SSM Referendum Spring 2015

marienbad · 06-07-2014 12:39AM

Daith wrote: »

Not at all. If the government decides that marriage includes same sex couples a judge won't overturn it

But there would be neverending legal challenges . Better to have a referendum , have the President refer it to the Supreme court and have done with it once and for all.

Daith · 06-07-2014 12:40AM

marienbad wrote: »

But there would be neverending legal challenges . Better to have a referendum , have the President refer it to the Supreme court and have done with it once and for all.

And if the referendum says no?

But to the point. There is no definition of marriage in our constitution.

Muise... · 06-07-2014 12:40AM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

It's just a bit silly. Despite what tumblr and reddit and whatnot say, there are relatively few "sexualities" but people seem to make up new ones when they would fit into one of the fairly standard categories.

And woe betide the person who should question the mish-mash of phrases you've made up to describe yourself because you wanted to feel special now that "just" being trans/gay/whatever isn't all that special or uncommon any more.

Good job this referendum will be about equal rights and not people on the internet who annoy you.

P_1 · 06-07-2014 12:41AM

floggg wrote: »

I don't think it should be a struggle to see why people might find the idea of voting on minority rights to be a disgrace.

Yes it is a disgrace but sadly it's how the law seems to work in this fcuked up country.

Daith wrote: »

Not at all. If the government decides that marriage includes same sex couples a judge won't overturn it

Not really. Because of the separation of powers, the government can't compel a judge to do anything and a judge has the power to overturn a government decision.

The way the law is set up here a referendum is the best way of achieving SSM and making it stick.

Daith · 06-07-2014 12:42AM

Muise... wrote: »

Good job this referendum will be about equal rights and not people on the internet who annoy you.

Not at all. People will vote no based on any stupid reason

shane7218 · 06-07-2014 12:43AM

If this referendum doesn't pass I will be ashamed to be Irish

Daith · 06-07-2014 12:44AM

P_1 wrote: »

Yes it is a disgrace but sadly it's how the law seems to work in this fcuked up country.

Not really. Because of the separation of powers, the government can't compel a judge to do anything and a judge has the power to overturn a government decision.

The way the law is set up here a referendum is the best way of achieving SSM and making it stick.

A judge can not legislate. If the law says that gay couples can marry then that is it.

I Heart Internet · 06-07-2014 12:46AM

Daith wrote: »

There is no definition of marriage in our Constitution. There is no need to amend our constitution.

Fine.

Have the Oireachtas legislate for SSM so.

Have newly married gay people in legal limbo for a couple of years.

Have the Supreme Court boot unconstitutional SSM out of the park.

Have no SSM in Ireland.

Well done.

P_1 · 06-07-2014 12:47AM

Daith wrote: »

A judge can not legislate. If the law says that gay couples can marry then that is it.

But a judge can rule that a law is illegal and you can bet your bottom dollar that Iona will do their best to find one who will do so if the government simply legislate for SSM without enshrining it clearly in the constitution.

Daith · 06-07-2014 12:48AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Fine.

Have the Oireachtas legislate for SSM so.

Have newly married gay people in legal limbo for a couple of years.

Have the Supreme Court boot unconstitutional SSM out of the park.

Have no SSM in Ireland.

Well done.

Rubbish. Legislate and that is that. We will legislate to have gay couples adopt. That will be challenged yeah?

Daith · 06-07-2014 12:49AM

P_1 wrote: »

But a judge can rule that a law is illegal and you can bet your bottom dollar that Iona will do their best to find one who will do so if the government simply legislate for SSM without enshrining it clearly in the constitution.

How is it illegal?

I Heart Internet · 06-07-2014 12:51AM

iguana wrote: »

What exactly is the article that needs to be changed?

The mention of marriage in Article 41 needs to be fleshed out to explicitly say that a marriage may be between two people of the same sex, if SSM is to be water-tight.

Wishful thinkers and those afraid to put the issue to the people will tell you different but they re wrong. They would have gay couples act as guinea pigs rather than put to a vote and give them firm constitutional backing.

Daith · 06-07-2014 12:52AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The mention of marriage in Article 41 needs to be fleshed out to explicitly say that a marriage may be between two people of the same sex, if SSM is to be water-tight.

Wishful thinkers and those afraid to put the issue to the people will tell you different but they re wrong. They would have gay couples act as guinea pigs rather than put to a vote and give them firm constitutional backing.

No it doesn't. There is no definition in our constitution about who can marry.

Stop making stuff up.

Who put your right to marry to the people? No one.

I Heart Internet · 06-07-2014 12:52AM

floggg wrote: »

I don't think it should be a struggle to see why people might find the idea of voting on minority rights to be a disgrace.

People are voting on how we define civil marriage. Everyone should get a say.

Daith · 06-07-2014 12:54AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

People are voting on hoe we define civil marriage. Everyone should get a say.

Who decided how we define marriage at the moment? Not everyone

I Heart Internet · 06-07-2014 12:54AM

Daith wrote: »

Not at all. If the government decides that marriage includes same sex couples a judge won't overturn it

Yes they will.

Daith · 06-07-2014 12:54AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yes they will.

No they won't

marienbad · 06-07-2014 12:55AM

Daith wrote: »

No it doesn't. There is no definition in our constitution about who can marry.

Stop making stuff up.

Who put your right to marry to the people? No one.

Why do you think we are having a referendum then ?

I Heart Internet · 06-07-2014 12:56AM

Daith wrote: »

A judge can not legislate. If the law says that gay couples can marry then that is it.

You have no idea how a constitutional democracy works.

I Heart Internet · 06-07-2014 12:58AM

Daith wrote: »

Rubbish. Legislate and that is that. We will legislate to have gay couples adopt. That will be challenged yeah?

And that law (like all others) must be in with the provisions of our constitution.

floggg · 06-07-2014 12:59AM

P_1 wrote: »

Yes it is a disgrace but sadly it's how the law seems to work in this fcuked up country.

Not really. Because of the separation of powers, the government can't compel a judge to do anything and a judge has the power to overturn a government decision.

The way the law is set up here a referendum is the best way of achieving SSM and making it stick.

Not the law. Politics in this country.

There is plenty of legal opinion who argue no referendum is needed.

If the government had balls they could legislate, encourage the president to refer it to the Supreme Court under Article 26 and then see where we are.

That would pre-empt the challenges and uncertainty.

P_1 · 06-07-2014 01:00AM

Daith wrote: »

How is it illegal?

Well that would depend on what was legislated and how it would be argued in court.

I think we're going round in circles here. Basically the way the law works in Ireland there are two routes to achieving SSM and both have their downsides.

1 - Change the constitution via referendum. The benefits to doing it this way is that it sticks. The negatives are that we'll have to endure the conservative dinosaurs of Ireland kicking and screaming all throughout the campaign and that LGBT people have to essentially ask for permission to marry from the population of Ireland.

2 - Legislate for it. The benefits to doing it this way is that it's an instant fix. The negatives are that the conservative dinosaurs of Ireland can challenge that legally and potentially cause all sorts of hassle for same sex couples who got married since SSM was legislated for.

In essence it boils down to short term pain for long term gain versus a quick fix that mightn't stick.

floggg · 06-07-2014 01:01AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yes they will.

Explain why please.

You've stated or implied on a number of occasions that it would definitely be overturned. I don't believe there is any basis for such such an absolute conclusion.

So please illuminate us why you think it's certain to be over turned.

As has been pointed out previously, the constitution is a living document so the definition the drafters may or may not have had in mind is irrelevant.

I Heart Internet · 06-07-2014 01:03AM

floggg wrote: »

That would pre-empt the challenges and uncertainty.

No it wouldn't, it would invite them.

A constitutional amendment would pre-empt and remove any basis for a challenge.

I can't understand why people in favour of SSM are so unwilling to take the necessary steps to bring it about.

I Heart Internet · 06-07-2014 01:10AM

floggg wrote: »

Explain why please.

You've stated or implied on a number of occasions that it would definitely be overturned. I don't believe there is any basis for such such an absolute conclusion.

So please illuminate us why you think it's certain to be over turned.

As has been pointed out previously, the constitution is a living document so the definition the drafters may or may not have had in mind is irrelevant.

The Supreme Court will decide that extending civil marriage to same sex couples is not allowed under Article 41 and deem any law to do so unconstitutional.

J_E · 06-07-2014 01:11AM

fran17 wrote: »

I show an opposing point of view,the clear lack of respect is shown by the pro lobby in this thread with some hugely offensive statements.and as for discussion,it hardly is when you refuse to answer my questions.that's my answer to your question

Not exactly fair coming from you, calling people very derogatory names in previous posts and making some disgusting comparisons and stereotypes. I don't know why you pretend to be balanced when you personally think they are all a bunch of sex-manic queers.

_Redzer_ · 06-07-2014 01:13AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The Supreme Court will decide that extending civil marriage to same sex couples is not allowed under Article 41 and deem any law to do so unconstitutional.

Technically, how can you extend rights if the constitution isn't gender specific to begin with, so anything goes as it's not specific in its definition anyway.

It's so straight forward to allow for SSM without amending the constitution.

If anybody complains, fúck them, they're no better than the racist scum who opposed interracial marriage and so shouldn't be pandered to.

floggg · 06-07-2014 01:14AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No it wouldn't, it would invite them.

A constitutional amendment would pre-empt and remove any basis for a challenge.

I can't understand why people in favour of SSM are so unwilling to take the necessary steps to bring it about.

Under the Article 26 procedure, the President can refer a bill in part or its entirety for a ruling on its constitutionality. A declaration of constitutionality by the Supreme Court is binding precedent which must be followed by all lower courts and it would be extremely unlikely that a subsequent supreme court would over-rule it.

A ruling by the Supreme Court that the entire bill was constitutional would effectively dead any challenge. So, no, it wouldn't invite them.

I Heart Internet · 06-07-2014 01:17AM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

It's so straight forward to allow for SSM without amending the constitution.

If anybody complains, fúck them, they're no better than the racist scum who opposed interracial marriage and so shouldn't be pandered to.

Fine, legislate away. Knock yourselves out. SSM will be deemed unconstitutional and we'll be back here again.

It's no skin off my nose to be honest. But same sex couples deserve a bit better.

(Oh, and while people are debating the need for a referendum, one is happening in he spring anyway. I wonder if claiming no referendum is needed is a good way to get a yes vote)

iguana · 06-07-2014 01:20AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Fine, legislate away. Knock yourselves out. SSM will be deemed unconstitutional and we'll be back here again.

No it won't. There is not one word in the constitution that specifies marriage is exclusively heterosexual.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments