so you can all make your own unaffected judgements on the cases both debaters make.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/head-to-head-breda-o-brien-and-noel-whelan-debate-same-sex-marriage-1.2192011

Bannasidhe

seamus wrote: »

The act will be signed into law regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

It's signed and sealed.

Will come into force in May (I think) regardless of the outcome of the Referendum.

It's certainly not a perfect piece of legislation by any means but it's better than the horror that is the 1964 Guardianship of Children Act.

Zen65

B_Wayne wrote: »

439 pages in, has there been a decent argument from no side yet?

Only one so far:

The proposed change in the constitution, if approved by the people, may require you to attend more weddings, requiring more new outfits and more wedding presents to be bought.

That's not a pleasant thought I'll admit, and it hits me in the boredom zone, which is sensitive to having days taken up with such things.

Of course, I'll still vote yes!

dashcamdanny

Will gay people require the traditional 100 euro in an envelope at the wedding, or will they owe us for giving them a yes vote?

I hope its the latter.

humanji

Has anyone noticed the Mothers and Fathers Matter ads that run before Youtube videos now? Apart from being suspicious about where the money for that comes from, it's bad enough to be bombarded with any political messages through posters, papers, tv and radio without having to deal with them when you want to watch a cat playing a piano.

VinLieger

humanji wrote: »

Has anyone noticed the Mothers and Fathers Matter ads that run before Youtube videos now? Apart from being suspicious about where the money for that comes from, it's bad enough to be bombarded with any political messages through posters, papers, tv and radio without having to deal with them when you want to watch a cat playing a piano.

Guessing its all routed from the same place Youth Defence and Iona get their cash ie......... the states

kylith

humanji wrote: »

Has anyone noticed the Mothers and Fathers Matter ads that run before Youtube videos now? Apart from being suspicious about where the money for that comes from, it's bad enough to be bombarded with any political messages through posters, papers, tv and radio without having to deal with them when you want to watch a cat playing a piano.

Is that the "I have legitimate questions.... stuff that has nothing to do with the referendum.... but what about the people who want to discriminate?..."

I couldn't watch any longer.