SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Daith · 07-07-2014 02:45PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I won't be able to tell you which way I'll be voting until I see the amendment.

Then I'm unsure what you can add to this discussion until you see the proposed amendment?

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 02:49PM

Daith wrote: »

Then I'm unsure what you can add to this discussion until you see the proposed amendment?

Well there is a significant debate to be had on the nature/wording of the proposed amendment.

There is also a debate to be had on the merits (and demerits if someone wants to) of SSM in general, in advance of knowing the wording.

Also, there is a debate to be had on the nature of the debate/campaign.

Loads to talk about.

Muise... · 07-07-2014 02:50PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yes. And I saw it the last time.

You are pro SSM but reserve the right to vote No if the proposed amendment doesn't cut the mustard.

That's exactly what I'd advise too.

I won't be able to tell you which way I'll be voting until I see the amendment.

I really don't see how the proposal can be complicated.

The abortion ones got fierce complicated by people dancing angels on the head of a pin about the circumstances and medical issues in which an abortion would be deemed permissible. This was frustrating to everyone of every opinion on the matter. (and there are shades of this frustration here in the bitterness that some posters feel knowing that people who will never be affected by the outcome are allowed an equal say in the matter).

But I doubt very much that the proposal will contort itself in restricting SSM to right-handed gay people born under the sign of Pisces who have certificates from three doctors that they'll die if they cannot marry their betrothed. It will be a simple matter of extending existing heterosexual marriage rights and regulations to gay people. That's the whole "equal" thing, you see.

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 02:52PM

Muise... wrote: »

I really don't see how the proposal can be complicated.

These could be famous last words. You're right, it shouldn't need to be complicated, but the devil is in the detail.

Daith · 07-07-2014 02:52PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Well there is a significant debate to be had on the nature/wording of the proposed amendment.

Not really until the government decide what the wording is?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

There is also a debate to be had on the merits (and demerits if someone wants to) of SSM in general, in advance of knowing the wording.

But for you this is pointless until you see the amendment? The thread topic is about voting btw. There's other threads about the general area of equal marriage.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Also, there is a debate to be had on the nature of the debate/campaign.

Why? Until you see the proposed amendment how can you have a debate on the campaign?

PopePalpatine · 07-07-2014 02:55PM

fran17 wrote: »

Is it true that the bible never condones homosexuality?

It condones stoning homosexuals to death. This is supposedly "God's law", by the way.

Muise... · 07-07-2014 02:56PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

These could be famous last words. You're right, it shouldn't need to be complicated, but the devil is in the detail.

Why don't you give us the simple wording to which you would vote yes?

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 02:57PM

Daith wrote: »

Not really until the government decide what the wording is?

Such a passive approach! It's ok to tell politicians and civil servants what you think you know!

Daith wrote: »

But for you this is pointless until you see the amendment? The thread topic is about voting btw. There's other threads about the general area of equal marriage.

No it's not. It's just not possible to equate being pro-SSM to definetly voting Yes in a vote we don't fully understand yet.

Daith wrote: »

Why? Until you see the proposed amendment how can you have a debate on the campaign?

Of course we can :rolleyes:

Annasopra · 07-07-2014 02:58PM

Muise... wrote: »

I really don't see how the proposal can be complicated.
.

Very very easily. The wording could be very messy. The wording might be too rigid. The wording could reinforce religiosity. There are numerous ways.

Remember that David Norris voted against the law to decriminalise gay male sex becauae he totally opposed other extremely conservative parts of the law. Rememver that the 1983 8th amendment wording had completely unintended consequences in relation to the X case decision. It would be naive to suggest there are no possible complications at all.

For example the wording could potentially be very gendered in such a way that trans people get left out.

Daith · 07-07-2014 02:59PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No it's not. It's just not possible to equate being pro-SSM to definetly voting Yes in a vote we don't fully understand yet.

Yes which is my point? You're in a thread about voting. There's multiple threads about being pro Equal Marriage or against equal marriage?

iguana · 07-07-2014 03:01PM

fran17 wrote: »

Is it true that the preferred environment for a child's upbringing is having a mother and father present?

I'm curious as to how much you actually care about children living in the 'preferred environment.'

Do you take issue with mothers who don't breastfeed for a minimum of 2 years? Because that is the 'preferred' method of nourishment for young children.

Do you take issue with parents who let their toddlers watch a little television or play with their smartphones? Because no screentime until 2 or 3 years is the 'preferred' way to let children interact with technology.

Do you take issue with parents who don't share a bedroom with their children until at least 6 months and then as long as the child chooses? Who give their 11 month old a duvet, pillow or teddybear to sleep with instead of keeping them in shoulder clip sleeping bags. Because that is the 'preferred' sleeping arrangement for young children.

Do you take issue with the parents who let their 8 month old have a taste of ice-cream? As no processed sugar before a year old is the 'preferred' way to feed babies.

Or do you actually not care that much about what is the 'preferred' environment for children and instead just want to invoke 'won't somebody think of the children,' in order to justify your dislike of something you personally have a problem with, so you can feel good about your prejudices. The fact is that even if you were right about a pair of homosexual parents not being as good as a pair of heterosexual parents, which you aren't, no child will ever, ever, ever get to live in 100% 'preferred' conditions. That would be impossible to achieve. But any child who has 2* parents who love him/her is incredibly lucky and has a great chance at living a contented, often happy life.

*That's not to say a child with just 1 parent to love them doesn't also have that same chance, I'm just writing in the context of homo/heterosexual couples.

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 03:02PM

Muise... wrote: »

Why don't you give us the simple wording to which you would vote yes?

Article 41-3

1° The State pledges itself to guard with special
care the institution of Marriage, including marriage between persons of the same gender, on which the

Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

The bold words are my proposed amendment.

Annasopra · 07-07-2014 03:03PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Article 41-3

1° The State pledges itself to guard with special
care the institution of Marriage, including marriage between persons of the same gender, on which the
Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

The bold words are my proposed amendment.

And that is an example of a wording that could potentially be used to exclude trans people.

PopePalpatine · 07-07-2014 03:04PM

Once more, with feeling:

floggg wrote: »

Another thing - you're arguing that i should be denied the right to marry because it's against your book. But your book says let he without sin cast the first stone.

So what right have you to impose our judgement on me? You are allowed sin as you wish as its not the States business, and I'm sure you have. Are you going to tell me you have never done any of the following:

* masturbated;
* had non-marital sex;
* had non procreative sex;
* used contraception;
* given or received oral sex of any variety;
* gotten divorced;
* coveted or lusted after your neighbours wife;
* had sexually impure thoughts;
* committed adultery;
* failed to beat your wife when required to do so by the bible.

And that's just in the sexual/marital realm. I won't get into all the other things that you should be doing per the words of your book.

If you're going to try to impose the morality of your book on me, you should tell us what gives us the right to do so. If you can and do violate your book, then why can't I?

I look forward to your answer.

Edit - you might also kindly address whether or not you think doing (or failing to do as applicable) those things should also be made illegal. If you don't think some or all should be made illegal, please explain why since unlike same sex marriage, those are expressly prohibited by god (don't think god (or his ghost writes) has ever actually said anything about same sex marriage).

Answer. The. Questions.

VinLieger · 07-07-2014 03:04PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Article 41-3

1° The State pledges itself to guard with special
care the institution of Marriage, including marriage between persons of the same gender, on which the
Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

The bold words are my proposed amendment.

Can we not simply change the definition of marriage in the constitution? Having to specifically state "including marriage between persons of the same gender" is not ideal imo

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 03:06PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Can we not simply change the definition of marriage in the constitution? Having to specifically state "including marriage between persons of the same gender" is not ideal imo

Marriage isn't explicitly defined in the constitution. So this line will take "traditional" civil marriage and just make it explicit that SSM marriage is constitutional too.

floggg · 07-07-2014 03:06PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Very very easily. The wording could be very messy. The wording might be too rigid. The wording could reinforce religiosity. There are numerous ways.

Remember that David Norris voted against the law to decriminalise gay male sex becauae he totally opposed other extremely conservative parts of the law. Rememver that the 1983 8th amendment wording had completely unintended consequences in relation to the X case decision. It would be naive to suggest there are no possible complications at all.

For example the wording could potentially be very gendered in such a way that trans people get left out.

I dont think there is much risk of trans people being left out. If same sex and opposite sex marriage is allowed, then trans people will fit into one or other category.

The only risk I could see if they were expressly excluded or if they were somehow classes as a third gender as a matter Iaw.

I imagine though that's extremely unlikely

Muise... · 07-07-2014 03:07PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Very very easily. The wording could be very messy. The wording might be too rigid. The wording could reinforce religiosity. There are numerous ways.

Remember that David Norris voted against the law to decriminalise gay male sex becauae he totally opposed other extremely conservative parts of the law. Rememver that the 1983 8th amendment wording had completely unintended consequences in relation to the X case decision. It would be naive to suggest there are no possible complications at all.

I don't remember David Norris voting against that law - do you mean 1992?

It was well known in 1983, however, that the 8th amendment would lead to cases like X, C and later (despite amendments to the amendment), to the death of Savita Halappanavar. Those against were simply shouted down as murderers.

But there have been straightforward referenda proposals on which I have voted, such as the final removal of capital punishment.

Perhaps those of us who care could let the commission know that we favour an extension of existing marriage rights, phrased as marriage between members of the same sex who are of age and competent, rather than complicating things?

VinLieger · 07-07-2014 03:09PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Marriage isn't explicitly defined in the constitution. So this line will take "traditional" civil marriage and just make it explicit that SSM marriage is constitutional too.

Thats what I mean can we not instead define marriage according the state as being between either a man and woman or two people of the same gender instead of having to say "marriage is protected..... this includes gay people as well". It just sounds far too much afterthought to me (which it actually is ironically) and should be a bit more concrete

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 03:12PM

Muise... wrote: »

Perhaps those of us who care could let the commission know that we favour an extension of existing marriage rights, phrased as marriage between members of the same sex who are of age and competent, rather than complicating things?

Even those (bold) points should be unnecessary, the less additional details the better.

(and you were too quick off the mark with you last (now deleted) post)

Nodin · 07-07-2014 03:13PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats what I mean can we not instead define marriage according the state as being between either a man and woman or two people of the same gender instead of having to say "marriage is protected..... this includes gay people as well". It just sounds far too much afterthought to me (which it actually is ironically) and should be a bit more concrete

'between two persons irrespective of gender' would cover it.

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 03:13PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats what I mean can we not instead define marriage according the state as being between either a man and woman or two people of the same gender instead of having to say "marriage is protected..... this includes gay people as well". It just sounds far too much afterthought to me (which it actually is ironically) and should be a bit more concrete

That's another way to go alright. Fair enough.

I would have thought the less change the better (less unintended consequences) - but perhaps your suggestion is the way to go.

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 03:14PM

Nodin wrote: »

'between two persons irrespective of gender' would cover it.

Much more elegant than my attempt.

VinLieger · 07-07-2014 03:14PM

Nodin wrote: »

'between two persons irrespective of gender' would cover it.

Exactly something along these lines that doesn't portray homosexual marriage as something that is simply added on at the end

Muise... · 07-07-2014 03:16PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Even those (bold) points should be unnecessary, the less additional details the better.

(and you were too quick off the mark with you last (now deleted) post)

OK - marriage is between two people who are of age, competent and consenting.

And I didn't delete my post; I amended it. That's what people do when they realise a mistake. It doesn't change my point at all, but carry on dancing your angels on the head of a pin.

Daith · 07-07-2014 03:16PM

Nodin wrote: »

'between two persons irrespective of gender' would cover it.

Pretty much it.

I'm guessing if the referendum does pass then it would mean the following line from the Civil Registration Act would be removed

For the purposes of this Act there is an impediment to a marriage if—

(e) both parties are of the same sex.

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 03:19PM

Daith wrote: »

Pretty much it.

I'm guessing if the referendum does pass then it would mean the following line from the Civil Registration Act would be removed

For the purposes of this Act there is an impediment to a marriage if—

(e) both parties are of the same sex.

Yes, and there may well be other minor legislative amendments. But this can all be done by the Oireachtas, without another referendum and with (following a Yes vote) the full protection of the Constitution.

rainbow kirby · 07-07-2014 03:21PM

Daith wrote: »

Pretty much it.

I'm guessing if the referendum does pass then it would mean the following line from the Civil Registration Act would be removed

For the purposes of this Act there is an impediment to a marriage if—

(e) both parties are of the same sex.

We're currently getting the documentation together for postal notification of intent to marry, and it makes me feel a little bit sick when I see this on the supporting documentation sent along with the forms, along with the "Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman" part.

Annasopra · 07-07-2014 03:22PM

Muise... wrote: »

I don't remember David Norris voting against that law - do you mean 1992?

Yes Norris voted against the 1993 law

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/1993/06/29/00006.asp

P_1 · 07-07-2014 03:24PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Article 41-3

1° The State pledges itself to guard with special
care the institution of Marriage, including marriage between persons of the same gender, on which the
Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

The bold words are my proposed amendment.

Article 41-3

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. The state considers the institution of marriage open to any two consenting adults, capable of making such a decision, irrespective of gender

My attempt, the italics are my proposed amendment.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments