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

The Diabolical Monocle

Ghost Buster wrote: »

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

looks to me like he went to pains to explain it was just a question.

Trudiha

I got married in the UK because it closed a lot of legal loopholes, made my wife's position more secure and it's my easier for my dementia suffering father to say 'daughter-in-law' than the less slippy-off-the-tongue Civil-Partner-In-Law, that he so valiantly attempted but didn't always manage to get in the right order.

LadyAthame

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?

Definitions cannot be the same and separate they are not physical entities. two legal definitions are one definition and you cannot enter that one definition into the law under two different legal terms. That would lead to legal ....nonsense. ..that's the only way to describe that.

Snegg. You're confusing statutory law with constitutional laws. Statory laws mus tbe in harmoney with the constitution and not the other way around. We the electorate can vote on the constitution. We cannot legislate statutory laws. And in fact the legislative body does not need our permission to do so so long as they are in harmony with the constitution they can do what they like and even when it's legistlating for constitutional changes they seem to like doing what pleases them like waiting almost 20 yrs for a change to abortion statutory laws. There was no constitutional issue for gay families. There was however no statutory provision for them. The legistlative body ...govt &law makers those gobsh*tes. ...legislated for that. ..they don't need to ask anyone's permission to do so. That is because LEGALLY it is not a constitutional issue. There are things in the statutes that RECOGNIZE not define recognize marriage as part of the family unit. But there are also statutory legislation now to recognize gay adoptions. The govt does not need your permission to do that.
These families exist. And the law recognizes this. It simply does not give them as many rights.

The govt does not have to give a hoot about what the electorate thinks of it's legislation so long as it is in harmony with the constitution. That's why we already have gay adoption without a referendum they didn't need one.

We are being asked to change the constitutional definition of marriage to include same sex couples. Not your definition, the constitutional definition. We are not being asked to change anything else about it. We will still leave single parent families and divorced families not being recognized.

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.

Well the funny thing is the constitution does not recognize the relationship between a child and the biological parents as being family at all.

Interestingly ..the constitution does not recognize as equal the single parent family unit. It does not recognize as equal the divorced family unit nor the cohabitation family unit. Yet the law on the statutes and the family courts acknowledges these families exist but is less generous to them. It does not recognize a divorced father as part of a family unit should the mother remarry and vica versa but recognizes the remarried couple . It only recognizes married two parent families. All others have lesser rights....each group offended by this tends to take it rather personally . Men feel rightly aggrieved....but mistakenly think it's against the daddies ...nope your whole family is not legally recognized as a family unit....you all even your kids get ****ed over in different ways....you are all dirty sinners. Isn't all that nice?:(

If you are asking should we redefine the Irish family, I would say YES:) let's go for it! But we are not. The Irish constitution does not define the relationship between single mother or single father and child as a family unit. So saying family is based of biological ties is kind of a mute point especially for the right of the no side.

The electorate will not be asked for it's opinion on statutory laws. We are only asked to make amendments to the constitution. Statutory law must be in harmony with the constitution law not the other way around.

darkpagandeath

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

They want equality.

How do you get that ? Even after the referendum you will not be able to demand a religious institution marry you in the religious ceremony.

LadyAthame

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How do you get that ? Even after the referendum you will not be able to demand a religious institution marry you in the religious ceremony.

Legal equality before the state.

jobbridge4life

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How do you get that ? Even after the referendum you will not be able to demand a religious institution marry you in the religious ceremony.

Neither can straight people.

Anita Blow

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?

Besides the pointlessness of giving CP all the same benefits of marriage but just not calling it marriage, the government can't legally do that. The Attorney General has stated that it would be unconstitutional to confer the benefits of marriage to non-marital relationships.

Anita Blow

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How do you get that ? Even after the referendum you will not be able to demand a religious institution marry you in the religious ceremony.

This has nothing to do with religious marriage. Religious marriage will be entirely unaffected by this referendum and no church will ever have to carry out a same-sex wedding. This is purely about civil marriage with the HSE performing the ceremony (as in existing civil marriages between 2 heterosexual people), which is a legal contract.

bb1234567

Do we need another gay marriage thread though

eviltwin

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

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

That's not for you to question. Why does anyone get married. It's about letting gay couples have the choice to do so if they wish.

ShoulderChip

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.

Okay, lets imagine the above was true, that the tax and other legal implications were the same, and lets imagine that you chose not to get married in a church.
You nowhave a choice of two things, to get legaly married or to enter into a legal civil partnership, which one would you chose?
And bearing that decision in mind are you still content to disallow homosexuals to have that choice.

Now take a few steps back and realise that they are not equal, that yes as has been mentioned there are 160 legal differences.

The first question proves that it would be worth fighting for equality even if there were no other considerations, the second question goes further than that.

wupucus

Two men getting married - it's ridiculous

bb1234567

wupucus wrote: »

Two men getting married - it's ridiculous

sigh

ShoulderChip

wupucus wrote: »

Two men getting married - it's ridiculous

ha why is that?, are you one of those feminine men who prefer to go to bed with petite sleek woman with soft skin beside you who smell good and put on makeup?

Gay marriage is for real men who are not afraid of other strong men

Edit: this was all very tongue in cheek, apologise if the tone/humour doesn't come across well

Zxclnic

wupucus wrote: »

Two men getting married - it's ridiculous

Two men getting married - it's ridiculous, so it is Ted.
fyp

I'm not a member of the LGBT community, but if I were then my one-word answer to the question posed in the thread title would be....Equality.

jobbridge4life

wupucus wrote: »

Two men getting married - it's ridiculous

Katie 'Jordan' Price and Proto-Musclehead No.4 getting married - it's ridiculous...

Still legal though.

lazygal

wupucus wrote: »

Two men getting married - it's ridiculous

Any more ridiculous than Britney Spears getting married for 55 hours?

LoganRice

Some No voters have this idea that marriage is only ever sacred and holy and a start to a special relationship but truthfully some people get married all the time for reasons to do with immigration, drunkenness, for fun and so much more. i can understand that the no side has this ideal form of marriage but they are neglecting that a lot of people get married for those kinds of reasons, not because of love or religion or family... so i dont see why 2 people who actually do like each other a lot cant do this yet?

Snegg

Ok, so now I am more then aware that there a plenty of differences between marriage and a civil partnership in the eyes of the state. Admittedly, I didn't no this at the start, but it is something that just isn't right.

I probably didn't make myself clear in the original post, but I was fully aware that this referendum has absolutely nothing to with a religious institution's definition on marriage, as church and state are two entirely separate entities, as they should be. Someone earlier in the thread said,"I had a registry marriage and a bloody good party". The reason I mentioned the "traditional" idea of a wedding, was that with a yes vote, a "traditional" marriage will still not be an option, because the church's definition is not changing (which I was fully aware of). But with a yes vote, won't the process of having a civil marriage, just be the exact same as the process of starting a civil partnership, just the terminology will be different? (But that was me assuming that the status of a civil partnership as the same as marriage).
You may have seen what Roddy Doyle recently published on his facebook page about the referendum (https://www.facebook.com/roddy.doyle?fref=ts).
One line that struck me in that is; "An’ me sister can have her big day as well."
Won't here "big day" be the same, regardless as to whether it's a marriage or civil partnership? (Again, that's provided both the status' of marriage and civil partnership are the same).

ohnonotgmail

Snegg wrote: »

Ok, so now I am more then aware that there a plenty of differences between marriage and a civil partnership in the eyes of the state. Admittedly, I didn't no this at the start, but it is something that just isn't right.

I probably didn't make myself clear in the original post, but I was fully aware that this referendum has absolutely nothing to with a religious institution's definition on marriage, as church and state are two entirely separate entities, as they should be. Someone earlier in the thread said,"I had a registry marriage and a bloody good party". The reason I mentioned the "traditional" idea of a wedding, was that with a yes vote, a "traditional" marriage will still not be an option, because the church's definition is not changing (which I was fully aware of). But with a yes vote, won't the process of having a civil marriage, just be the exact same as the process of starting a civil partnership, just the terminology will be different? (But that was me assuming that the status of a civil partnership as the same as marriage).
You may have seen what Roddy Doyle recently published on his facebook page about the referendum (https://www.facebook.com/roddy.doyle?fref=ts).
One line that struck me in that is; "An’ me sister can have her big day as well."
Won't here "big day" be the same, regardless as to whether it's a marriage or civil partnership? (Again, that's provided both the status' of marriage and civil partnership are the same).

but they are not so the question is moot.

LadyAthame

Snegg wrote: »

But with a yes vote, won't the process of having a civil marriage, just be the exact same as the process of starting a civil partnership, just the terminology will be different?
Won't here "big day" be the same, regardless as to whether it's a marriage or civil partnership? (Again, that's provided both the status' of marriage and civil partnership are the same).

No for the last time. It is not possible to have the same legal definition and same statute rights for two different legal terms and institutions. That is logically impossible. You cannot give equal status on the statutes to two different institutions without making them the same. And you cannot legislate to make civil partnerships equal without a yes vote it would be conning the constitution. We are meant to vote to amend the constitution not con the way around it because a referendum makes some people uncomfortable.

dreamers75

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.

To summarise if you vote no and yes wins your life wont change a single ****ing bit, if you vote yes and no wins your life wont change a ****ing bit.

The same applies to the LGBT people yes and no, it wont change their lives in any ****ing way other than they get a new piece of paper or dont.

What an utter waste of time this vote is.

Grayson

dreamers75 wrote: »

To summarise if you vote no and yes wins your life wont change a single ****ing bit, if you vote yes and no wins your life wont change a ****ing bit.

The same applies to the LGBT people yes and no, it wont change their lives in any ****ing way other than they get a new piece of paper or dont.

What an utter waste of time this vote is.

then why not just scrap marriage entirely? make everyone who's now married into a civil partner. Get rid of the terms Husband and wife. Everyone becomes partner.

Or we could decide that straight marriages become partnerships and gay partnetships become marriages. Suddenly every straight couple becomes a partner and only gay people are allowed refer to each other as husband and wife.

Can you imagine the outrage at that?

At the moment we are discriminating against a certain section of society. This vote will change that.

bee06

Snegg wrote: »

Won't here "big day" be the same, regardless as to whether it's a marriage or civil partnership? (Again, that's provided both the status' of marriage and civil partnership are the same).

As someone already pointed out, that "big day" is the wedding, not the marriage. I had my big day already. My marriage is something I'm experiencing every day and is so much more than a big party, dancing and cake.

El_Duderino 09

dreamers75 wrote: »

To summarise if you vote no and yes wins your life wont change a single ****ing bit, if you vote yes and no wins your life wont change a ****ing bit.

The same applies to the LGBT people yes and no, it wont change their lives in any ****ing way other than they get a new piece of paper or dont.

What an utter waste of time this vote is.

Is this ironic or did dreamers miss the point entirely?

Dreamers, it came up on page 1 that there are 160 differences between marriage and civil ppartnerships. Heterosexuals lives won't change a single bit but LGBT lives will change in 160 ways.

So no, not a pointless vote then.

Ghost Buster

wupucus wrote: »

Two men getting married - it's ridiculous

But two women getting married is grand cos sexy lezzers isnt icky and good **** material?

Cold War Kid

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is this ironic or did dreamers miss the point entirely?

Dreamers, it came up on page 1 that there are 160 differences between marriage and civil ppartnerships. Heterosexuals lives won't change a single bit but LGBT lives will change in 160 ways.

So no, not a pointless vote then.

A few people like to go on about how they don't care and it's pointless and boring and so on - wish I were as cool as them.
Real "It doesn't affect me so therefore nobody cares" stuff. Kinda like a six-year-old's outlook on life.

El_Duderino 09

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

That's impossible though.

So are you suggesting we shouldn't try shouldn't try? That thing you just said was fairly ridiculous, did you know that?

Do you object to everyone who has fought to improve your life up to this point? Should they not have bothered either?

Zubeneschamali

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How do you get that ? Even after the referendum you will not be able to demand a religious institution marry you in the religious ceremony.

You might not be aware of this, but many religious institutions have been quite hostile to gays for the last thousand years or more, and hence are not high on gay people's list of folks to have at the wedding.

Trudiha

The other thing that I'll personally get from a 'yes' vote is that the whole fecking thing will be over. I won't have to hear it implied on a daily basis the I'm probably a child molester.

I won't have to hear academic research dismissed or twisted to suit the needs of anyone who doesn't have the balls to come out and say that they don't like the idea of bum sex.

I will be able to go back to looking at my Facebook feed and seeing my friends who are raising happy, healthy kids and not worry that those children will be looking up at posters that imply that their families are no good.

I won't have to hear time and time again that men who've given their children nothing more than a genetic inheritance are more 'parents' than those actually raising their kids.

I won't have to listen to bigots saying bigoted things who then become outraged that I have the cheek to point out that they are being bigoted. Ditto homophobic and ditto sexist.

I won't have to listen to anyone tell me that they've nothing against me but I just shouldn't be afforded the same protection as them because I'm queer, not that they have any problems with my queerness.

I won't have to hear that I shouldn't be treated equally because single fathers/travellers/the unemployed also get a hard time.

I won't have to hear that I shouldn't be treated equally because folks don't like Enda/water charges/IMF/ECB because we all know that the gays are totally responsible for the state of the economy.

And incest, sex with animals, that a father might have to discuss periods with his daughter or that private patients might get seen before public ones. All of this loopy-ness might still be buzzing around in folks' heads but I'm really looking forward to a time when it stops falling out of their mouths.

Billy86

Snegg wrote: »

"We already have civil partnerships, why redefine marriage?"

The church already did that, all that allowing same sex marriage would do in this sense would be to return marriage go it's original state, and to finally respect the tradition of marriage.

The first recorded marriage stretches I believe back to something like 2,400 BC, with the first recorded gay marriage only about 50 years after. It was organised religions such as Christianity who disrespected the meaning and tradition of marriage by banning forms of it, such as gay marriage in the Theodosian Code laws of 342 AD.

What we will see in a few weeks when the yes vote wins is just a long overdue return to normality.

Billy86

dreamers75 wrote: »

To summarise if you vote no and yes wins your life wont change a single ****ing bit, if you vote yes and no wins your life wont change a ****ing bit.

The same applies to the LGBT people yes and no, it wont change their lives in any ****ing way other than they get a new piece of paper or dont.

What an utter waste of time this vote is.

A little piece of paper that makes over 160 differences to their lives. And reverts marriage back to what it originally and traditionally was in the first place. Yeah, completely pointless.