SSM Referendum Spring 2015

P_1 · 04-07-2014 04:29PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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?

Iona for one and you'd have to be considered as being fairly naive if you were to think otherwise.

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 04:30PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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?

Nonsense.

The only grounds required is that it is not allowed for (explicitly) in the constitution. No other grounds or motivations are required.

Otacon · 04-07-2014 04:30PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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?

Do you really want to find out which bigoted-though-surprisingly-well-funded-group will take up the challenge?

How about we just get more people to agree with us, vote Yes and get the thing passed?

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 04:32PM

Otacon wrote: »

How about we just get more people to agree with us, vote Yes and get the thing passed?

Some people would prefer to spend time telling people they're wrong for voting No rather than encouraging them to vote yes.

Otacon · 04-07-2014 04:35PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Some people would prefer to spend time telling people they're wrong for voting No rather than encouraging them to vote yes.

I think telling people they are wrong for voting No is the first step in convincing them to vote Yes.

_Redzer_ · 04-07-2014 04:35PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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

Voting on human rights shouldn't even be up for discussion in the first place. Let alone letting a pack of disgruntled gobshítes vote against it purely because they don't like it for no logical reason.

But, if that's currently democracy in this country...

I'm just of the firm belief that human rights are not to be dictated by a vote, especially in the case of a majority voting on the rights of a minority. It's irritating that I am to be deemed "worthy" of my rights which will make me equal to the majority of the country's population.

P_1 · 04-07-2014 04:37PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Voting on human rights shouldn't even be up for discussion in the first place. Let alone letting a pack of disgruntled gobshítes vote against it purely because they don't like it for no logical reason.

But, if that's currently democracy in this country...

I'm just of the firm belief that human rights are not to be dictated by a vote, especially in the case of a majority voting on the rights of a minority. It's irritating that I am to be deemed "worthy" of my rights which will make me equal to the majority of the countries population.

Unfortunately we have to deal with the cards that we're dealt with and in this case having the referendum is the most practical way of achieving equal rights for all in my eyes.

I don't disagree with you for a second though

Annasopra · 04-07-2014 04:39PM

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.

To be honest No. That wording should not go into the constitution.

Kiwi in IE · 04-07-2014 04:39PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Are you really saying that people (even bigots) do not have the right to vote No?

I am not sure but I think that is what I am saying! I don't think anyone should vote. It is a matter of granting a currently oppressed group equal rights where they are currently being treated as second class citizens. I think a law should just be passed to end this oppression. I am really not sure that it is right to allow bigots who wish to keep this group oppressed, a vote to do so. I would like to think it is a given and most people are not bigoted, but I am not sure that it is fair to allow people's rights to be totally dependant on that assumption.

P_1 · 04-07-2014 04:42PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

To be honest No. That wording should not go into the constitution.

Yeah on mature reflection that might not be the best can of worms to spill onto the Bunreacht. It should be a central part of the yes campaign though.

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 04:45PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I am not sure but I think that is what I am saying! I don't think anyone should vote.

Sigh!

If there is no vote, there will be no change. Simple as that.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I think a law should just be passed to end this oppression.

And it would be challenged the following Monday and (almost certainly) thrown out. Then a new law would be made, and that would be thrown out.......

And all the while, same-sex couples could not be civilly married.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I am really not sure that it is right to allow bigots who wish to keep this group oppressed, a vote to do so. I would like to think it is a given and most people are not bigoted, but I am not sure that it is fair to allow people's rights to be totally dependant on that assumption.

Whether you like it our not, we live in a constitutional democracy and the legal advice is that this needs voting on. And people may vote as they please, for whatever reason pleases them. Your desire to avoid a vote or restrict voting to people who agree with you will (thankfully) not be fulfilled.

Kiwi in IE · 04-07-2014 04:50PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Nonsense.

The only grounds required is that it is not allowed for (explicitly) in the constitution. No other grounds or motivations are required.

But where is it not allowed in the constitution? Gender is not specified so how is that grounds for a legal challenge? In fact the constitution specifically refers to the protection of the family, therefore legalising equal marriage is completely in harmony with the constitution as it protects families that are currently not given the same legal protection as other families?

Watching Iona exhaust their funds on silly legal challenges with no basis could be good entertainment too!

P_1 · 04-07-2014 04:52PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But where is it not allowed in the constitution? Gender is not specified so how is that grounds for a legal challenge? In fact the constitution specifically refers to the protection of the family, therefore legalising equal marriage is completely in harmony with the constitution as it protects families that are currently not given the same legal protection as other families?

Watching Iona exhaust their funds on silly legal challenges with no basis could be good entertainment too!

Constitutions are funny documents. There are a lot of things implied in them. To be honest it's a safer bet leaving it in the hands the electorate than in the hands of a judge who might have a bone to pick

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 04:53PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But where is it not allowed in the constitution? Gender is not specified so how is that grounds for a legal challenge? In fact the constitution specifically refers to the protection of the family, therefore legalising equal marriage is completely in harmony with the constitution as it protects families that are currently not given the same legal protection as other families?

Watching Iona exhaust their funds on silly legal challenges with no basis could be good entertainment too!

The Governement has been advised by the best legal brains in the country that Iona (or whoever) would win.

Do you want the Supreme Court to declare people's same-sex marriages null-and-void? Because that's what would happen.

Nodin · 04-07-2014 04:56PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But where is it not allowed in the constitution? Gender is not specified so how is that grounds for a legal challenge? In fact the constitution specifically refers to the protection of the family, therefore legalising equal marriage is completely in harmony with the constitution as it protects families that are currently not given the same legal protection as other families?

Watching Iona exhaust their funds on silly legal challenges with no basis could be good entertainment too!

For whatever reason (you'll have to look it up) the constitution as written will be read/is read as meaning "man and woman".

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 04:59PM

Nodin wrote: »

For whatever reason (you'll have to look it up) the constitution as written will be read/is read as meaning "man and woman".

It is all about intent.

The Supreme Court will have no choice but to acknowledge that the intent of the guys writing the 1937 was that they were defining a marriage as between one man and one woman.

Annasopra · 04-07-2014 05:07PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It is all about intent.

The Supreme Court will have no choice but to acknowledge that the intent of the guys writing the 1937 was that they were defining a marriage as between one man and one woman.

Of course they have a choice! They could interpret it differently!!! Thats not true that they have no choice on how to interpet it!

P_1 · 04-07-2014 05:09PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course they have a choice! They could interpret it differently!!! Thats not true that they have no choice on how to interpet it!

Yeah but is it worth taking the risk? Once a referendum is passed it can only be undone by another referendum, you'd be leaving it at the mercy of the judge of the day if it was just legislated for

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 05:10PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course they have a choice! They could interpret it differently!!! Thats not true that they have no choice on how to interpet it!

If they want to be honest, they have no choice.

There is no reasonable person, being honest with themselves, who would claim that the writers of the 1937 Constitution envisaged a marraige as anything other than being between one man and one woman.

Judges are, on the whole very logically, reputable and responsible people. They tend not to fudge decisions like this - that's what a Supreme Court is for...making the very hard and unpalatable decisions in defence of the constitution that (hey-presto) require a referendum to alter said Constitution.

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 05:11PM

P_1 wrote: »

Yeah but is it worth taking the risk? Once a referendum is passed it can only be undone by another referendum, you'd be leaving it at the mercy of the judge of the day if it was just legislated for

And the government of the day. A governemnt in 20 years time could simply make it illegal again.

Annasopra · 04-07-2014 05:23PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

If they want to be honest, they have no choice.

There is no reasonable person, being honest with themselves, who would claim that the writers of the 1937 Constitution envisaged a marraige as anything other than being between one man and one woman.

Judges are, on the whole very logically, reputable and responsible people. They tend not to fudge decisions like this - that's what a Supreme Court is for...making the very hard and unpalatable decisions in defence of the constitution that (hey-presto) require a referendum to alter said Constitution.

A constitutional interpretation does not have to be based only on the intent of when it was written. It can be interpreted in different ways. It really is completely and utterly wrong to say there is no choice!

There are ALWAYS choices.

Anyway as pointed out by Daly originalist interpretations are not always popular in Ireland.

http://humanrights.ie/civil-liberties/same-sex-marriage-doesnt-need-a-referendum/

Kiwi in IE · 04-07-2014 05:23PM

It may be the situation that we are stuck with but I maintain that it is ethically wrong to allow bigots to vote to express their bigotry via law, the result being that a minority group continues to be oppressed and denied basic rights which they should be entitled to. If the constitution is that problematic perhaps it needs a complete overhaul!

The right to enter a marriage regardless of gender should be a basic human right protected by international law! Never mind groups of bigots and their ability to veto in individual countries! It shouldn't matter if the majority is against it. It dosn't affect them!

There is no reasonable, rational reason for LGBT people to continue to be discriminated against because of other peoples bigotry!

Kiwi in IE · 04-07-2014 05:30PM

If I don't like the fact that Mary down the road is going to marry Paddy because I don't really like their lifestyle (not for any good reason, I just don't like it), that dosn't give me any right to have a vote on whether or not they are allowed to marry does it? The whole idea is ridiculous is it not? Where's the difference?

_Redzer_ · 04-07-2014 05:35PM

People might have seen this before, but I've just stumbled upon this a few minutes ago.

Rings extraordinarily true!

NuMarvel · 04-07-2014 05:41PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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?

You'd be surprised who could crawl out of the woodwork to issue a legal challenge. The Children's Referendum still hasn't been written into the Constitution because it's been held up in legal challenges for the last 18 months. I wouldn't put it past somebody to challenge any change in legislation to allow gay people to marry, with the outcome of that decision being appealed to the Supreme Court either way.

P_1 · 04-07-2014 05:45PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

You'd be surprised who could crawl out of the woodwork to issue a legal challenge. The Children's Referendum still hasn't been written into the Constitution because it's been held up in legal challenges for the last 18 months. I wouldn't put it past somebody to challenge any change in legislation to allow gay people to marry, with the outcome of that decision being appealed to the Supreme Court either way.

Really? Is it even legal to challenge a constitutional amendment after it was passed by referendum?

Kiwi in IE · 04-07-2014 05:47PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

You'd be surprised who could crawl out of the woodwork to issue a legal challenge. The Children's Referendum still hasn't been written into the Constitution because it's been held up in legal challenges for the last 18 months. I wouldn't put it past somebody to challenge any change in legislation to allow gay people to marry, with the outcome of that decision being appealed to the Supreme Court either way.

So even if it is passed via referendum it can be prevented by legal challenge?

Legs.Eleven · 04-07-2014 05:55PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

People might have seen this before, but I've just stumbled upon this a few minutes ago.

Rings extraordinarily true!

The more you think about it, the more bizarre it becomes.

eviltwin · 04-07-2014 05:59PM

This clip shows the first SSM to take place in the UK after it was made legal earlier this year.

I would urge anyone thinking of voting No or who is undecided to watch it and try and look beyond the fact it's two men to the bigger picture, a couple in love making the ultimate commitment to each other. It's a wonderful event for them and their loved ones and if you can't see beyond your own insecurities or fears to see that then shame on you.

We have an amazing opportunity to do something good and altruistic for our fellow citizens, its rare we are given such a chance. If you believe in love please watch the clip and consider a Yes vote.

CdeC · 04-07-2014 06:02PM

It's going to come down to

For: We want to get married and start families

Against : Won't someone think of the children

For: We are thinking about the children, we want to create a more equal place for them to grow up in.

I just do not understand that arguement. The people who are against it say they have no problem with gay people and that homosexuality is absolutely fine. But not for children.

I feel so good that I now live in a world where the equivalent 8 year old today (I was 8 when I found out I was gay in 1988) has information and support and role models for their future.

Role on equal Ireland. : )

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments