SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Friend Computer · 04-07-2014 01:02PM

floggg wrote: »

I think the last few pages have shown the dangers of the yea side getting a bit too righteous and demanding.

You're damn right we're (some of us are, at least) righteous and demanding! I think what's being forgotten in all this is that there are gay people here, in this discussion right now (myself included) who are the ones being impacted by all this.

People, here, basically telling me and others that we are inferior to them and don't deserve the same rights, we're potential paedophiles, etc.. And this has been going on for years now. So you'll have to excuse me if I feel a little indignant and don't rightly give two ****s about their preciousness.

Corkfeen · 04-07-2014 01:05PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

...in your opinion (and mine btw). But they have every right to do so. The sooner the Yes side (represented on here) accept that and move on, the better.

I referred to the Swiss case earlier where the right of women to vote wasn't brought in,in some districts till 1989. (Court forced them to) Would you say it was wrong to vote against a woman's vote to right to vote or wrong in one person's opinion? Voting to limit rights is wrong.

shane7218 · 04-07-2014 01:06PM

Friend Computer wrote: »

You're damn right we're (some of us are, at least) righteous and demanding! I think what's being forgotten in all this is that there are gay people here, in this discussion right now (myself included) who are the ones being impacted by all this.

People, here, basically telling me and others that we are inferior to them and don't deserve the same rights, we're potential paedophiles, etc.. So you'll have to excuse me if I feel a little indignant and don't rightly give two ****s about their preciousness.

Well said!!!.How some people think they have the right to dictate how you live your life is a disgrace. The fact that their even has to be a referendum on this is a disgrace and anyone that would vote no to this as far as Im concerned is a despicable person because it won't affect you in anyway but you are hurting other's and stopping there love from being officially recognized

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 01:09PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

I referred to the Swiss case earlier where the right of women to vote wasn't brought in,in some districts till 1989. (Court forced them to) Would you say it was wrong to vote against a woman's vote to right to vote or wrong in one person's opinion? Voting to limit rights is wrong.

In my opinion it is wrong. I would have voted in support of a woman's right to vote.

I think there is no "corporate" wrong. You will never find an issue where 100% of everyone agrees with. That's why we have our votes.

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 01:12PM

shane7218 wrote: »

Well said!!!.How some people think they have the right to dictate how you live your life is a disgrace. The fact that their even has to be a referendum on this is a disgrace.....

People are not voting on people's lives. People are voting on how our society defines marriage. We all get a say in that, we have to.

If a particular government wanted, for example, to (re) outlaw divorce, they would (rightly) be hampered by the fact that our society has enshrined access to divorce in our constitution.

Kiwi in IE · 04-07-2014 01:15PM

If the wording was poor (e.g not allowing religious institutions from being able to refuse to preform same gender marriages). Then the population would have to demand that it be re worded and another referendum carried out. Any wording like that would have to be intentional sabotage however and I doubt that it will be the case.

If the wording included an insistence that churches preform same gender weddings, most of us (even the staunchest on the yes side) would probably not be particulary comfortable voting for it. Although of we voted yes despite that, it would provide religious groups with a taste of their own, ongoing, longstanding medicine that they inflict on the rest of us!

Annasopra · 04-07-2014 01:17PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

People are not voting on people's lives. People are voting on how our society defines marriage. We all get a say in that, we have to.

If a particular government wanted, for example, to (re) outlaw divorce, they would (rightly) be hampered by the fact that our society has enshrined access to divorce in our constitution.

Why do we all have to get a say in the definition of marriage?

Corkfeen · 04-07-2014 01:20PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

In my opinion it is wrong. I would have voted in support of a woman's right to vote.

I think there is no "corporate" wrong. You will never find an issue where 100% of everyone agrees with. That's why we have our votes.

Grand job,so for now on we'll classify people who hold racist views where they wish to limit the rights of another ethnicity as an opinion but not wrong.

P_1 · 04-07-2014 01:21PM

Out of interest what would the preferred wording of the question be?

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 01:22PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why do we all have to get a say in the definition of marriage?

Because it is an institution that is essentially the property of society.

In the normal course of events, this would be resolved by representative democracy - our TDs and Senators would legislate for SSM on our behalf.

This would be unlikely to work in this case becasue marriage is flagged and "protected" in the constitution. If our politicians legislated for SSM without reference to our constitution it would (imho and the opinion of Govt) be open to a legal challenge. By voting and changing the constitution we could enshrine SSM in our constitution and make it (as near as possible) water-tight.

NuMarvel · 04-07-2014 01:30PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But everyone gets a say in how society chooses to define civil marriage - and it is a choice, we choose to say that you must be over 16, we choose to say that you may, under certain conditions break the contract, we choose to say that it must be registered and we choose (at the moment) to say it must be a contract between one man and one woman.

It's not correct to say that everyone in society has a say in the definition of civil marriage. There are proposals to remove exemptions for under 18 year olds, but that will be done by changing the law, not the Constitution.

The only time the Irish public have expressly voted on marriage is in the divorce referendum, and that was because the Constitution categorically stated that divorce wasn't allowed: "No law shall be enacted providing for the grant of a dissolution of marriage." In all other circumstances, laws on marriage have been made either by the courts through case law, or the Oireachtas through passing new laws.

Not that I want to get into a debate about whether or not we should have a referendum; at the end of the day we are, and that's unlikely to change. But let's be clear the decision on eligibility to marry is usually made by judges or politicians, not voters.

Otacon · 04-07-2014 01:34PM

I don't understand why some are against redefining marriage (TBH 'redefining' isn't even the right word IMO, more 'altering the scope')? The amendment would not have any effect on the marriages that currently exist or will exist between heterosexual couples.

Kiwi in IE · 04-07-2014 01:35PM

Friend Computer wrote: »

You're damn right we're (some of us are, at least) righteous and demanding! I think what's being forgotten in all this is that there are gay people here, in this discussion right now (myself included) who are the ones being impacted by all this.

People, here, basically telling me and others that we are inferior to them and don't deserve the same rights, we're potential paedophiles, etc.. And this has been going on for years now. So you'll have to excuse me if I feel a little indignant and don't rightly give two ****s about their preciousness.

I am a straight, married, 30 something mother and there is no debate that infuriates me more than this one! I admire the restraint and temperament of LGTB people during these discussions. In your position I'm not sure I'd be able to refrain from civil disobedience, never mind abuse and obscenities during debate!

If I have a LGBT child we would not live/remain in a jurisdiction where they are treated a second class citizens under any circumstances.

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 01:37PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's not correct to say that everyone in society has a say in the definition of civil marriage. There are proposals to remove exemptions for under 18 year olds, but that will be done by changing the law, not the Constitution.

See my comment directly above (your one) which addresses this point.

NuMarvel wrote: »

But let's be clear the decision on eligibility to marry is usually made by judges or politicians, not voters.

It is made by politicians when there is zero constitutional doubt. It is made by judges when they are asked to give a judgement on any doubt (ultimately with reference to the constitution). It is made by voters when the constitution must be changed or clarrified.

NuMarvel · 04-07-2014 01:49PM

P_1 wrote: »

Out of interest what would the preferred wording of the question be?

It's going to be a bit tricky, because the Constitution doesn't expressly say who is or isn't eligible to marry. So there isn't a piece you can change or amend, it'll be a new inclusion.

My thinking is a new line in Article 41.3.1, which currently says "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" I'm thinking we add a second sentence so it would look like:

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. All laws enacted by the State on a person’s eligibility to marry shall be made without distinction of sex or gender.

That keeps it very simple, it doesn't give the State anymore powers that it already has, and the only obligation it places on the State is that marriage laws can't be restricted on the basis of sex or gender (which is what the members of the Constitutional Convention recommended). I suggest including both sex and gender to make sure that transgender people aren't unintentionally left out, but that may be unnecessary, depending on the wording of transgender legislation.

floggg · 04-07-2014 03:31PM

Friend Computer wrote: »

You're damn right we're (some of us are, at least) righteous and demanding! I think what's being forgotten in all this is that there are gay people here, in this discussion right now (myself included) who are the ones being impacted by all this.

People, here, basically telling me and others that we are inferior to them and don't deserve the same rights, we're potential paedophiles, etc.. And this has been going on for years now. So you'll have to excuse me if I feel a little indignant and don't rightly give two ****s about their preciousness.

I'm gay too, but I understand the modern democratic process.

I heart internet was catching flack for pointing out that while we may not agree with their reasoning, people are allowed take their religious beliefs into account when voting. Like it or not, he was right.

While it think it's a stupid basis to vote, I understand that in no way whatsoever we can tell people on what basis they can or cannot vote. We can seek to influence or persuade them, but at the end of the day they can vote whatever way they want.

I think it's a bit rich if the LGBT community was to try achieve equal rights by attempting to delimited or take away rights of others!

The whole criticism of his point showed a fundamental lack of understanding of politics and the democratic process.

P_1 · 04-07-2014 03:32PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's going to be a bit tricky, because the Constitution doesn't expressly say who is or isn't eligible to marry. So there isn't a piece you can change or amend, it'll be a new inclusion.

My thinking is a new line in Article 41.3.1, which currently says "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" I'm thinking we add a second sentence so it would look like:

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. All laws enacted by the State on a person’s eligibility to marry shall be made without distinction of sex or gender.

That keeps it very simple, it doesn't give the State anymore powers that it already has, and the only obligation it places on the State is that marriage laws can't be restricted on the basis of sex or gender (which is what the members of the Constitutional Convention recommended). I suggest including both sex and gender to make sure that transgender people aren't unintentionally left out, but that may be unnecessary, depending on the wording of transgender legislation.

Yeah that seems sensible enough. Another line stating that there's no obligation on religions to offer it as a sacrament might be a good way to ease their concerns too.

Grayson · 04-07-2014 03:35PM

floggg wrote: »

I'm gay too, but I understand the modern democratic process.

I heart internet was catching flack for pointing out that while we may not agree with their reasoning, people are allowed take their religious beliefs into account when voting. Like it or not, he was right.

While it think it's a stupid basis to vote, I understand that in no way whatsoever we can tell people on what basis they can or cannot vote. We can seek to influence or persuade them, but at the end of the day they can vote whatever way they want.

I think it's a bit rich if the LGBT community was to try achieve equal rights by attempting to delimited or take away rights of others!

The whole criticism of his point showed a fundamental lack of understanding of politics and the democratic process.

I have no problem telling someone who votes against this because of their religion that they are a religious homophobic bigot. That's the great thing about here. They can say they'll vote that way. I can call them out on it.

floggg · 04-07-2014 03:39PM

Grayson wrote: »

I have no problem telling someone who votes against this because of their religion that they are a religious homophobic bigot. That's the great thing about here. They can say they'll vote that way. I can call them out on it.

I fully agree. Id almost go as far you would do them a disservice not pointing out their stupid bigotry.

I fully defend their right to be a stupid bigot though.

P_1 · 04-07-2014 03:44PM

floggg wrote: »

I fully agree. Id almost go as far you would do them a disservice not pointing out their stupid bigotry.

I fully defend their right to be a stupid bigot though.

But phrasing it is a tricky one. I mean saying to somebody 'you're a bigot' will just raise their heckles but saying to them 'sorry but your attitude is quite bigoted, have a think about what you just said' is a better way of getting the message across.

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 03:47PM

floggg wrote: »

The whole criticism of his point showed a fundamental lack of understanding of politics and the democratic process.

Thanks Floggg!

There is also a lack of knowledge (I've experienced it on boards before) of what civic society is and who is "allowed" to participate in it.

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 03:48PM

P_1 wrote: »

Yeah that seems sensible enough. Another line stating that there's no obligation on religions to offer it as a sacrament might be a good way to ease their concerns too.

I don't even think that is necessary, freedom of religion is protected elsewhere in the constitution. Less is more when it comes to these things.

P_1 · 04-07-2014 03:49PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I don't even think that is necessary, freedom of religion is protected elsewhere in the constitution. Less is more when it comes to these things.

True, possibly better as a message to get out loud and clear in the course of the campaign.

floggg · 04-07-2014 03:51PM

P_1 wrote: »

But phrasing it is a tricky one. I mean saying to somebody 'you're a bigot' will just raise their heckles but saying to them 'sorry but your attitude is quite bigoted, have a think about what you just said' is a better way of getting the message across.

Well I'm generally much more tempered off line, and for most people I would just gently point out the logical fallacies and lies in the no sides arguments.

At the end of the day though if they are unwilling or unable to accept the evidence presented, then being blunt is all you have left.

They are unlikely to change their opinion anyway, so why waste time on niceties!

constance tench · 04-07-2014 04:00PM

From Paddy Power: For 1/4, Against 5/2

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/irish-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1003224

Jamiekelly · 04-07-2014 04:05PM

I don't understand the whole Iona way of a thinking with this.

1. Its about being able to make babies too ya know?
2. God is part of your special day too and you should know that.

They tend to forgot (or simply choose not to bring up) the basic notion that in order for two people to commit the rest of their lives to each other, all that is needed is love.

To say someone elses love should not be recognised because people are uncomfortable with their sex lives or simply don't want to teach their kids about it being part of society now is for all intents and purposes insulting. Ignorance really is bliss to some people and I admire the LGBT community for demanding what should automatically have been given to them from day one.

Some human solidarity is really needed now more than ever...

Kiwi in IE · 04-07-2014 04:16PM

Bigots have a right to be so yes! But only in so far as their bigotry is not turned into actions that affect the group/groups that their bigotry is directed at.

Voting against the change of a bigoted, archaic, outdated law that affects the rights of others in my opinion crosses that line. I really think this law should simply be passed without public vote. My understanding of the constitution (which may be incorrect), is that it does not specify the gender make up of married couples, so I don't really understand why a referendum is essential?

P_1 · 04-07-2014 04:19PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Bigots have a right to be so yes! But only in so far as their bigotry is not turned into actions that affect the group/groups that their bigotry is directed at.

Voting against the change of a bigoted, archaic, outdated law that affects the rights of others in my opinion crosses that line. I really think this law should simply be passed without public vote. My understanding of the constitution (which may be incorrect), is that it does not specify the gender make up of married couples, so I don't really understand why a referendum is essential?

True but the legal eagles have decided that it can't be passed without a referendum without many many legal cases springing up

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 04:25PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Bigots have a right to be so yes! But only in so far as their bigotry is not turned into actions that affect the group/groups that their bigotry is directed at.

Voting against the change of a bigoted, archaic, outdated law that affects the rights of others in my opinion crosses that line.

Are you really saying that people (even bigots) do not have the right to vote No? That seems to be what you're suggesting.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I really think this law should simply be passed without public vote. My understanding of the constitution (which may be incorrect), is that it does not specify the gender make up of married couples, so I don't really understand why a referendum is essential?

To summarise:

- the constitutions doesn't mention gender wrt marriage.
- I understand that the Attorney General has advised the Govt (and presumably the Constitutional Convention) that it is likely that, if tested, the Supreme Court would rule that the INTENTION of the writers of the constitution could only have been to mean marriage in the traditional sense - between one man and one woman.
- The oireachtas could pass legislation to make smae sex marriage legal, but the weight of legal advice seems to be that if there was even a single disgruntled person to bring a legal challenge to this legisaltion, the legislation would be thrown out as unconstitutional.
- Therefor it is recommended that, in order to ensure that people entering into SS Civil Marriages can do so on a firm legal footing, that the constitution be amended to make clear that SSM is allowed.

There are some who will recoomend that Govt do a half-arse job of this and pass legislation that know will fail a legal test.

I'm not one of them. If we are to have SSM, those people partaking in them should be given a clear legal backing - and not be used as guinea-pigs.

Kiwi in IE · 04-07-2014 04:27PM

P_1 wrote: »

True but the legal eagles have decided that it can't be passed without a referendum without many many legal cases springing up

Who is going to bother with the expense and effort of taking a legal case against something that dosn't affect them? And on what grounds would they take one in the first place "I am homophobic and I want to sue the state for legalising equal marriage"? It would be instantly thrown out due to the plaintiff suffering no negative affect from same and therefore having no legitimate grounds to peruse the issue surely?

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments