SSM Referendum Spring 2015

P_1 · 06-07-2014 12:39PM

floggg wrote: »

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.

That is true but to the best of my knowledge race and ethnicity are not mentioned (implicitly or explicitly) in the constitution but gender and sexuality are. Once you have something mentioned in the constitution there's always the risk of somebody using it in a legal challenge against legislation.

The reason why places like the UK and New Zealand were able to simply legislate for SSM is because they don't have a constitution and thus there was no risk of a conservative dinosaur group taking a legal challenge. We do, the US does and the US has seen several conservative dinosaur groups take legal challenges against SSM when it was legislated for.

Again to me it simply boils down to a choice between short term pain for SSM that will stick (referendum) and an easy fix that has the potential to turn into an omnishambles of legal cases (legislation).

P_1 · 06-07-2014 12:45PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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?

Fair enough. The main reason that comes to mind is that marriage is currently defined in our constitution and the only way to redefine something in our constitution is by a referendum.

The countries you've listed either a)don't have a constitution or b)have different means of redefining their constitutions.

Annasopra · 06-07-2014 12:50PM

P_1 wrote: »

Fair enough. The main reason that comes to mind is that marriage is currently defined in our constitution and the only way to redefine something in our constitution is by a referendum.

The countries you've listed either a)don't have a constitution or b)have different means of redefining their constitutions.

Where does the constitution define marriage?

P_1 · 06-07-2014 12:57PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Where does the constitution define marriage?

Article 41

1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3. 1° 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.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that

i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,

ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,

iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and

iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.

Yes it's an implicit definition but therein lies the risk of the conservative dinosaurs of Ireland dragging any legislation without referendum through the courts.

floggg · 06-07-2014 01:00PM

P_1 wrote: »

That is true but to the best of my knowledge race and ethnicity are not mentioned (implicitly or explicitly) in the constitution but gender and sexuality are. Once you have something mentioned in the constitution there's always the risk of somebody using it in a legal challenge against legislation.

The reason why places like the UK and New Zealand were able to simply legislate for SSM is because they don't have a constitution and thus there was no risk of a conservative dinosaur group taking a legal challenge. We do, the US does and the US has seen several conservative dinosaur groups take legal challenges against SSM when it was legislated for.

Again to me it simply boils down to a choice between short term pain for SSM that will stick (referendum) and an easy fix that has the potential to turn into an omnishambles of legal cases (legislation).

Sexuality? As far as I know there is zero mention of sexaulity - unless you include the mysognistic provisions about women being good for nothing but making babies. LGBT rights weren't on any radars in 1937, and there is no reference to man/woman marriage only.

The fact that we have a constitution isn't the barrier - lots of countries with a constitution have brought it in through either legislation or the courts. Indeed, if you followed the US cases, you'd see its the courts that have been the real driving force in bringing marriage equality in, and found attempts to ban same sex marriage by legislation or popular vote was contrary to the US Constitution. The constitution is protecting same sex marriage rights from attacks, not inviting them.

The reason we are being asked is because the constitutional references to the family (as founded on the institution of marriage) create uncertainty for some (I don't see there being any prohibition personally, having studied the matter in a bit of detail). That uncertainty, coupled with political cowardice (no party wants to drive it through the Dail and face an aboertion type backlash - better let them populace do it) has resulted in the referendum.

floggg · 06-07-2014 01:01PM

P_1 wrote: »

Yes it's an implicit definition but therein lies the risk of the conservative dinosaurs of Ireland dragging any legislation without referendum through the courts.

An Article 26 reference by the President would settle the issue conclusively before the legislation became law, and pre-empt and preclude subsequent challenges on constitutional grounds.

The suggestion that a referendum is the only safe way to introduce marriage equality is wrong.

VinLieger · 06-07-2014 01:04PM

floggg wrote: »

An Article 26 reference by the President would settle the issue conclusively before the legislation became law, and pre-empt and preclude subsequent challenges on constitutional grounds.

The suggestion that a referendum is the only safe way to introduce marriage equality is wrong.

No but its possibly the safest, again this is all speculation as nobody can say for certain how any solution would shake out.

P_1 · 06-07-2014 01:05PM

floggg wrote: »

Sexuality? As far as I know there is zero mention of sexaulity - unless you include the mysognistic provisions about women being good for nothing but making babies. LGBT rights weren't on any radars in 1937, and there is no reference to man/woman marriage only.

The fact that we have a constitution isn't the barrier - lots of countries with a constitution have brought it in through either legislation or the courts. Indeed, if you followed the US cases, you'd see its the courts that have been the real driving force in bringing marriage equality in, and found attempts to ban same sex marriage by legislation or popular vote was contrary to the US Constitution. The constitution is protecting same sex marriage rights from attacks, not inviting them.

The reason we are being asked is because the constitutional references to the family (as founded on the institution of marriage) create uncertainty for some (I don't see there being any prohibition personally, having studied the matter in a bit of detail). That uncertainty, coupled with political cowardice (no party wants to drive it through the Dail and face an aboertion type backlash - better let them populace do it) has resulted in the referendum.

True the parties were spineless in their decision to send it to referendum but I'd like to view it as an opportunity for the people of Ireland to right a longstanding wrong in our society. Now you can call me an idealistic fool for thinking that way if you want but that's just how I happen to feel.

fran17 · 06-07-2014 01:18PM

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

"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

feeling of attraction!is that really what they used to give some stuffing to the survey...define a "homosexual experience"?

floggg · 06-07-2014 01:18PM

VinLieger wrote: »

No but its possibly the safest, again this is all speculation as nobody can say for certain how any solution would shake out.

As I have said, an Article 26 reference would decide the constitutionality of the matter conclusive, without the need for people to vote on what right I should have as an Irish citizen.

I think that route would have been the best way to go.

floggg · 06-07-2014 01:21PM

P_1 wrote: »

True the parties were spineless in their decision to send it to referendum but I'd like to view it as an opportunity for the people of Ireland to right a longstanding wrong in our society. Now you can call me an idealistic fool for thinking that way if you want but that's just how I happen to feel.

Thats all well and good, but you are not the one who's going to have his relationship debated, judged and voted on, or who will have to try and convince people that they are worthy of equal treatment.

I'm filled with dread thinking what the months leading up to the referendum will be like, and don't want to think about how i would feel if the referendum fails.

_Redzer_ · 06-07-2014 01:26PM

fran17 wrote: »

feeling of attraction!is that really what they used to give some stuffing to the survey...define a "homosexual experience"?

Define your reasoning against SSM

fran17 · 06-07-2014 01:32PM

floggg wrote: »

Thats all well and good, but you are not the one who's going to have his relationship debated, judged and voted on, or who will have to try and convince people that they are worthy of equal treatment.

I'm filled with dread thinking what the months leading up to the referendum will be like, and don't want to think about how i would feel if the referendum fails.

I believe the tipping point in this whole process will be the st.patricks day celebrations next march.after the whole debacle that was this year and how our nation was,in my opinion,humilliated on the world stage by a very small minority of our citizens.if next years parade is not given more respect then it will possibly be the nail in this referendums coffin

Nodin · 06-07-2014 01:34PM

fran17 wrote: »

I believe the tipping point in this whole process will be the st.patricks day celebrations next march.after the whole debacle that was this year and how our nation was,in my opinion,humilliated on the world stage by a very small minority of our citizens.if next years parade is not given more respect then it will possibly be the nail in this referendums coffin

...the fuck?

P_1 · 06-07-2014 01:35PM

fran17 wrote: »

I believe the tipping point in this whole process will be the st.patricks day celebrations next march.after the whole debacle that was this year and how our nation was,in my opinion,humilliated on the world stage by a very small minority of our citizens.if next years parade is not given more respect then it will possibly be the nail in this referendums coffin

Please enlighten me as to what the deplorable actions of some of Dublin's delightful drunken skrotes has to do with SSM?

iguana · 06-07-2014 01:37PM

P_1 wrote: »

True the parties were spineless in their decision to send it to referendum but I'd like to view it as an opportunity for the people of Ireland to right a longstanding wrong in our society. Now you can call me an idealistic fool for thinking that way if you want but that's just how I happen to feel.

And if we don't right that wrong? If we have a referendum and we vote it down? Then we have just assured that same sex marriage can't happen when it could have if there hadn't been a referendum. We only copperfasten the legality of ssm if the referendum goes one way, if it goes the other, we copperfasten it not happening.

It's absolute cowardliness on the part of the government. It's morally wrong to vote on the rights of minorities. It's legally unnecessary in this case. And it's potentially dangerous as the constitutional may be rejected.

My guess for how the referendum will go, is that it will be the same as all 'morality' referendums that have happened here in the last 25 years or so. Dublin (and surrounding commuter areas), Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford will pass it. Most if not all other regions will reject it. Due to urban regions having a higher overall population, if enough city dwellers/workers come out and vote it will pass. The key to winning will be to ensure that people who wouldn't normally bother voting, feel it will be an embarrassment and national disgrace if it's rejected. Make them feel like this is an important move into the future, that they don't want to miss out on being part of.

P_1 · 06-07-2014 01:47PM

iguana wrote: »

And if we don't right that wrong? If we have a referendum and we vote it down? Then we have just assured that same sex marriage can't happen when it could have if there hadn't been a referendum. We only copperfasten the legality of ssm if the referendum goes one way, if it goes the other, we copperfasten it not happening.

It's absolute cowardliness on the part of the government. It's morally wrong to vote on the rights of minorities. It's legally unnecessary in this case. And it's potentially dangerous as the constitutional may be rejected.

My guess for how the referendum will go, is that it will be the same as all 'morality' referendums that have happened her in the last 25 years or so. Dublin (and surrounding commuter areas), Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford will pass it. Most if not all other regions will reject it. Due to urban regions having a higher overall population, if enough city dwellers/workers come out and vote it will pass. The key to winning will be to ensure that people who wouldn't normally bother voting, feel it will be an embarrassment and national disgrace if it's rejected. Make them feel like this is an important move into the future, that they don't want to miss out on being part of.

I'm not too sure about voting trends following the same lines as the past 'morality' referendums will play through this time round. Compared to 1995, our population is much more highly educated and liberal. I highly doubt we'll see much voting according to how somebody's father voted and the like and the influence of any canvassing from the pulpit has vastly diminished.

Also living in fear of something not happening tends to prevent something from actually happening.

fran17 · 06-07-2014 02:11PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Define your reasoning against SSM

I've made them very clear in many many posts.but ok i'll humour you:

1 its not marriage.by calling it marriage is an untruth.marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman.the name alone maritare is latin for to provide a husband or wife.ie male and female.
2 if there is children involved in this then it denies them the natural right to have a mother and father.nobody can deny that this is the appropriate environment for a child to develop.its there natural right
3 it does not create a family.the overwhelming majority of families are such to conceive children to continue there blood line and the future generation of our country.i believe any legalisation of anything to the contrary would weaken this and should be opposed.
4 it enforces the views of a very small minority on all of society.by legalising this all citizens of the state must comply with this.public servants are forced to officiate in this and public schools are forced to teach it to children.
5 its against nature.a mam to lie with another man or a woman to lie with another woman is not the natural law of things hence is unnatural.
6 its against god himself.Gen 1:28-29,19:24-25 Mark 10:6-7

but of course because very few on this thread don't recognise either religion or morality or natural law then let the insults begin...

Nodin · 06-07-2014 02:16PM

fran17 wrote: »

I've made them very clear in many many posts.but ok i'll humour you:

1 its not marriage.by calling it marriage is an untruth.marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman.the name alone maritare is latin for to provide a husband or wife.ie male and female.
2 if there is children involved in this then it denies them the natural right to have a mother and father.nobody can deny that this is the appropriate environment for a child to develop.its there natural right
3 it does not create a family.the overwhelming majority of families are such to conceive children to continue there blood line and the future generation of our country.i believe any legalisation of anything to the contrary would weaken this and should be opposed.
4 it enforces the views of a very small minority on all of society.by legalising this all citizens of the state must comply with this.public servants are forced to officiate in this and public schools are forced to teach it to children.
5 its against nature.a mam to lie with another man or a woman to lie with another woman is not the natural law of things hence is unnatural.
6 its against god himself.Gen 1:28-29,19:24-25 Mark 10:6-7

but of course because very few on this thread don't recognise either religion or morality or natural law then let the insults begin...

Dear o dear o dear.

Still doesn't explain what the paddys day parade has to do with anything.

Sonics2k · 06-07-2014 02:17PM

fran17 wrote: »

I've made them very clear in many many posts.but ok i'll humour you:

1 its not marriage.by calling it marriage is an untruth.marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman.the name alone maritare is latin for to provide a husband or wife.ie male and female.
2 if there is children involved in this then it denies them the natural right to have a mother and father.nobody can deny that this is the appropriate environment for a child to develop.its there natural right
3 it does not create a family.the overwhelming majority of families are such to conceive children to continue there blood line and the future generation of our country.i believe any legalisation of anything to the contrary would weaken this and should be opposed.
4 it enforces the views of a very small minority on all of society.by legalising this all citizens of the state must comply with this.public servants are forced to officiate in this and public schools are forced to teach it to children.
5 its against nature.a mam to lie with another man or a woman to lie with another woman is not the natural law of things hence is unnatural.
6 its against god himself.Gen 1:28-29,19:24-25 Mark 10:6-7

but of course because very few on this thread don't recognise either religion or morality or natural law then let the insults begin...

My parents are lesbians. I was raised just as well as my friends with straight parents, went on the same holidays and lived essentially the same life. I'm now hitting 30, doing rather well in my career, have two children of my own and even took part in a charity skydive just last week for an animal shelter in Cork.

Tell me again how its not a normal life. I dare you.

Muise... · 06-07-2014 02:21PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

My parents are lesbians. I was raised just as well as my friends with straight parents, went on the same holidays and lived essentially the same life. I'm now hitting 30, doing rather well in my career, have two children of my own and even took part in a charity skydive just last week for an animal shelter in Cork.

Tell me again how its not a normal life. I dare you.

That sounds even better than normal. It sounds lovely!

Carlos Orange · 06-07-2014 02:24PM

I don't think anyone around me has ever expressed an opinion either way.

Personally if I vote almost certainly it will be a yes (dependent on what actually is being voted on) but if it is just months and months of people being called bigots and homophobes I might not bother.

Annasopra · 06-07-2014 02:30PM

iguana wrote: »

And if we don't right that wrong? If we have a referendum and we vote it down? Then we have just assured that same sex marriage can't happen when it could have if there hadn't been a referendum. We only copperfasten the legality of ssm if the referendum goes one way, if it goes the other, we copperfasten it not happening.

It's absolute cowardliness on the part of the government. It's morally wrong to vote on the rights of minorities. It's legally unnecessary in this case.

Woah stop right there. We do not know if a referendum is definitely needed or definitely not needed. The alternative route is legally uncertain.

padd b1975 · 06-07-2014 02:37PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

My parents are lesbians. I was raised just as well as my friends with straight parents, went on the same holidays and lived essentially the same life. I'm now hitting 30, doing rather well in my career, have two children of my own and even took part in a charity skydive just last week for an animal shelter in Cork.

Tell me again how its not a normal life. I dare you.

Where's Daddy?

Ave Sodalis · 06-07-2014 02:37PM

fran17 wrote: »

I've made them very clear in many many posts.but ok i'll humour you:

1 its not marriage.by calling it marriage is an untruth.marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman.the name alone maritare is latin for to provide a husband or wife.ie male and female.
2 if there is children involved in this then it denies them the natural right to have a mother and father.nobody can deny that this is the appropriate environment for a child to develop.its there natural right
3 it does not create a family.the overwhelming majority of families are such to conceive children to continue there blood line and the future generation of our country.i believe any legalisation of anything to the contrary would weaken this and should be opposed.
4 it enforces the views of a very small minority on all of society.by legalising this all citizens of the state must comply with this.public servants are forced to officiate in this and public schools are forced to teach it to children.
5 its against nature.a mam to lie with another man or a woman to lie with another woman is not the natural law of things hence is unnatural.
6 its against god himself.Gen 1:28-29,19:24-25 Mark 10:6-7

but of course because very few on this thread don't recognise either religion or morality or natural law then let the insults begin...

1. That had been gone over hundreds of times already.
2. I deny it. I strongly deny it. I'm a child of a single mother and would despise it if my father was still involved.
3. Not everyone will turn gay because of this. Gay people will not turn straight because it doesn't happen. Child birth does not happen solely within marriage anymore, so in terms of reproduction, your point is invalid as it changes nothing. There are still options for gay couples.
4. Teach what to children, to accept everyone? Isn't that what your bible teaches you? It will affect very few except those involved, unless you let it affect you in which case, that's your own problem.
5. There are gay and bi animals all over the place. The only race that has a problem with it are humans and of them, only a select few.
6. I actually don't give a flying fudge what god says about it. They won't be married in a church, nor will it have anything to do with religion. God also says not to have other religions. Does that mean only Catholics and christians can marry?

I recognise morality and natural law alright. I just don't let religion taint it. Nor do I find insults where none exist, just because I don't have a proper argument.
I should also point out to you that this isn't going to stop gay couples sleeping with each other so whether it's a sin to do so or not (in your religion), it's going to happen anyways. This referedum is about whether they can get married or not. People have sex outside of marriage all the time.

Annasopra · 06-07-2014 02:39PM

psinno wrote: »

I don't think anyone around me has ever expressed an opinion either way.

Personally if I vote almost certainly it will be a yes (dependent on what actually is being voted on) but if it is just months and months of people being called bigots and homophobes I might not bother.

And if its months and months of gay people being told our relationships are unnatural, that our "friendships" are not equal, that we are unable to conceive naturally so have no parenting abilities, that our families are automatically lesser and should never be considered as families, that we are all riddled with STIs, that it will be used as a covert way for paedophiles to abuse children, that we are trying to redefine marriage and weaken heterosexual marriage, that lots of gay people dont want it anyway, that we are all promiscuous anyway, that its against the bible and that we're all wife swapping sodomites?

Sonics2k · 06-07-2014 02:40PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Where's Daddy?

Does it matter?

_Redzer_ · 06-07-2014 02:54PM

fran17 wrote: »

I've made them very clear in many many posts.but ok i'll humour you:

1 its not marriage.by calling it marriage is an untruth.marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman.the name alone maritare is latin for to provide a husband or wife.ie male and female.

Well that's just nonsense because same-sex marriages have existed thousands of years before your religion's creation. So actual traditional marriage is not gender specific, your religion is breaking tradition.

And that's completely besides the point, this is a CIVIL marriage, which is completely secular, not religious, so such views on the subject are worthless and irrelevant. This has nothing to do with religion.

2 if there is children involved in this then it denies them the natural right to have a mother and father.nobody can deny that this is the appropriate environment for a child to develop.its there natural right

Funny, because the overwhelming majority of scientific studies finds no difference between same-sex parents and opposite sex parents.

Got any *evidence* to show a man and a woman is the best scenario for raising a child, or is that just your opinion?

And I should add, in the world of science opinions are 100% worthless unless substantiated with credible evidence.
So if the science says otherwise about your opinion, it's wrong and you have to accept that and develop a new outlook on the matter.

3 it does not create a family.the overwhelming majority of families are such to conceive children to continue there blood line and the future generation of our country.i believe any legalisation of anything to the contrary would weaken this and should be opposed.

Marriage has nothing to do with procreation as there's no requirement for it, so this point is also worthless and irrelevant.

By your logic, infertile or old couples passed the years of reproduction should not be allowed to marry.

Also, allowing gay marriage does not cause our race to go extinct because everyone will turn gay. There will always be straight people, and an awful lot of them, to reproduce.

The fact that you think this is disturbing as it implies the only thing keeping you from turning gay is because there's no same-sex marriage available in this country.

4 it enforces the views of a very small minority on all of society.by legalising this all citizens of the state must comply with this.public servants are forced to officiate in this and public schools are forced to teach it to children.

What, teach them to be gay?

That's nonsense. They will be taught that there are other relationships besides straight relationships, and that's just honesty.

To pretend only straight couples exist is flat out lying and is not an accurate description of the country's population and society.

5 its against nature.a mam to lie with another man or a woman to lie with another woman is not the natural law of things hence is unnatural.

Are you actually qualified in a science to tell me that?

I highly doubt it, because even a 3rd year science student could tell you how homosexuality is a natural behaviour found in thousands of species in the animal kingdom.

But I have studied this in-depth in college, and I could give you a highly detailed presentation using human anatomy, behavioural psychology and principles in evolution to explain to you in one sentence that we are a sex-orientated species, not reproductively orientated -because we enjoy sex year round and don't experience periods of "heat", and our sexual anatomies are designed for same-sex just as much as heterosexual sex. I could go into detail here if you wish.

But if you're qualified to tell me otherwise, people construct a scientifically plausible argument to me.

It would be most appreciated.

6 its against god himself.Gen 1:28-29,19:24-25 Mark 10:6-7

They are your views, your beliefs.

You cannot hold them over the entire population because not everyone believes in them and it would be wrong to force your views over everyone.

Your religious views mean nothing to me, I don't follow them or believe them. So why should I have to comply to then just because you do?

I'm not forcing you to marry a man when this law passes, you'll have a choice, so why do you want to force me to think and do as you do?

but of course because very few on this thread don't recognise either religion or morality or natural law then let the insults begin...

Morality is not a set value, it differs between people. Some view it as morally wrong for women to work and vote, that doesn't make such "moral views" correct or of any relevance.

You're not qualified to talk about natural law, and you forget that you're taking about marriage, which is a man-made construct, therefore any plea to nature is worthless and irrelevant.

Religion is also not recognised in this thread because it's got no bearing or right to dictate a CIVIL and SECULAR *state* issue that has no connection to religious marriage whatsoever.

So if you have grounds for opposition, your religion is irrelevant here and you'll have to try again using reasoning that applies to the discussion at hand.

wp_rathead · 06-07-2014 02:54PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Where's Daddy?

Do you say that to Single Mothers aswell?

_Redzer_ · 06-07-2014 02:56PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Where's Daddy?

From what I've seen over the years with friends is, sometimes it's better to have no father at all than a bad one, and vice versa for mothers.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments