What do the LGBT Community want from a "Yes" Vote?

Snegg

So this is a question that has been bothering me for a bit in relation to the upcoming referendum.
Now I'd be lying if I said I was fully informed in the differences between marriage and a civil union, but I'll give this a go anyway.

So I am really curious and unaware as to what members of the LGBT community want want if a "yes" vote were to occur.

When I think of marriage, I think of a ceremony where a bride walks down the isle of a church, the priest does is job, and then bob's your uncle.

But with a "yes" vote, this will still not be the case, due to the fact that most religious institutions are against homosexual marriage (not something I entirely agree with, but that's a sad fact).

So with regards to the differences between a marriage and a civil union, all tax stuff and similar things are equal, so a "yes" vote will make no difference in that regard.

But the biggest thing I see a difference with comes back to family. Such as a family home and a shared home, and also the legally recognised relationship between a child and there biological parent.
My first question is, shouldn't the definition of a family be changed, as opposed to marriage?

And secondly, is it just that LGBT members want to be able to ask someone "Will you marry me?", and to tell people that "I'm married"?
Or is there something much more that I'm missing.

Right now I'm on the fence as to which way I'd vote. Although a lot of the "No Campaign" posters seem irrelevant to marriage (focusing on surrogacy and other irrelevant topics), there is one poster that stands out to me, which reads;
"We already have civil partnerships, why redefine marriage?"
To be honest I think that is a fair statement, and I would like to know why marriage needs to be redefined, as opposed to either redefining civil partnerships or the family.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

We're here! We're queer! We want free beer!

yerwanthere123

They want equality.

LadyAthame

So I am really curious and unaware as to what members of the LGBT community want want if a "yes" vote were to occur.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057367896

So I am really curious and unaware as to what members of the LGBT community want want if a "yes" vote were to occur.

Well then with all due respect there is not a lot of point talking to you until you are.

Snegg

LadyAthame wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057367896



Well then with all due respect there is not a lot of point talking to you until you are.

I was hoping maybe you would enlighten me?

endacl

I think they want to force priests to carry out religious ceremonies against their will, have babies by surrogacy so they can sacrifice them at said ceremonies, and happyslap nuns.

That's just from reading the no posters though, so I may be missing some other stuff.

househero

If there is a yes vote. Expect the live register to fall again... Married unemployed people get shafted out of welfare. The gov would be loving it.

LadyAthame

Snegg wrote: »

I was hoping maybe you would enlighten me?

I am so glad you asked.

There are over 160 statute differences between civil partnerships and marriage.

Canis Lupus

http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

Ultimately though for my interpretation it's simply about equality. Nothing religious if that's floating about your head. As long as we have one thing for gay people and one thing for hetro people there is a line between us even if it's a subtle one.

They're normal, average people, brothers and sisters and so on and so forth and they deserve to be able to marry someone if they fecking well want to.

Also there is a big thread on this already.

The Backwards Man

They want me to marry my dog

yerwanthere123

endacl wrote: »

happyslap nuns.

Finally a motion I can support.

Cookie_Monster

the tax break

Birneybau

The same rights straight people get when married, tax credits, legal recognition, straightforward transition of assets if one dies without a will. That kind of thing.

endacl

Birneybau wrote: »

The same rights straight people get when married, tax credits, legal recognition, straightforward transition of assets if one dies without a will. That kind of thing.

The right to tell mother in law jokes. That's a big one, apparently.

FloatingVoter

endacl wrote: »

The right to tell mother in law jokes. That's a big one, apparently.

We'll have to wait a generation. Because when Adam marries Steve, it'll be at least 16 years before their mutant baby Larry marries Harry.
Then Harry can tell us all about Steve.

endacl

FloatingVoter wrote: »

We'll have to wait a generation. Because when Adam marries Steve, it'll be at least 16 years before their mutant baby Larry marries Harry.
Then Harry can tell us all about Steve.

Tis complemicated all right...

FloatingVoter

endacl wrote: »

Tis complemicated all right...

Not half as complicated as the OP. I just saw mention of free beer.

blatantrereg

civil partnership doesn't offer the same legal rights as marriage. 160 statutory differences.

http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

It's not complicated. It's simple. They aren't allowed do something everyone else is allowed to do because they are a minority. It is outrageous discrimination.

It really has broader significance than just Ireland here. It will effect how people view the subject internationally - this is the first referendum on the matter. It will effect how people view Ireland. The stereotype doesn't make us seem the most progressive so wouldn't it be nice to go against that.

Personally I've never bothered voting before in my life but I think I would be ashamed if I didn't vote for this. Children in 15 years time will view anyone who votes against this with abject disgust.

Lyaiera

My Spud Rock band, Ambiguous Chips will be playing a Yes Equality fundraiser in The Hairy Potato on Friday. Do come along.

NotYourYear20

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

They want equality.

Yet why would they want to join heterosexual couples in the dying institution of marriage and share their misery & mistakes?

efb

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

Yet why would they want to join heterosexual couples in the dying institution of marriage and share their misery & mistakes?

Most people believe in Marriage

NotYourYear20

efb wrote: »

Most people believe in Marriage

In my own personal & professional experience I would disagree strongly. Marriage has increasingly become an institution where financial liquidity & associated resources, usually determines whether a marriage will be a success or failure. The last seven years exemplify this perfectly. If some people 'believed' in marriage, then the vows they utter would actually mean something. Instead I've seen countless partners abandoned once the going gets tough. Which suggests marriage is increasingly becoming more of a financial convenience, rather than a coupling based upon undying love & loyalty.

eternal

Quit the moaning. Why shouldn't a homosexual have the same options as a guy and a girl to come together? Regardless of all the cynicism involved, people should have the right to choose who they settle down with. You can go on and on but the fact remains that if people really truly love each other then they will want to be together and the law should not stop that.

Geniass

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

In my own personal & professional experience I would disagree strongly. Marriage has increasingly become an institution where financial liquidity & associated resources, usually determines whether a marriage will be a success or failure. The last seven years exemplify this perfectly. If some people 'believed' in marriage, then the vows they utter would actually mean something. Instead I've seen countless partners abandoned once the going gets tough. Which suggests marriage is increasingly becoming more of a financial convenience, rather than a coupling based upon undying love & loyalty.

That's an argument (as such) for doing away marriage for everyone, not giving the LGBT an opportunity to be equally miserable as everyone else. :-)

JuliusCaesar

blatantrereg wrote: »

civil partnership doesn't offer the same legal rights as marriage. 160 statutory differences.

It's not complicated. It's simple. They aren't allowed do something everyone else is allowed to do because they are a minority. It is outrageous discrimination.

And strangely enough, there's no option for heterosexual couple to have a civil partnership, should they happen to prefer that option to getting married.

efb wrote: »

Most people believe in Marriage

Yes, we all have to believe in it, seeing nobody will give us a copy of the contract with all the small print

eternal wrote: »

Quit the moaning. Why shouldn't a homosexual have the same options as a guy and a girl to come together? Regardless of all the cynicism involved, people should have the right to choose who they settle down with. You can go on and on but the fact remains that if people really truly love each other then they will want to be together and the law should not stop that.

OP, your problem is confusing the religious ceremony with getting married. You know the bit in the church ceremony where the couple 'sign the register'? That's the civil marriage bit, the bit that's recognised by the State. If that wasn't done, the couple would have a religious marriage BUT it would not be recognised by the state. That's why kids can have a play marriage, but nobody dreams of holding them to it - it's not a real marriage, it's not recognised by the State.

Many people have just the State bit and leave out the religion, and get married in a Registry Office, or in a hotel by the Registrar - and are married. No priest/imam/rabbi/druid necessary.

Hope that explains it.

Think of all the atheists who would otherwise have to swallow their bile to walk up an aisle!! :eek:

galljga1

Essentially, equality is what they want. Click on the link in post 9, it is pretty much explained within. Within the page there is a link to 160 differences.

What they do not want is another thread regurgitating the same arguments.

galljga1

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

And strangely enough, there's no option for heterosexual couple to have a civil partnership, should they happen to prefer that option to getting married.

That is a good point. Am I right in saying that it will be made equal after the yes vote as civil partnership will no longer be available?

efb

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

In my own personal & professional experience I would disagree strongly. Marriage has increasingly become an institution where financial liquidity & associated resources, usually determines whether a marriage will be a success or failure. The last seven years exemplify this perfectly. If some people 'believed' in marriage, then the vows they utter would actually mean something. Instead I've seen countless partners abandoned once the going gets tough. Which suggests marriage is increasingly becoming more of a financial convenience, rather than a coupling based upon undying love & loyalty.

So anecdotal evidence then

Annasopra

It's really very simple

Constitutionally recognised civil marriage equality.

kylith

Snegg wrote: »

When I think of marriage, I think of a ceremony where a bride walks down the isle of a church, the priest does is job, and then bob's your uncle.

The problem there is that you're confusing marriage with a wedding. The wedding is the ceremony, a marriage is a civil contract entered into by two people.

If what you think of as 'marriage' were true then people who have the ceremony performed in a registry office wouldn't be married, yet they most definitely are.

Gay people want to be able into the same civil marriage contract as straight people, which they are currently unable to do. They wish to be entitled to the same protection under law, and to have the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual married couple.

No one will be forcing priests to perform a ceremony of marriage for gay people, though knowing the church's love for cash I'd say it won't be long before they decide to get in on the act.

Annasopra

galljga1 wrote: »

That is a good point. Am I right in saying that it will be made equal after the yes vote as civil partnership will no longer be available?

Yes.

El_Duderino 09

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

In my own personal & professional experience I would disagree strongly. Marriage has increasingly become an institution where financial liquidity & associated resources, usually determines whether a marriage will be a success or failure. The last seven years exemplify this perfectly. If some people 'believed' in marriage, then the vows they utter would actually mean something. Instead I've seen countless partners abandoned once the going gets tough. Which suggests marriage is increasingly becoming more of a financial convenience, rather than a coupling based upon undying love & loyalty.

That's your experience but it's still a right which is afforded to some people and not to others based on the arbitrary point of gender. This referendum will rectify that inequality.

I don't for a second buy your cynical view of marriage as a necessary conclusion to entering into marriage but let's say for argument sake you're right and marriage is all about having the money to make it work. So what? Gays should be as free to get married as anyone. Going by your experience, marriage should be quite successful among wealthy gays so maybe you should propose banning marriage among poor people. But let's let the gays give it a shot

Snegg

Grand, so there are all these legal differences between a Cilvil Partnerships and marriage.

So would people be happy if the definition of a Civil Partnership was changed, to make it have the same legal status as marriage, but still keep the two separate?

elfy4eva

Snegg wrote: »

Grand, so there are all these legal differences between a Cilvil Partnerships and marriage.

So would people be happy if the definition of a Civil Partnership was changed, to make it have the same legal status as marriage, but still keep the two separate?

not usually one to quote south park but this seems relevent...

kylith

Snegg wrote: »

Grand, so there are all these legal differences between a Cilvil Partnerships and marriage.

So would people be happy if the definition of a Civil Partnership was changed, to make it have the same legal status as marriage, but still keep the two separate?

But if it has the same legal status and everything as marriage why not just call it marriage and have done with it? What would be the point in having two identical systems with different names? It'd be needlessly exclusionary.

Snegg

kylith wrote: »

But if it has the same legal status and everything as marriage why not just call it marriage and have done with it? What would be the point in having two identical systems with different names? It'd be needlessly exclusionary.

So this isn't necessarily my point of view, but the argument is there, that marriage is a cultural and historical thing, that doesn't need to be changed.
Why wouldn't people be happy with Civil Partnerships with equal rights to marriage?
Is it the term "marriage" that is the single most important thing?

Just playing devils advocate here.

Pherekydes

Snegg wrote: »

So this isn't necessarily my point of view, but the argument is there, that marriage is a cultural and historical thing, that doesn't need to be changed.

It does need to be changed. It was changed before, to admit divorce. Now it's being changed again.

By the way, thanks to all the peeps who voted to allow divorce. Without it I couldn't have married again (in a registry office).

Now it's payback. Vote yes!

"I never understood the hate on a n*gga's preference
When every marriage is a same sex marriage
Same sex everyday, monotonous"
- Childish Gambino

Admittedly has nothing to do with anything, but is still a kick ass song.

kylith

Snegg wrote: »

So this isn't necessarily my point of view, but the argument is there, that marriage is a cultural and historical thing, that doesn't need to be changed.
Why wouldn't people be happy with Civil Partnerships with equal rights to marriage?
Is it the term "marriage" that is the single most important thing?

Just playing devils advocate here.

Marriage has been changed a multitude of times, even within recent history. It existed before Christianity and it will continue when Christianity is something children learn about in schools like we learned about ancient Egypt. Marriage is not some sacrosanct, immutable thing; it is a human construct that we get to define however we wish. Regardless, allowing gay people to get married won't change marriage any more than allowing women to vote changed voting; i.e. not at all.

Again, why would you have two identical things and call them by different names? If you have two identical things that look like ducks, walk like ducks, and quack like ducks why would you maintain that one of them is a duck and one isn't?

Saying 'lets just make CP have all the same rights as marriage, but not call it marriage' is, to me, like saying 'What was Rosa Parks' problem. So what if she had to sit at the back of the bus, it still went to the same destination'. Making CP the exact same as marriage, but not allowing gay people to get 'married' is still telling them that that they're different, they're not allowed to join our club.

oldrnwisr

Snegg wrote: »

But with a "yes" vote, this will still not be the case, due to the fact that most religious institutions are against homosexual marriage (not something I entirely agree with, but that's a sad fact).

This vote only refers to civil marriage, i.e. marriages which are legal from the state's point of view. A yes vote will not have any impact on the religious view of marriage nor will it compel religious denominations to perform same-sex marriages. In fact, the church (and other religions) are constitutionally protected in this regard. Under Article 44.5:

Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.

Solemnising marriage according to their own religious beliefs would fall under managing its own affairs as far as the constitution is concerned.

Snegg wrote: »

So with regards to the differences between a marriage and a civil union, all tax stuff and similar things are equal, so a "yes" vote will make no difference in that regard.

Other posters have already pointed out that there are a great many legal differences between civil partnership and civil marriage. However, the problem is much bigger than that. Civil partnership is just a piece of legislation which means it is at the whim of the Oireachtas. A future government could simply decide to scrap it entirely. However a yes vote would give constitutional protection to same-sex marriage. Nothing short of a second referendum could take those rights away.

Snegg wrote: »

But the biggest thing I see a difference with comes back to family. Such as a family home and a shared home, and also the legally recognised relationship between a child and there biological parent.
My first question is, shouldn't the definition of a family be changed, as opposed to marriage?

Well you see, here's the thing. Firstly, family, like marriage is not explicitly defined in the constitution. Secondly, because the most basic purpose of marriage is to create a legal familial bond between two people who are previously unrelated, under our constitution, two people who are married without children are considered a family but two people with children who are not married are not considered a family.
There is such a wide variety of family forms in society that the constitution is better not to be too explicit in defining what the family should or shouldn't be.

kneemos

Bet a gay wedding reception would be rocking.

bee06

Snegg wrote: »

So this isn't necessarily my point of view, but the argument is there, that marriage is a cultural and historical thing, that doesn't need to be changed.
Why wouldn't people be happy with Civil Partnerships with equal rights to marriage?
Is it the term "marriage" that is the single most important thing?

Just playing devils advocate here.

Slavery was a cultural and historical thing there for a while too so did that not need to be changed? Just because something has been a certain way for a while doesn't mean it can't be changed to be different / better.

El_Duderino 09

Snegg wrote: »

Grand, so there are all these legal differences between a Cilvil Partnerships and marriage.

So would people be happy if the definition of a Civil Partnership was changed, to make it have the same legal status as marriage, but still keep the two separate?

Separate but equal? If you're OK with them being equal then why would you want to keep them separate? The only motivation for separate but equal, is bigotry.

garbeth

Great piece in the Irish Times today on the poster mentioned in the OP.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/noel-whelan-what-s-the-difference-between-civil-partnership-and-marriage-1.2195514

It shows in simple terms some of the differences between civil partnership and marriage.

There should be No "THEY" in a republic We should all be equal.

Vote YES on May 22nd.

Ghost Buster

Snegg wrote: »

So this is a question that has been bothering me for a bit in relation to the upcoming referendum.
Now I'd be lying if I said I was fully informed in the differences between marriage and a civil union, but I'll give this a go anyway.

So I am really curious and unaware as to what members of the LGBT community want want if a "yes" vote were to occur.

When I think of marriage, I think of a ceremony where a bride walks down the isle of a church, the priest does is job, and then bob's your uncle.

But with a "yes" vote, this will still not be the case, due to the fact that most religious institutions are against homosexual marriage (not something I entirely agree with, but that's a sad fact).

So with regards to the differences between a marriage and a civil union, all tax stuff and similar things are equal, so a "yes" vote will make no difference in that regard.

But the biggest thing I see a difference with comes back to family. Such as a family home and a shared home, and also the legally recognised relationship between a child and there biological parent.
My first question is, shouldn't the definition of a family be changed, as opposed to marriage?

And secondly, is it just that LGBT members want to be able to ask someone "Will you marry me?", and to tell people that "I'm married"?
Or is there something much more that I'm missing.

Right now I'm on the fence as to which way I'd vote. Although a lot of the "No Campaign" posters seem irrelevant to marriage (focusing on surrogacy and other irrelevant topics), there is one poster that stands out to me, which reads;
"We already have civil partnerships, why redefine marriage?"
To be honest I think that is a fair statement, and I would like to know why marriage needs to be redefined, as opposed to either redefining civil partnerships or the family.

And a good many, and increasingly so, do not.
I had a registry marriage and a bloody good party and my (mostly) catholic friends and family found it much more meaningful than many of the merc and merangue church weddings they usually attend.

MonkeyTennis

Being treated equally is an end in itself.

JupiterKid

Equality, pure and simple. I don't want to be treated as a 2nd class citizen.

The Diabolical Monocle

OP asked a bold question.

no bold questions allowed.


hope the zero carbon, fair trade, trans-gender hand made, fascist whips made from hemp and offense tears didn't hurt you too much OP.

jobbridge4life

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

OP asked a bold question.

no bold questions allowed.


hope the zero carbon, fair trade, trans-gender hand made, fascist whips made from hemp and offense tears didn't hurt you too much OP.

For people who love to ridicule the idea of victim based politics the new right sure do love portraying themselves that way.:rolleyes:

jobbridge4life

I want to be an equal citizen in my own country it really is that simple. I want my relationship with my partner to be entitled to the same recognition under the law as my siblings with theirs.

Ghost Buster

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

OP asked a bold question.

no bold questions allowed.


hope the zero carbon, fair trade, trans-gender hand made, fascist whips made from hemp and offense tears didn't hurt you too much OP.

Just 4 lines in demonstrates that the OP can only fathom Church based traditional marriage so it was also a dumb short sighted question.