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

mickstupp

Why do you think the courts are the sole arbiters of right and wrong? The law is not static, it changes. Just because a law is in place, doesn't mean it's right. You do understand that, don't you?

reprise

mickstupp wrote: »

Why do you think the courts are the sole arbiters of right and wrong? The law is not static, it changes. Just because a law is in place, doesn't mean it's right. You do understand that, don't you?

I understand a weak attempt at patronising and poisoning the debate.

ETA thanked already!!

Sciprio

I will be voting yes as what two other people do is none of my business and doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever.

reprise

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Well that explains a lot.

If only I could thank my own posts.... :(:(:(

marienbad

reprise wrote: »

With respect, I find virtually all of the analogies unhelpful, especially at a time when the courts have been adjudicating on the specific issue to hand.

Correct me if I am wrong , but I don't think the European Court has riled on the specific issue of equality on Marriage vs Civil Partnership.

They have ruled on discrimination on tax law and benefits etc .

I have tried looking it up but I can't find any specific cases - it all seems to refer to entitlements rather than the specific issue itself.

If any other posters could clarify I would be obliged .

marienbad

reprise wrote: »

It is for the Yes side to justify a change in law here not the No. When you are looking for change in work, in society, in life, the default switch is normally no. Believe it or not, there isn't enough gay people to carry the vote on their own. You need to convince the voters to get up off their arses and vote Yes.

.

Just a couple of points on this post again -

Surely the default position on any law is yes ? In that everything should be legal unless there is a compelling reason to either make it illegal (murder, robbery etc ) or limited ( free speech, marriage, speed etc).

Secondly as one of the judges said in one of those cases - the constitution is a living document . This would also apply to the law . As we mature and change as a society we should strive to make it fairer and more equal as a goal in itself and not be continuously forced to do so through legal means .

Just think of all the changes in the last 30 years that created such a fuss and we look back now and wonder how did we think otherwise .

Married women force to give up work/Contraception/Divorce/ look ridiculous at this remove . And others reflect the views of society today - the age of consent/voting age/age of the Presidency and marriage equality is just one of those . Lets change it and be done with it.

Just one final point - there is substantial legal opinion that we do not require a referendum and the necessary changes could be enacted by law. The only reason it requires a referendum is that the legal powers want to avoid a litigious free for all such as we had after the 1st abortion referendum and mho is they are right.

But I find it deeply troubling that one section of society gets to grant or withhold a right to another section of society . And I say that as a straight person with kids and grandkids .

If you don't want to get gay married then don't .

.

reprise

marienbad wrote: »

Just a couple of points on this post again -

Surely the default position on any law is yes ? In that everything should be legal unless there is a compelling reason to either make it illegal (murder, robbery etc ) or limited ( free speech, marriage, speed etc).

Marraige is legal, but subject to restrictions that protect its original intent.

marienbad wrote: »

Secondly as one of the judges said in one of those cases - the constitution is a living document . This would also apply to the law . As we mature and change as a society we should strive to make it fairer and more equal as a goal in itself and not be continuously forced to do so through legal means .

The referendum is a free vote - it's not being forced down anyones throat.

marienbad wrote: »

Just think of all the changes in the last 30 years that created such a fuss and we look back now and wonder how did we think otherwise .

Married women force to give up work/Contraception/Divorce/ look ridiculous at this remove . And others reflect the views of society today - the age of consent/voting age/age of the Presidency and marriage equality is just one of those . Lets change it and be done with it.

I think the analogies are very weak, I also think that civil partnership was a huge advance and cannot see why it cannot encompass all the trappings of marriage without stepping on anyones toes. The kind of give and take that does mark mature societies.

marienbad wrote: »

Just one final point - there is substantial legal opinion that we do not require a referendum and the necessary changes could be enacted by law. The only reason it requires a referendum is that the legal powers want to avoid a litigious free for all such as we had after the 1st abortion referendum and mho is they are right.

But I find it deeply troubling that one section of society gets to grant or withhold a right to another section of society . And I say that as a straight person with kids and grandkids .

There is no right to same sex marriage. Ergo, I have no more right to same sex marriage than a gay person. In that we are absolutely equal.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I went out for a few hours, need a bit of a recap. Has anyone presented a decent argument against gay marriage yet, or are you still bickering at each other and being trolled by the no side?

reprise

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I went out for a few hours, need a bit of a recap. Has anyone presented a decent argument against gay marriage yet, or are you still bickering at each other and being trolled by the no side?

Zubeneschamali

reprise wrote: »

What language?

The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

This is how the Constitution talks about rights. It doesn't say it is creating new rights. It doesn't say it is defining rights. It says it respects, defends and vindicates the rights of the people.

It is clear from this language that the rights it speaks of existed when it was written, before it was adopted.

The clause being amended reads:

3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

This is not being changed. Not a letter. The amendment simply adds:

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

No new rights are being created by the amendment. It simply says that same-sex couple may marry. As a result, they then qualify for all the existing protections of the rights which families and married people are entitled to under the constitution.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

reprise wrote: »

I take it that's a "no" then (and not just in answer to the thread question)?

WoolyJumper

reprise wrote: »

There is no right to same sex marriage. Ergo, I have no more right to same sex marriage than a gay person. In that we are absolutely equal.

Assuming you are straight and you meet the right person, you can marry the person you love, I can't. In that way we are absolutely not equal.

reprise

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

This is how the Constitution talks about rights. It doesn't say it is creating new rights. It doesn't say it is defining rights. It says it respects, defends and vindicates the rights of the people.

It is clear from this language that the rights it speaks of existed when it was written, before it was adopted.

The clause being amended reads:

3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

This is not being changed. Not a letter. The amendment simply adds:

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

No new rights are being created by the amendment. It simply says that same-sex couple may marry. As a result, they then qualify for all the existing protections of the rights which families and married people are entitled to under the constitution.

That still doesn't give same sex couples the right to marry any more than any other person excluded, for any other reason, from the legal definition of marriage.

Sheldons Brain

Reading this thread after a few hours there are more ridiculous comparison with race laws, slavery and all sort of things that have nothing to do with this issue. Risible comparison with these serious things to the present campaign which is simple whataboutry.

The example of prohibition of mixed race marriage is often cited in an attempt to confuse the issue. Mixed race marriage was the prohibition of a perfectly normal marriage on the grounds of prejudice, it is in no sense comparable to the redefinition of marriage. Of course those citing this know this perfectly well, but are simply trying to cause confusion. But more importantly the race marriage laws were not concerned with people's ability to marry at all, their ambition was to prevent people being together, something that is not at issue here, but facts will hardly be relevant to whose here whose ambition is obfuscation.

1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

This campaign is an attack on marriage.

reprise

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I take it that's a "no" then (and not just in answer to the thread question)?

There was a question? I assumed you were trawling, or should that be trolling, for lazy thanks.

reprise

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Assuming you are straight and you meet the right person, you can marry the person you love, I can't. In that way we are absolutely not equal.

I have children with my partner, does that not also make us unequal?

Zubeneschamali

reprise wrote: »

That still doesn't give same sex couples the right to marry any more than any other person excluded, for any other reason, from the legal definition of marriage.

The amendment doesn't say it is giving anyone any rights, because it isn't giving anyone any rights.

It is stating that same sex couple may marry, same as any other couple. Full stop.

Gavlor

Yes.

It's the biggest no brainer referendum that we've ever had.

I can't understand why anyone would be against a happy couple getting married. Do bigots think that a no vote will force all the gay people in the country to turn straight?

reprise

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The amendment doesn't say it is giving anyone any rights, because it isn't giving anyone any rights.

It is stating that same sex couple may marry, same as any other couple. Full stop.

So anyone saying they are being deprived of their rights is talking rubbish. Fine so.

marienbad

reprise wrote: »

I think the analogies are very weak, I also think that civil partnership was a huge advance and cannot see why it cannot encompass all the trappings of marriage without stepping on anyones toes. The kind of give and take that does mark mature societies.

.

If you think Civil Partnership was a huge advance then you accept that the original position was unequal ?

Why are my analogies very weak ?

reprise

marienbad wrote: »

If you think Civil Partnership was a huge advance then you accept that the original position was unequal ?

Why are my analogies very weak ?

From my limited research, to go from absolutely no recognition for same sex couples to civil partnership was a huge leap and has been recognised by the European Court of Human Rights as victory for equality in the Countries where it happened.

Your analogies are weak as the same sex marriage is not amenable to analogies. Take divorce for example, divorce merely focused on the right to exit, here we are talking about the core foundation, construction and purpose of marriage.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Reasoned debate being the key word

How is this possible - If you refuse to lend substance to your side. How can a reasoned debate be had if we are not privy to your reasoning?

PopePalpatine

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The example of prohibition of mixed race marriage is often cited in an attempt to confuse the issue. Mixed race marriage was the prohibition of a perfectly normal marriage on the grounds of prejudice, it is in no sense comparable to the redefinition of marriage. Of course those citing this know this perfectly well, but are simply trying to cause confusion. But more importantly the race marriage laws were not concerned with people's ability to marry at all, their ambition was to prevent people being together, something that is not at issue here, but facts will hardly be relevant to whose here whose ambition is obfuscation.



This campaign is an attack on marriage.

Up until anti-miscegenation laws were struck down, marriage was defined by states which had those laws as the legally recognised union between a man and a woman of the same ethnicity.

What you're supporting is the prohibition of marriage based on prejudice. A state's recognition of relevant terms evolves: "voter" was once defined as a property-owning male. When this country was still part of the UK, a ballot for a general election was defined as a public show of hands for a given candidate. The British royal family re-defined their definition of "heir presumptive" from the firstborn son of the monarch to the firstborn child of the monarch.

"How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? "

I just noticed no one has actually answered the question the OP asked.

My answer: I will do it like everyone else. I will walk into the booth and tick the box. How will you do it? With a shimmy or a smile or something?

marienbad

reprise wrote: »

From my limited research, to go from absolutely no recognition for same sex couples to civil partnership was a huge leap and has been recognised by the European Court of Human Rights as victory for equality in the Countries where it happened.

Your analogies are weak as the same sex marriage is not amenable to analogies. Take divorce for example, here we are talking about the core foundation, construction and purpose of marriage whereas divorce merely focused on the right to exit.

Sure it was a huge leap, but why not finish the job ? The courts here recognised that .

Divorce is the perfect example to compare with ssm ! If you look at the campaign literature of the time you will find that virtually all of the arguments are just a variation on theme from those in play today -An attack on the fundamental institution of marriage/damaging for children etc .

None of these things came to pass , that referendum just codified what was already a reality.

You say it is against ''the core foundation, construction and purpose of marriage'' whereas divorce wasn't ! How can that be ?

You are confusing Christian Matrimony and Civil Marriage . And divorce if it had affected Christian marriage would tear asunder the very principle of matrimony - 'let no man tear asunder'-'til death do us part' etc.

Civil marriage on the other has always been no more than a contract , to be changed at will by the prevailing ethos of society at that time . Thus women had to give up all property, no such thing as marital rape and so on . This is just one more step in the civil code to bring it in line with prevailing mores

SIX PACK

Homosexuality is Forbidden If you want to enter the Kingdom of God. According to the Bible. ;-)

WoolyJumper

reprise wrote: »

I have children with my partner, does that not also make us unequal?

I don't understand your point? I said nothing about children. I said assuming you are straight and you meet the right person, you can marry the person you love, i can't. In that way we are not equal. What does that have to do with children?

SIX PACK

SIX PACK wrote: »

Homosexuality is Forbidden If you want to enter the Kingdom of God. According to the Bible. ;-)

Not by the FRONT DOOR anyway

Its going to be a landslide victory. I have friends already planned their marriage. It will be one of the brighter times this county has had in the last few years.

shruikan2553

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Reading this thread after a few hours there are more ridiculous comparison with race laws, slavery and all sort of things that have nothing to do with this issue. Risible comparison with these serious things to the present campaign which is simple whataboutry.

The example of prohibition of mixed race marriage is often cited in an attempt to confuse the issue. Mixed race marriage was the prohibition of a perfectly normal marriage on the grounds of prejudice, it is in no sense comparable to the redefinition of marriage. Of course those citing this know this perfectly well, but are simply trying to cause confusion. But more importantly the race marriage laws were not concerned with people's ability to marry at all, their ambition was to prevent people being together, something that is not at issue here, but facts will hardly be relevant to whose here whose ambition is obfuscation.

This campaign is an attack on marriage.

Sometimes I wonder if people read what they've just typed.