Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

1…4950525455…69

Comments

  • #1532
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


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

    Grand so. Ask the government to legislate so. Job done.


  • #1533
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    iguana wrote: »
    No it won't. There is not one word in the constitution that specifies marriage is exclusively heterosexual.
    I don't understand why you're arguing it at length when really it doesn't matter. I don't personally think it should be down to a vote, but we live in a democracy and this is how it goes. There's a guaranteed referendum happening in half a year - if you feel strongly about it, your energy is better spent talking about that and supporting it, than going on about something that will simply not happen.


  • #1534
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.

    Why would they decide that? Explain please - it's not good just saying over and over that they just would.

    As i have said, there are senior counsel who believe its constitutional. I

    believe the advice to the government from the AG was that marriage equality COULD be interpreted as unconstitutional but that wasn't certain.

    There is certainly nothing in the Constitution which would expressly or by very necessary implication rule it out.

    So there doesn't seem to be any certainty on the point, but you keep repeating it without providing any analysis, explanation or citing any sources. The one argument you did proffer, that it would be inconsistent with the intent of the drafters, has already been debunked, as the Supreme Court sees the Constitution as a living document, so interpretations are based on the meaning of words today, not in 1937.

    I would hope you either provide some reasoned basis for your repeated assertion, or your cease claiming there to be any certainty on the point.


  • #1535
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    floggg wrote: »
    I would hope you either provide some reasoned basis for your repeated assertion, or your cease claiming there to be any certainty on the point.

    Fine, legislate away, see where that gets you.


  • #1536
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Is there any point tying ourselves up in knots over something that has already been decided on?


  • Advertisement
  • #1537
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    P_1 wrote: »
    Is there any point tying ourselves up in knots over something that has already been decided on?
    Unfortunately when threads become this long-winded people start to lose themselves and forget what they were even arguing for in the first place. We all do it.


  • #1538
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Fine, legislate away, see where that gets you.

    I don't have the power, obviously.

    Still, thats a childish response. I wanted to understand why you believed that to be the case. i presume you had some basis for stating so unequivocally that it would be unconstitutional, and hoped you'd proffer it.

    And I am still interested in whether you had any basis for doing so, so would appreciate a response.

    You had seemed a reasoned contributor (even when i don't agree with you), so I was assuming there was something behind it, but maybe not.


  • #1539
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,286 ✭✭✭Daith


    P_1 wrote: »
    Is there any point tying ourselves up in knots over something that has already been decided on?

    This referendum could be defeated. It still is entirely possible that legislation could be used by subsequent governments.

    You are right though. At the moment it's a referendum.


  • #1540
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


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

    Yes but the judge can find the law unconstitutional

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1541
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    People are voting on how we define civil marriage. Everyone should get a say.

    Why?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #1542
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Yes they will.
    Daith wrote: »
    No they won't

    Actually the thing is we dont know. To be honest both of you are wrong because we simply cant predict the future.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1543
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    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.

    Why?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1544
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,946 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Why?

    What exactly are you asking? If you are implying that there shouldn't be a referendum, I'd prefer it thay way too, but there is going to be a referendum.

    Or, in the context of the referendum that is actually going to happen, are you asking why people who identify as heterosexual should get to vote on it?


  • #1545
    Buzz Killington the third
    Closed Accounts Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Buzz Killington the third


    I hope this goes through, then when there's a more equal footing between gay/straight people we can move onto other issues like fathers rights and divorce. With whole new groups of people being allowed to get married we'll have to update the other laws to cater for the change.


  • #1546
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    is it like 10% of the population??

    possibly on this thread it is but in reality a fraction of that.truth is nobody can give a percentage with any accuracy.by that logic there is 450,000 gay people in Ireland and 700,000,000 on the planet.i don't think anybody on this thread could stand over that.could they?


  • #1547
    Buzz Killington the third
    Closed Accounts Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Buzz Killington the third


    fran17 wrote: »
    possibly on this thread it is but in reality a fraction of that.truth is nobody can give a percentage with any accuracy.by that logic there is 450,000 gay people in Ireland and 700,000,000 on the planet.i don't think anybody on this thread could stand over that.could they?

    "8.6% of men and 15.1% of women reported either feelings of attraction to the same gender or some sexual experience with the same gender. Overall, 8.6% of women and 5.9% of men reported some homosexual experience in their lives" - from a 2003 report.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation


  • #1548
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,245 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Why?

    Because the general consensus is the supreme court will most likely go off the intention of the writers which was in all likelihood referring to hetero marriage even if they did leave it ambiguous, this ruling will make any law unconstitutional and thus we need a referendum.


  • #1549
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    fran17 wrote: »
    possibly on this thread it is but in reality a fraction of that.truth is nobody can give a percentage with any accuracy.by that logic there is 450,000 gay people in Ireland and 700,000,000 on the planet.i don't think anybody on this thread could stand over that.could they?

    To be frank, there shouldn't be a minimum required sum for a minority to be treated like everyone else. Now could you refer me to the questions I failed to answer that you asked of me ? Otherwise, it'd be great if you could put forward your rational argument against ssm, we've literally been waiting years.


  • #1550
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    fran17 wrote: »
    possibly on this thread it is but in reality a fraction of that.truth is nobody can give a percentage with any accuracy.by that logic there is 450,000 gay people in Ireland and 700,000,000 on the planet.i don't think anybody on this thread could stand over that.could they?
    It's nigh impossible to put a number on such a thing. Many, many people in this world would never admit to any homosexual experience or feeling. Not sure what popping a stat on it serves.


  • #1551
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Because the general consensus is the supreme court will most likely go off the intention of the writers which was in all likelihood referring to hetero marriage even if they did leave it ambiguous, this ruling will make any law unconstitutional and thus we need a referendum.

    I'm sorry but it does not always work that way. The Supreme Court does not always interpret the constitution in that way. There are various ways in which the Supreme Court could interpret the constitution. So I dont know where this "general consensus" is coming from


    There is a good article introducing different types of Irish constitutional interpretation here.

    http://www.lawteacher.net/administrative-law/essays/interpreting-the-irish-constitution-administrative-law-essay.php

    Mrs Justice Susan Denham (Supreme Court Chief Justice) wrote in 2012 about this

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=8yy5U7HlOInH7AaG94DwBQ&url=http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2012/06/20120629cj-speech.pdf&cd=3&ved=0CCEQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNH1KBozkfd3fCDFhLTk7J1dGLFebg&sig2=uM-ZKBc0AUOGPQf-9UI3XA


    So, no, I dont accept this "general consensus" at all.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #1552
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    osarusan wrote: »
    What exactly are you asking? If you are implying that there shouldn't be a referendum, I'd prefer it thay way too, but there is going to be a referendum.

    Or, in the context of the referendum that is actually going to happen, are you asking why people who identify as heterosexual should get to vote on it?

    I'm asking why everyone should get a say?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1553
    StudentDad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    To Gay or not to Gay .... That is what this thread has degenerated into ....


  • #1554
    Buzz Killington the third
    Closed Accounts Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Buzz Killington the third


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I'm asking why everyone should get a say?

    Democracy?


  • #1555
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Because the general consensus is the supreme court will most likely go off the intention of the writers which was in all likelihood referring to hetero marriage even if they did leave it ambiguous, this ruling will make any law unconstitutional and thus we need a referendum.

    I don't believe that to be the case, and its certainly not supported by precedent.

    The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution as a living document - it gives the words in the text they meaning they would have today, not what they would have had in 1936/7.

    This was even recognised by the Hugh Court in the Zappone Case which considered whether the Constitution required marriage equality (as opposed to just permitting it).


  • #1556
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I'm asking why everyone should get a say?

    If we're going to change the constitution then you're damn right that everybody should get a say. I really hope that your not advocating that only members of the LGBT community get to vote on this referendum.

    Just think about it for a second. The first problem that comes to mind is that you'd more than likely be forcibly outing many people who aren't yet comfortable being out yet.


  • #1557
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I'm sorry but it does not always work that way. The Supreme Court does not always interpret the constitution in that way. There are various ways in which the Supreme Court could interpret the constitution. So I dont know where this "general consensus" is coming from


    There is a good article introducing different types of Irish constitutional interpretation here.

    http://www.lawteacher.net/administrative-law/essays/interpreting-the-irish-constitution-administrative-law-essay.php

    Mrs Justice Susan Denham (Supreme Court Chief Justice) wrote in 2012 about this

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=8yy5U7HlOInH7AaG94DwBQ&url=http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2012/06/20120629cj-speech.pdf&cd=3&ved=0CCEQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNH1KBozkfd3fCDFhLTk7J1dGLFebg&sig2=uM-ZKBc0AUOGPQf-9UI3XA


    So, no, I dont accept this "general consensus" at all.

    There is no such consensus amongst legal professionals and scholars.

    it seems that there are a lot of people who are making bold unsubstantiated statements as to the likely ruling by the Supreme Court, without any actual understanding of constitutional interpretation or case law.

    I don't know how many of you have ever seen a legal opinion, but the chances of getting any lawyer to give an unqualified opinion as to the outcome of a particular case are slim, and are essentially zero when it involves an untested point like this.

    There are arguments either way, but the issue is simply not clear.


  • #1558
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    P_1 wrote: »
    If we're going to change the constitution then you're damn right that everybody should get a say. I really hope that your not advocating that only members of the LGBT community get to vote on this referendum.

    Just think about it for a second. The first problem that comes to mind is that you'd more than likely be forcibly outing many people who aren't yet comfortable being out yet.

    I doubt thats what he's saying at all.

    Why are people being asked to vote on my rights to equal treatment before the law, and my right to marry?

    Why is it only LGBT rights up for popular vote?

    Minority rights should never be the subject of public votes - otherwise they may well lose them. Many civil rights cases would have been lost if put to a vote. the majority shouldn't be given that power in a proper liberal democracy.


  • #1559
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Buzz Killington the third wrote: »
    Democracy?


    So Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Norway, Sweden, UK were all undemocratic for not having referenda?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1560
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Buzz Killington the third wrote: »
    Democracy?

    No, at least not the modern liberal flavour of democracy we are supposed to have.

    A modern democracy should protect the rights and interests of minorities from the whims of the majority.


  • Advertisement
  • #1561
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    P_1 wrote: »
    If we're going to change the constitution then you're damn right that everybody should get a say. I really hope that your not advocating that only members of the LGBT community get to vote on this referendum.

    Just think about it for a second. The first problem that comes to mind is that you'd more than likely be forcibly outing many people who aren't yet comfortable being out yet.

    No I'm asking why does there need to be a referendum at all? Why should the Irish people decide by referendum? Why do the Irish people as a whole have to decide on definig marriage?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



Advertisement