Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

ByfocalPhoto

News flash. People get married for all sorts of reasons.
Suppose the following.

Sue and Alice are straight. Sue is single. Alice is a widow with a couple of kids, a house, a few bob put away and no other family. She has cancer and will be gone in six months. Sue loves Alice's kids and would cheerfully look after them. She could apply to adopt them but there is a process and no guarantees. Alice can leave Sue everything but the death duties would be hefty.
If they got married it would all be resolved, the kids thing would be automatic and the death duties would reduce so there would be more provision for the kids.
They would be happy to marry, under the current rules they can't because of the inconvenient gender thing.

Kym and Annie are gay. They meet and fall in love. They would be happy to marry, under the current rules they can't because of the inconvenient gender thing.

If anybody can explain to me how Kym and Annie have less rights than Sue and Alice because they happen to be in love I will concede the equality point.

ByfocalPhoto

gravehold wrote:

What's wrong with polygamy?

Two mothers in law.

timetogo

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

Two mothers in law.

That could happen now.
When all of these lesbian couples adopt, kidnap or queue up for kids (I'm putting in all worst case scenarios as is required by no side on the assumption that if the constitution doesn't say kidnapping is illegal it might happen and there's nothing we can do about it) once they're legally married whoever marries that kid in 20/30 years is going to have 2 mothers in law. Vote no people.

sydthebeat

gravehold wrote: »

But this referendum won't fix that, we all still won't be equal

Did you actually read what we are being asked to vote on? ?

gravehold

sydthebeat wrote: »

Did you actually read what we are being asked to vote on? ?

Marraige equality that adds wording that discriminates against consenting adults that is not in the constitution atm.

sydthebeat

gravehold wrote: »

Marraige equality that adds wording that discriminates against consenting adults that is not in the constitution atm.

Well thank God we're not voting on that then

sydthebeat

gravehold wrote: »

Marraige equality that adds wording that discriminates against consenting adults that is not in the constitution atm.

Well thank God we're not voting on that then

gravehold

sydthebeat wrote: »

Well thank God we're not voting on that then

But you are voting to add the word couple to marraige in the constitution

Greyian

gravehold wrote: »

But you are voting to add the word couple to marraige in the constitution

Well, actually, the wording is "two people". At least use the correct wording.

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

But you are voting to add the word couple to marraige in the constitution

The word 'couple' is not included in the proposed change to the referendum. Have been posting on this thread by accident thinking it was some other amendment :P

galljga1

timetogo wrote: »

That could happen now.
When all of these lesbian couples adopt, kidnap or queue up for kids (I'm putting in all worst case scenarios as is required by no side on the assumption that if the constitution doesn't say kidnapping is illegal it might happen and there's nothing we can do about it) once they're legally married whoever marries that kid in 20/30 years is going to have 2 mothers in law. Vote no people.

I have built a safe room in my house for when the gays come calling. I have two kids and can probably do without one but damn it, not both.
Whichever of them gets to the room first is safe. Survival of the fittest. Glitter for the other one.

gravehold

traprunner wrote: »

The word 'couple' is not included in the proposed change to the referendum. Have been posting on this thread by accident thinking it was some other amendment :P

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

The two persons is new if you vote yes adding discrimination against certain relationships. Why even add it unless you purposely want to discriminatie

galljga1

gravehold wrote: »

The two persons is new if you vote yes adding discrimination against certain relationships. Why even add it unless you purposely want to discriminatie

New poster:

Children deserve at least two mammys/daddys (dellete as appropriate) and maybe one of the other (or more) for more than nine months...and stuff.

This is going to get confusing. One week to go.

gravehold

galljga1 wrote: »

New poster:

Children deserve at least two mammys/daddys (dellete as appropriate) and maybe one of the other (or more) for more than nine months...and stuff.

This is going to get confusing. One week to go.

I am guessing the no side would be against true marraige equality also as to have polygamous marriage you also have to allow ssm.

The problem with the current referendum is adding in discriminatory wording to the constitution that wasn't there before then having the xheck to call it equality

GCU Flexible Demeanour

SireOfSeth wrote: »

So pretty much a non-issue then

I'm not sure if your joking, or you're attempting to beat the record for the most blatant distortion of the campaign.

jobbridge4life

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not sure if your joking, or you're attempting to beat the record for the most blatant distortion of the campaign.

Sorry but the No side have that firmly in the bag, not only that but the bag has been locked away safely in Iona HQ vaults.

CramCycle

I got the Iona institutes leaflet in the door yesterday.

Great political talk, a load of statements that sound like they are saying something but they are not, a couple of major inaccuracies, a couple of misleading statements.

Nice

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

The two persons is new if you vote yes adding discrimination against certain relationships. Why even add it unless you purposely want to discriminatie

So riddle me this. You have raised polygamy a number of times. How will polygamy be achieved if SSM are not allowed? Surely you need at least two of the same sex to achieve polygamy.

So vote Yes to achieve your goal of polygamy. We will be one step closer because as Winston Churchill said "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."

galljga1

traprunner wrote: »

So riddle me this. You have raised polygamy a number of times. How will polygamy be achieved if SSM are not allowed? Surely you need at least two of the same sex to achieve polygamy.

So vote Yes to achieve your goal of polygamy. We will be one step closer because as Winston Churchill said "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."

I go along with Trap. Make this change happen and campaign for further change as you see necessary. You will have my support as I do not see it impacting me negatively.

gravehold

traprunner wrote: »

So riddle me this. You have raised polygamy a number of times. How will polygamy be achieved if SSM are not allowed? Surely you need at least two of the same sex to achieve polygamy.

So vote Yes to achieve your goal of polygamy. We will be one step closer because as Winston Churchill said "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."

This referendum needs to fail and next one be worded so it doesn't discriminate. A yes vote in this referendum actually hurts it as they are adding discrimination not already there.

jobbridge4life

gravehold wrote: »

This referendum needs to fail and next one be worded so it doesn't discriminate. A yes vote in this referendum actually hurts it as they are adding discrimination not already there.

The constititution already prohibits polygamy. See Dunne J in H v A.

Also am I to understand you have given up your pretense of being a yes voter

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

This referendum needs to fail and next one be worded so it doesn't discriminate. A yes vote in this referendum actually hurts it as they are adding discrimination not already there.

No, this needs to pass so polygamists have a chance of lobbying and getting what the see as equality. They will be able to point and say: "Hey, it says 'two persons' in the constitution. It's discriminating against us. We want to change the status quo and increase it to 'two or more persons'". Now that would create possibly a smaller debate and much easier to win.

gravehold

traprunner wrote: »

No, this needs to pass so polygamists have a chance of lobbying and getting what the see as equality. They will be able to point and say: "Hey, it says 'two persons' in the constitution. It's discriminating against us. We want to change the status quo and increase it to 'two or more persons'". Now that would create possibly a smaller debate and much easier to win.

Yes vote in discrimination so they can lobby to remove, great logic there, there is strength in numbers fail this one and do it right next time if you want to call it equality.

Or just call it SSM referendum and we don't care about other relationships

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

Yes vote in discrimination so they can lobby to remove, great logic there, there is strength in numbers fail this one and do it right next time if you want to call it equality.

Or just call it SSM referendum and we don't care about other relationships

So what do you have against SSM? You have come up with every conceivable argument and each one has been shot to pieces. You want to discriminate against them when you have a chance to stop the inequality.

As I said this is probably the best stepping stone ever to achieve your ideal of a polygamous society. It will never be acceptable in Ireland to push straight away for "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two or more persons without distinction as to their sex.” Never ever would that get passed via referendum without the stepping stone.

gravehold

traprunner wrote: »

So what do you have against SSM? You have come up with every conceivable argument and each one has been shot to pieces. You want to discriminate against them when you have a chance to stop the inequality.

As I said this is probably the best stepping stone ever to achieve your ideal of a polygamous society. It will never be acceptable in Ireland to push straight away for "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two or more persons without distinction as to their sex.” Never ever would that get passed via referendum without the stepping stone.

You leave out the two people part, polygamous marraige is still not allowed cause illegal, you then lobby to decriminalised it like the gays in 93 and when it gets removed no need for another referendum cause you already redefined marraige.

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

You leave out the two people part, polygamous marraige is still not allowed cause illegal, you then lobby to decriminalised it like the gays in 93 and when it gets removed no need for another referendum cause you already redefined marraige.

You don't seem to get the fact that we can only vote on what's in front of us next week. Vote No and that will certainly be goodbye to polygamy for probably both our lifetimes (I do admit I have no idea of your age but I am young enough.)

Voting No will not make this go away. It will come back with the exact same wording in 3-5 years. Bit like the Lisbon treaty.

gravehold

traprunner wrote: »

You don't seem to get the fact that we can only vote on what's in front of us next week. Vote No and that will certainly be goodbye to polygamy for probably both our lifetimes (I do admit I have no idea of your age but I am young enough.)

Voting No will not make this go away. It will come back with the exact same wording in 3-5 years. Bit like the Lisbon treaty.

Why was the discriminatory wording added in the firstplace then call it equality, why not word it right from the start

CramCycle

gravehold wrote: »

This referendum needs to fail and next one be worded so it doesn't discriminate. A yes vote in this referendum actually hurts it as they are adding discrimination not already there.

It is already there, the constitution is already against it.

gravehold wrote: »

Why was the discriminatory wording added in the firstplace then call it equality, why not word it right from the start

While it is the first valid issue with the referendum that I have seen, voting no or yes does not change it. If you vote no, it is still against the constitution, if you vote yes, it is still against the constitution. A valid point/issue but not a valid reason to vote no.

Voting yes may be better, as it becomes less of a change the next time, small steps.

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

Why was the discriminatory wording added in the firstplace then call it equality, why not word it right from the start

No idea. Might be worth asking your local TD's (I think it was them that approved it. I wasn't involved in any of the meetings seeing that I'm just an ordinary joe soap.

sydthebeat

We will vote yes to remove the discrimination explicit in the constitution.