Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The amendment would seem to disapply Constitutional limitations on what the Oireachtas can put into marriage legislation. If you truly understand that point, speak to it.

Enlighten us with reference to the specific sections of the Constitution please.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Enlighten us with reference to the specific sections of the Constitution please.

Just as I said, the problem is the four words being added now.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Just as I said, the problem is the four words being added now.

That doesn't address my request.

Where in the Constitution is marriage actually defined?
Where does it state that marriage consists of x,y, z?

I may be wrong but I honestly cannot find a definition, what I can find are references to marriage but no specifics as to what, constitutionally speaking, this consists of.

I would be interested to see what I am missing.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That doesn't address my request.

Where in the Constitution is marriage actually defined?
Where does it state that marriage consists of x,y, z?

I may be wrong but I honestly cannot find a definition, what I can find are references to marriage but no specifics as to what, constitutionally speaking, this consists of.

I would be interested to see what I am missing.

But, sure, that's not the point at issue. Article 41 is a crucial support of marital privacy. It's weakened by the proposal to give the Oireachtas the explicit power to regulate marriage.

What's not to understand in that?

scary

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, that's not the point at issue. Article 41 is a crucial support of marital privacy. It's weakened by the proposal to give the Oireachtas the explicit power to regulate marriage.

What's not to understand in that?

Its not actually, I believe its you that doesn't fully understand it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, that's not the point at issue. Article 41 is a crucial support of marital privacy. It's weakened by the proposal to give the Oireachtas the explicit power to regulate marriage.

What's not to understand in that?

Is there or is there not a definition of exactly what constitutes marriage in the Constitution?

Or are the 'term and conditions' contained within legislation?

If it is the former then can you please show that definition and if it's the latter then surely government already regulates marriage by virtue of the fact that government enacts legislation.

What's is so hard to answer in that?

If it's obvious then why are you the only person I have heard mention it?
One would think the No campaign would be screaming about it but they aren't. Why is that since you seem to believe it's blindly obvious? If it is - show us!

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

...I notice no-one is able to explain what a yes vote actually means in any substantial sense.

A yes vote means that the constitution is amended, and the institution of civil marriage is no longer exclusively confined to one man and one woman. I'm not sure what's insubstantial about that.

scary wrote: »

Its not actually, I believe its you that doesn't fully understand it.

And you're wrong, just as you were wrong over the topic of consummation.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1973/2.html
THE SUPREME COURT [1971 No. 2314 P]BETWEEN MARY McGEE PLAINTIFF and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL and THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT of WALSH J. delivered on the 19th day of December 1973.

<...>In my view, Article 41 of the Constitution guarantees the husband and wife against any such invasion of their privacy by the State. It follows that the use of contraceptives by them within that marital privacy is equally guaranteed against such invasion and, as such, assumes the status of a right so guaranteed by the Constitution. If this right cannot be directly invaded by the State it follows that it cannot be frustrated by the State taking measures to ensure that the exercise of that right is rendered impossible.<...>

This amendment waters down that guarantee, by giving the Oireachtas an explict power to regulate.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is there or is there not a definition of exactly what constitutes marriage in the Constitution?

But that's an irrelevant question. If the Oireachtas has an unfettered power to regulate marriage, why do we need a referendum at all?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If it's obvious then why are you the only person I have heard mention it?

But, sure, this whole amendment hasn't had the benefit of any critical analysis. Can we recall they made a hames of the Irish translation? The implications of this measure haven't been worked out at all. We haven't even learnt from the experience of other countries on the practical issues that need to be addressed. Personally, I'm delighted that the UK legal regime prevents gay men from chasing our womenfolk.

oscarBravo wrote: »

A yes vote means that the constitution is amended, and the institution of civil marriage is no longer exclusively confined to one man and one woman. I'm not sure what's insubstantial about that.

I'm sure you could be right. You'll notice, I'm not particularly saying the change is insubstantial. I'm saying that, thus far, Yes voters don't seem able to substantially explain what we're voting for. Go beyond a one sentence expression of principle, and they flounder.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And you're wrong, just as you were wrong over the topic of consummation.This amendment waters down that guarantee, by giving the Oireachtas an explict power to regulate.But that's an irrelevant question. If the Oireachtas has an unfettered power to regulate marriage, why do we need a referendum at all?But, sure, this whole amendment hasn't had the benefit of any critical analysis. Can we recall they made a hames of the Irish translation? The implications of this measure haven't been worked out at all. We haven't even learnt from the experience of other countries on the practical issues that need to be addressed. Personally, I'm delighted that the UK legal regime prevents gay men from chasing our womenfolk.I'm sure you could be right. You'll notice, I'm not particularly saying the change is insubstantial. I'm saying that, thus far, Yes voters don't seem able to substantially explain what we're voting for. Go beyond a one sentence expression of principle, and they flounder.

You simply haven't provided any evidence to show there are any specific references in the Constitution which state what exactly marriage consists of.
The terms and conditions of marriage are defined in the Marriage Act - which is legislation - how on Earth can you claim government doesn't regulate marriage when it is government who enacts the relevant legislation.

You really are going to need to provide a more substantial argument than dismissing as irrelevant, bizarre references to the UK and claims that you are the only person in the whole country who has really really considered this issue.

I am willing to concede if I am wrong but I will need more than you seem able to provide.

golfball37

A yes vote it could be argued is just as likely a vote for polygamy as equality.

MrWalsh

golfball37 wrote: »

A yes vote it could be argued is just as likely a vote for polygamy as equality.

How?

seamus

golfball37 wrote: »

A yes vote it could be argued is just as likely a vote for polygamy as equality.

Actually a "no" vote is closer to a vote for polygamy since marriage is not strictly defined anywhere as being between two people.

This amendment strictly defines marriage as being between two individuals, so voting "yes" will constitutionally ban polygamy. Voting "no" leaves the door open for legalised polygamy.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You simply haven't provided any evidence to show there are any specific references in the Constitution which state what exactly marriage consists of.

That's because I told you its irrelevant. At present, the Oireachtas can expand on what's in the Constitution. But they can't conflict with it. That's why McGee was successful. But this amendment empowers the Oireachtas to specify what a marriage contract amounts to. That's a significant change.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

<..> irrelevant, bizarre references to the UK <...>

You're responding to a substantive point with spin. The hetero marriage model just can't be applied to same sex couples without significant adaptation.

seamus wrote: »

Voting "no" leaves the door open for legalised polygamy.

Grand, another reason for rejecting this silly proposal.

I have been astounded on a daily basis, since this discussion emerged, at the level of sheer wilful ignorance displayed by the no side in this debate. Not surprised that it has been displayed, but astounded at the levels of stupidity and 'apropos of what exactly'. From posters on this and other sites tying themselves in semantic knots, to the 'official' campaigns. Recently, as the posters have started to appear on poles, the reality of the lack of a single rational, logical, or coherent argument as to why the referendum should not be passed is comically notable by the absence of such. Instead, we have surrogacy panic, a mother and a father panic, or any number other panics that, and let's be absolutely clear here, has not one single thing, whatsoever, in any shape or form, to do with the proposed amendment to our constitution.

So, in the interest of why not, I'd honestly like to challenge no campaigners to offer me one single argument, that has nothing to do with the hysterical irrelevancies thus far, as to why I or any other eligible citizen should vote to reject the amendment. If, as i fully expect, you don't have one, at least be honest enough to say you don't want it to pass because the thought of gay people being gay makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't really matter if the reason for this is that the thoughts of two men or two women in a relationship makes you feel a bit icky, or if it's because you think it'd make littlebabyjebus cry. At least take an honest position on it. I'd respect that much.

Just for clarity, my reasons for voting yes are twofold. I'll present them here in a simple form, using short words that even a no voter should have little difficulty with.
1. I like people. Some people are gay. So?
2. Why not.

I await the stupidity...

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's because I told you its irrelevant. At present, the Oireachtas can expand on what's in the Constitution. But they can't conflict with it. That's why McGee was successful. But this amendment empowers the Oireachtas to specify what a marriage contract amounts to. That's a significant change.You're responding to a substantive point with spin. The hetero marriage model just can't be applied to same sex couples without significant adaptation.Grand, another reason for rejecting this silly proposal.

You obviously cannot demonstrate your point with direct reference to the relevant sections of the Constitution.

Bluff and bluster is all you have.

I've been struck, on a daily basis, and the incapacity of Yes voters to produce a case for this amendment, and to demonstrate any understanding of the issues involved.

I've been even more struck by their inability to read and respond to points already made.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You obviously cannot demonstrate your point with direct reference to the relevant sections of the Constitution.

Bluff and bluster is all you have.

I've demonstrated my point. It doesn't involve identification of a definition. That's an irrelevance that you've introduced in an attempt to deflect.

Very Cork.

golfball37

Marriage is a 5000 year old tradition that has sustained society. It should not be redefined to cater for a minority who already have civil partnerships.
I'm sorry if gay people wnat to marry and feel aggrieved about not being allowed, but there's plenty of people who are born with conditions that preclude them from doing things yet they don't scream equality about it. Leave marriage to hetrosexual couples is my reason for voting no. No need to open Pandoras box by messing with it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've been struck, on a daily basis, and the incapacity of Yes voters to produce a case for this amendment, and to demonstrate any understanding of the issues involved.

I've been even more struck by their inability to read and respond to points already made.

Parity of esteem. And respect. That's all it's ever been about. How did you manage to miss that?

endacl wrote: »

Parity of esteem. And respect. That's all it's ever been about. How did you manage to miss that?

Stan's right to have babies. I got that.

golfball37 wrote: »

Marriage is a 5000 year old tradition that has sustained society. It should not be redefined to cater for a minority who already have civil partnerships.
I'm sorry if gay people wnat to marry and feel aggrieved about not being allowed, but there's plenty of people who are born with conditions that preclude them from doing things yet they don't scream equality about it. Leave marriage to hetrosexual couples is my reason for voting no. No need to open Pandoras box by messing with it.

Has it? Really...?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Stan's right to have babies. I got that.

Which brings us back to my question. Your honest reason for not wanting this to pass?

P_1

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've been struck, on a daily basis, and the incapacity of Yes voters to produce a case for this amendment, and to demonstrate any understanding of the issues involved.

I've been even more struck by their inability to read and respond to points already made.

I thought it was rather self explanatory. If the amendment passes two people, irrespective of their gender, will be allowed to enter into a civil contract with each other, this contract is called marriage.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've demonstrated my point. It doesn't involve identification of a definition. That's an irrelevance that you've introduced in an attempt to deflect.

Very Cork.

No. You haven't.

You have blustered and bluffed and issued dire warnings that government which already regulates marriage via legislation will regulate marriage but provided zero evidence of anything which is rooted in the Constitution.

'Very Cork' - honestly. Is that the level you want to 'debate' at?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Stan's right to have babies. I got that.

That'd be more of a gender identity question. Also, she expressed a preference to be referred to as Loretta. There was no indication in that scene of Loretta's sexual orientation. Or of her desire to marry.

desertcircus

golfball37 wrote: »

Marriage is a 5000 year old tradition that has sustained society. It should not be redefined to cater for a minority who already have civil partnerships.
I'm sorry if gay people wnat to marry and feel aggrieved about not being allowed, but there's plenty of people who are born with conditions that preclude them from doing things yet they don't scream equality about it. Leave marriage to hetrosexual couples is my reason for voting no. No need to open Pandoras box by messing with it.

You haven't actually given a reason, just made a few statements and then claimed they made an argument. "Marriage should not be redefined", but why? "Plenty of people are unable to do certain things", but you do nothing to link this with gay marriage. You just leave it there and hope a point will appear out of nothing.You don't even bother trying to explain how gay marriage will have an impact on straight marriage; again and again, you just say something and pretend you've actually made a point.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah.

Now I understand.
It's really just the same old can't let the gays get their hand on children irrelevancy.

Did you not read my post?!?

:mad:

endacl wrote: »

Did you not read my post?!?

:mad:

Dude - strange things are happening with my rural 'broadband'. Apologies. Dunno what happened there like...