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

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I think the biggest paranoia in the yes camp now is that the victory sounds too easy. Apathy and all that might be a factor. I would not take anything for granted.

But at the same time - this is the first big Ireland vote where people I know or am related to over seas are specifically booking holidays to come back and vote. Whether it is for the motivation to vote yes - or just because they want to be there for a party like only the homosexuals of our species know how to throw - I am not sure.

But in my limited family and social circles at least this vote is bringing more people home than "the Gathering" did.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

Its going to be a landslide victory.

No way. The polls cannot be used as a proper barometer as the vast majority of voters wont decide til the last minute. I reckon it will go down the line like divorce and could swing either way.

reprise

marienbad wrote: »

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

Because the courts felt that they had recognition that didn't conflict with the core purpose and construction of marriage and Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schalk_and_Kopf_v_Austria
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94065074&postcount=1394

marienbad wrote: »

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.

Same sex marriage is not a reality waiting for codification.

marienbad wrote: »

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

Qualification for entry to most things in life tends to be far more restrictive than exit.

marienbad wrote: »

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

I haven't mentioned Christian Matrimony in any of my posts.

Same sex marriage is not a prevailing more.

reprise

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No way. The polls cannot be used as a proper barometer as the vast majority of voters wont decide til the last minute. I reckon it will go down the line like divorce and could swing either way.

I feel the same. It's going to be close.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

I don't quite follow.

Can you give an example of a court striking down a law in conflict with a "unenumerated right".

McGee v Attorney General, which i previously referred to. Rules prohibiting contraception struck down as violating the unenumerated right to marital privacy.

It is not a right expressly mentioned in the Constitution or in any Irish legislation, but was nevertheless recognised as a right which existed since the introduction of the Constitution.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

It is the last word on human rights and not afraid to walk on anyone's toes.

No its not. It's decisions are not binding.

The Constitution and the European Treaties will always trump it.

floggg

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.

Yes, thinks which adequately explain the inherent weakness of your argument do tend to be unhelpful.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

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



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



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.



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.

Much of what you said is empty rhetoric.

But as regards civil partnership, under Irish law it can never be equal to marriage (and that's ignoring the separate equal argument).

So you are completely incorrect in stating it can encompass all the trappings of marriage. In any event, **** your back of the bus second class status.

I refuse to accept second class status.

floggg

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, divorce merely focused on the right to exit, here we are talking about the core foundation, construction and purpose of marriage.

Banning slavery in Mississippi was a huge victory for equality. Unfortunately the former slaves were still second class citizens.

floggg

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.

Youre actually really doing a dis-service to your name sake.

Your arguments are deeply flawed. Firstly, inter-racial marriage wasn't normal at the time of Loving v Virginia. It was illegal in a number of states, and a significant majority of the US were opposed to it.

So it was no more normal (in the sense of common) than same sex marriage was today.

If you reference to 'normal' was intended to have some other meaning, well then please do explain what you mean.


As for your argument on the grounds of ability, well you are patently wrong. The law provided that inter-racial couples were unable to lawfully marry. It didn't prevent inter-racial couples being together (as inter-racial relations were not illegal), just their marriage.

in the same way that our current laws do not prevent homosexual couples being together, they just provide they are unable to marry.

And how is it attack on marriage? Its a catchy sound bite, but it lacks substance.

How did marriage survive marriage equality in other jurisdictions?

marienbad

reprise wrote: »

Because the courts felt that they had recognition that didn't conflict with the core purpose and construction of marriage and Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schalk_and_Kopf_v_Austria
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94065074&postcount=1394



Same sex marriage is not a reality waiting for codification.



Qualification for entry to most things in life tends to be far more restrictive than exit.



I haven't mentioned Christian Matrimony in any of my posts.

Same sex marriage is not a prevailing more.

The multi quote won't work for me so bear with me .

What about all the court judgements in the USA and elsewhere , Also the precedent set by the UK France,Holland Nordics etc ?

Of course same sex marriage is a reality awaiting codification ! Just as divorce was a recognition of the reality of separation that affected 10 of thousands of people . SSM is the same for existing for same sex couples also in their 10's of thousands .

It is irrelevant whether entry is harder or easier . The point is exit changes the fundamental principle.

You may not have mentenioned Christian matrimony but that is exactly what you are arguing against ! A union that has remained unchanged for many hundreds of years , and will continue to remain so . Civil marriage on the other changes all the time in line with society of the time . The marriage age was increased in 1972 to 16 and subsequently to 18 , Before that It was as low as 13 or 14 if I remember correctly . And of course we have had divorce and remarriage . SSM is just the latest and again reflecting wider society.

Of course SSM is part of the prevailing mores , just as divorce was a recognition of separation so SSM is a recognition of same sex unions and SSM in those societies most like our own .

david75

wish there wa a poll asking how many people are going to actually go out on the day and vote..polls are all well and good, turnout on the day is a whole other depressing thing.

wish we could bury this referendum with a 90%+ vote.

floggg

Deleted User wrote: »

"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?

Actually, loads of people did. It took you a week to come up with that, and you didn't even check to see if somebody got there first?

Also, explaining the joke kind of killed any remaining humour.

Full marks of effort though.

floggg

SIX PACK wrote: »

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

So is bacon and prawns.

Give me prawns wrapped in bacon over god any day of the week.

reprise

floggg wrote: »

McGee v Attorney General, which i previously referred to. Rules prohibiting contraception struck down as violating the unenumerated right to marital privacy.

It is not a right expressly mentioned in the Constitution or in any Irish legislation, but was nevertheless recognised as a right which existed since the introduction of the Constitution.

I'll have a look.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1973/2.html

floggg wrote: »

No its not. It's decisions are not binding.

The Constitution and the European Treaties will always trump it.

I never said it was.

floggg wrote: »

Yes, thinks which adequately explain the inherent weakness of your argument do tend to be unhelpful.

I don't think the right to durex is the same as same sex marriage.

floggg wrote: »

Much of what you said is empty rhetoric.

But as regards civil partnership, under Irish law it can never be equal to marriage (and that's ignoring the separate equal argument).

This is where I ask again, why? what's missing?

floggg wrote: »

So you are completely incorrect in stating it can encompass all the trappings of marriage. In any event, **** your back of the bus second class status.

I refuse to accept second class status.

It's not you relegated to second class of the bus. It's you getting on the bus to Waterford and saying "I don't care what was agreed organising this trip - take me to Belfast".

See why I don't like analogies?

I will be voting Yes in this referendum.
Because one day I may want to get married. And even if I don't, I would want any other LGBT people who do want to get married to have that right.

There are no good reasons not to support this referendum. All this bullshít about children and family values is not only unsupported by scientific evidence but also completely irrelevant, since Government legislation will be in place allowing for adoption by LGBT couples before the referendum even takes place.

It genuinely scares me to think that this referendum may not pass, that a majority of voters in this country would choose to support the treatment of their LGBT brothers and sisters (and those who identify as non-binary) as second class citizens. I'm a pessimist by nature, so even though the referendum should pass, I dare not take it for granted.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

Because the courts felt that they had recognition that didn't conflict with the core purpose and construction of marriage and Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schalk_and_Kopf_v_Austria
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94065074&postcount=1394



Same sex marriage is not a reality waiting for codification.



Qualification for entry to most things in life tends to be far more restrictive than exit.



I haven't mentioned Christian Matrimony in any of my posts.

Same sex marriage is not a prevailing more.

Interesting. As i suspected, the ECHR specifically referred to the margin of appreciation. In essence, they recognised that a consensus was rapidly forming in favour of recognising marriage equality, but we hadn't yet reached a tipping point. The clear implication being that once the consensus formed, there would be sufficient basis for recognising that right.

Note in that regard that the decision dates from 2010 - since then the England and Wales, Scotland, France, Finland, Denmark, and Luxembourg have all introduced marriage equality, as well as a number of north and south american countries.

I wonder whether the decision would be the same today, given the "margin of appreciation" has lessened.

Also, the (non-binding) European Convention of Human Rights does refer to gender in defining marriage. The Irish Constitution, which trumps the ECHR does not - so the ECHR would be unlikely to be of much persuasive authority if the matter came before the Supreme Court.

The position is certainly not as clear cut as you were suggesting.

jobbridge4life

floggg wrote: »

So is bacon and prawns.

Give me prawns wrapped in bacon over god any day of the week.

Ron is that you?

floggg

reprise wrote: »

I'll have a look.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1973/2.html



I never said it was.



I don't think the right to durex is the same as same sex marriage.



This is where I ask again, why? what's missing?



It's not you relegated to second class of the bus. It's you getting on the bus to Waterford and saying "I don't care what was agreed organising this trip - take me to Belfast".

See why I don't like analogies?

You said the ECHR was the last word on human rights. Its not - legally or morally. Pick your argument, both are flawed.

What has durex got to do with anything? The anaolgy you complained about was seperate but equal transport arrangements.

What's missing from CP? Circa 150 differences. Again though, the separate but equal offends.

If they were identical in terms of the rights but not in name, one can only conclude the reason for the difference in name is to (artificially) mark them out as different in nature and unequal. Otherwise, why not save everybody the trouble and just one word to describe two identical things.

The trouble is with your Waterford analogy. Please explain it, because I don't understand your point.

But if heterosexual couples can all get the bus to Belfast, I want to go there with my fiance too. Your right, I wouldn't care where you wanted to send me in that instance - I would want the same travel rights as everybody else.


Finally, could you please address the right to liberty for slaves. You have ducked it repeatedly. Did slaves have a right to liberty, even if recognised by law? Or were they the rightful chattels of their 'owners' until Abraham Lincoln came along?

floggg

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Ron is that you?

Is that an anchorman joke? It was a really **** film.

There, I said it.

reprise

floggg wrote: »

Interesting. As i suspected, the ECHR specifically referred to the margin of appreciation. In essence, they recognised that a consensus was rapidly forming in favour of recognising marriage equality, but we hadn't yet reached a tipping point. The clear implication being that once the consensus formed, there would be sufficient basis for recognising that right.

They recognised the absolute authority of the nation states to decide and they fully endorsed the definition of marraige that specified opposing genders.

floggg wrote: »

Note in that regard that the decision dates from 2010 - since then the England and Wales, Scotland, France, Finland, Denmark, and Luxembourg have all introduced marriage equality, as well as a number of north and south american countries.

I wonder whether the decision would be the same today, given the "margin of appreciation" has lessened.

It's a fraction of the EU, hardly a landslide so far anyway.

floggg wrote: »

Also, the (non-binding) European Convention of Human Rights does refer to gender in defining marriage. The Irish Constitution, which trumps the ECHR does not - so the ECHR would be unlikely to be of much persuasive authority if the matter came before the Supreme Court.

The position is certainly not as clear cut as you were suggesting.

I don't believe anyone in their right mind would honestly argue that the Irish Constitution contemplated same sex marriage in its formulation.

And remind me, which court ruled against Ireland's laws on homosexuality?

reprise

floggg wrote: »

You said the ECHR was the last word on human rights. Its not - legally or morally. Pick your argument, both are flawed.

I'm sorry, you have lost me.

What has durex got to do with anything? The anaolgy you complained about was seperate but equal transport arrangements.

What's missing from CP? Circa 150 differences. Again though, the separate but equal offends.

If they were identical in terms of the rights but not in name, one can only conclude the reason for the difference in name is to (artificially) mark them out as different in nature and unequal. Otherwise, why not save everybody the trouble and just one word to describe two identical things.

The trouble is with your Waterford analogy. Please explain it, because I don't understand your point.

But if heterosexual couples can all get the bus to Belfast, I want to go there with my fiance too. Your right, I wouldn't care where you wanted to send me in that instance - I would want the same travel rights as everybody else.


Finally, could you please address the right to liberty for slaves. You have ducked it repeatedly. Did slaves have a right to liberty, even if recognised by law? Or were they the rightful chattels of their 'owners' until Abraham Lincoln came along?

Sorry, too late in the day to multiquote you.

I think you will find that there is some very strong resistance from the black community to the Rosa Parks analogy being used for same sex mariage.

jobbridge4life

reprise wrote: »

Sorry, too late in the day to multiquote you.

I think you will find that there is some very strong resistance from the black community to the Rosa Parks analogy being used for same sex mariage.

Yes, just like Martin Luther King Jr's children are not keen on gay people... but the man himself and his wife Coretta Scott King was fully supportive. There is plenty of objection about everything Reprise.

reprise

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Yes, just like Martin Luther King Jr's children are not keen on gay people... but the man himself and his wife Coretta Scott King was fully supportive. There is plenty of objection about everything Reprise.

True.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brendan-oneill/gay-marriage-movement-love-hate_b_3130712.html

shruikan2553

reprise wrote: »

True.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brendan-oneill/gay-marriage-movement-love-hate_b_3130712.html

I wonder if the white people developed a persecution complex as well during the civil rights movement.

But guys, we can't treat you as equal. Why are you forcing us to do the work ourselves? You're no better than us!

WoolyJumper

reprise wrote: »

Sorry, too late in the day to multiquote you.

I think you will find that there is some very strong resistance from the black community to the Rosa Parks analogy being used for same sex mariage.

wrote:

If you are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, you do not have the same rights as other Americans," she said at Chicago's Out & Equal Workplace Summit last year. "You cannot marry, ... you still face discrimination in the workplace, and in our armed forces. For a nation that prides itself on liberty, justice and equality for all, this is totally unacceptable

That's a quote from Yolanda King, MLK's daughter. So i guess it all depends on who you ask..

Dunkelhouse

I will gladly be voting yes. I really hope that everyone goes out and votes whether you are voting yes or no. I haven't heard of any logical argument that would sway me to vote no.

I think by voting yes is another stepping stone in fully getting rid of the stigma that is still out there and I think that society is ahead of the referendum anyway.... I will be a good day for the country if it passes.

jobbridge4life

reprise wrote: »

True.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brendan-oneill/gay-marriage-movement-love-hate_b_3130712.html

Honestly I don't think that anyone here has suggested that some on the yes side haven't done wrong. As I have said before hand however it would be manifestly unfair if the behavior of a few angry people was to be projected onto the wider community and the referendum to be decided on that basis. It is also the definition of prejudice.

jobbridge4life

floggg wrote: »

Is that an anchorman joke? It was a really **** film.

There, I said it.

No. Parks and Recreation.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

They recognised the absolute authority of the nation states to decide and they fully endorsed the definition of marraige that specified opposing genders.

If you mean that they endorsed the defintion of marriage which specified opposing genders only, that would contradict your statement that they left it to each nation to decide.

reprise wrote: »

It's a fraction of the EU, hardly a landslide so far anyway.

The ECHR's jurisdiction is not the same as the EU's. It's actually much wider. However the point remains that the margin of appreciation is narrowing - and rapidly.

reprise wrote: »

I don't believe anyone in their right mind would honestly argue that the Irish Constitution contemplated same sex marriage in its formulation.

So?

The Constitution is a living document. It is to be interpreted on the basis of what is understood today, not in 1937.[/QUOTE]

reprise wrote: »

And remind me, which court ruled against Ireland's laws on homosexuality?

And? The US Supreme Court also upheld slavery. But it also struck down segregation laws.

Courts can err, but that doesn't mean they are doomed to make the same mistakes.