nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What do the LGBT Community want from a "Yes" Vote?

Snegg

So this is a question that has been bothering me for a bit in relation to the upcoming referendum.
Now I'd be lying if I said I was fully informed in the differences between marriage and a civil union, but I'll give this a go anyway.

So I am really curious and unaware as to what members of the LGBT community want want if a "yes" vote were to occur.

When I think of marriage, I think of a ceremony where a bride walks down the isle of a church, the priest does is job, and then bob's your uncle.

But with a "yes" vote, this will still not be the case, due to the fact that most religious institutions are against homosexual marriage (not something I entirely agree with, but that's a sad fact).

So with regards to the differences between a marriage and a civil union, all tax stuff and similar things are equal, so a "yes" vote will make no difference in that regard.

But the biggest thing I see a difference with comes back to family. Such as a family home and a shared home, and also the legally recognised relationship between a child and there biological parent.
My first question is, shouldn't the definition of a family be changed, as opposed to marriage?

And secondly, is it just that LGBT members want to be able to ask someone "Will you marry me?", and to tell people that "I'm married"?
Or is there something much more that I'm missing.

Right now I'm on the fence as to which way I'd vote. Although a lot of the "No Campaign" posters seem irrelevant to marriage (focusing on surrogacy and other irrelevant topics), there is one poster that stands out to me, which reads;
"We already have civil partnerships, why redefine marriage?"
To be honest I think that is a fair statement, and I would like to know why marriage needs to be redefined, as opposed to either redefining civil partnerships or the family.

Find more posts tagged with

referendum

vote no

vote yes

marriage

lgbt

Quick Links

Comments

El_Duderino 09

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

In my own personal & professional experience I would disagree strongly. Marriage has increasingly become an institution where financial liquidity & associated resources, usually determines whether a marriage will be a success or failure. The last seven years exemplify this perfectly. If some people 'believed' in marriage, then the vows they utter would actually mean something. Instead I've seen countless partners abandoned once the going gets tough. Which suggests marriage is increasingly becoming more of a financial convenience, rather than a coupling based upon undying love & loyalty.

That's your experience but it's still a right which is afforded to some people and not to others based on the arbitrary point of gender. This referendum will rectify that inequality.

I don't for a second buy your cynical view of marriage as a necessary conclusion to entering into marriage but let's say for argument sake you're right and marriage is all about having the money to make it work. So what? Gays should be as free to get married as anyone. Going by your experience, marriage should be quite successful among wealthy gays so maybe you should propose banning marriage among poor people. But let's let the gays give it a shot

Snegg

Grand, so there are all these legal differences between a Cilvil Partnerships and marriage.

So would people be happy if the definition of a Civil Partnership was changed, to make it have the same legal status as marriage, but still keep the two separate?

elfy4eva

Snegg wrote: »

Grand, so there are all these legal differences between a Cilvil Partnerships and marriage.

So would people be happy if the definition of a Civil Partnership was changed, to make it have the same legal status as marriage, but still keep the two separate?

not usually one to quote south park but this seems relevent...

kylith

Snegg wrote: »

Grand, so there are all these legal differences between a Cilvil Partnerships and marriage.

So would people be happy if the definition of a Civil Partnership was changed, to make it have the same legal status as marriage, but still keep the two separate?

But if it has the same legal status and everything as marriage why not just call it marriage and have done with it? What would be the point in having two identical systems with different names? It'd be needlessly exclusionary.

Snegg

kylith wrote: »

But if it has the same legal status and everything as marriage why not just call it marriage and have done with it? What would be the point in having two identical systems with different names? It'd be needlessly exclusionary.

So this isn't necessarily my point of view, but the argument is there, that marriage is a cultural and historical thing, that doesn't need to be changed.
Why wouldn't people be happy with Civil Partnerships with equal rights to marriage?
Is it the term "marriage" that is the single most important thing?

Just playing devils advocate here.

Pherekydes

Snegg wrote: »

So this isn't necessarily my point of view, but the argument is there, that marriage is a cultural and historical thing, that doesn't need to be changed.

It does need to be changed. It was changed before, to admit divorce. Now it's being changed again.

By the way, thanks to all the peeps who voted to allow divorce. Without it I couldn't have married again (in a registry office).

Now it's payback. Vote yes!

[Deleted User]

"I never understood the hate on a n*gga's preference
When every marriage is a same sex marriage
Same sex everyday, monotonous"
- Childish Gambino

Admittedly has nothing to do with anything, but is still a kick ass song.

kylith

Snegg wrote: »

So this isn't necessarily my point of view, but the argument is there, that marriage is a cultural and historical thing, that doesn't need to be changed.
Why wouldn't people be happy with Civil Partnerships with equal rights to marriage?
Is it the term "marriage" that is the single most important thing?

Just playing devils advocate here.

Marriage has been changed a multitude of times, even within recent history. It existed before Christianity and it will continue when Christianity is something children learn about in schools like we learned about ancient Egypt. Marriage is not some sacrosanct, immutable thing; it is a human construct that we get to define however we wish. Regardless, allowing gay people to get married won't change marriage any more than allowing women to vote changed voting; i.e. not at all.

Again, why would you have two identical things and call them by different names? If you have two identical things that look like ducks, walk like ducks, and quack like ducks why would you maintain that one of them is a duck and one isn't?

Saying 'lets just make CP have all the same rights as marriage, but not call it marriage' is, to me, like saying 'What was Rosa Parks' problem. So what if she had to sit at the back of the bus, it still went to the same destination'. Making CP the exact same as marriage, but not allowing gay people to get 'married' is still telling them that that they're different, they're not allowed to join our club.

oldrnwisr

Snegg wrote: »

But with a "yes" vote, this will still not be the case, due to the fact that most religious institutions are against homosexual marriage (not something I entirely agree with, but that's a sad fact).

This vote only refers to civil marriage, i.e. marriages which are legal from the state's point of view. A yes vote will not have any impact on the religious view of marriage nor will it compel religious denominations to perform same-sex marriages. In fact, the church (and other religions) are constitutionally protected in this regard. Under Article 44.5:

Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.

Solemnising marriage according to their own religious beliefs would fall under managing its own affairs as far as the constitution is concerned.

Snegg wrote: »

So with regards to the differences between a marriage and a civil union, all tax stuff and similar things are equal, so a "yes" vote will make no difference in that regard.

Other posters have already pointed out that there are a great many legal differences between civil partnership and civil marriage. However, the problem is much bigger than that. Civil partnership is just a piece of legislation which means it is at the whim of the Oireachtas. A future government could simply decide to scrap it entirely. However a yes vote would give constitutional protection to same-sex marriage. Nothing short of a second referendum could take those rights away.

Snegg wrote: »

But the biggest thing I see a difference with comes back to family. Such as a family home and a shared home, and also the legally recognised relationship between a child and there biological parent.
My first question is, shouldn't the definition of a family be changed, as opposed to marriage?

Well you see, here's the thing. Firstly, family, like marriage is not explicitly defined in the constitution. Secondly, because the most basic purpose of marriage is to create a legal familial bond between two people who are previously unrelated, under our constitution, two people who are married without children are considered a family but two people with children who are not married are not considered a family.
There is such a wide variety of family forms in society that the constitution is better not to be too explicit in defining what the family should or shouldn't be.

kneemos

Bet a gay wedding reception would be rocking.

bee06

Snegg wrote: »

So this isn't necessarily my point of view, but the argument is there, that marriage is a cultural and historical thing, that doesn't need to be changed.
Why wouldn't people be happy with Civil Partnerships with equal rights to marriage?
Is it the term "marriage" that is the single most important thing?

Just playing devils advocate here.

Slavery was a cultural and historical thing there for a while too so did that not need to be changed? Just because something has been a certain way for a while doesn't mean it can't be changed to be different / better.

El_Duderino 09

Snegg wrote: »

Grand, so there are all these legal differences between a Cilvil Partnerships and marriage.

So would people be happy if the definition of a Civil Partnership was changed, to make it have the same legal status as marriage, but still keep the two separate?

Separate but equal? If you're OK with them being equal then why would you want to keep them separate? The only motivation for separate but equal, is bigotry.

garbeth

Great piece in the Irish Times today on the poster mentioned in the OP.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/noel-whelan-what-s-the-difference-between-civil-partnership-and-marriage-1.2195514

It shows in simple terms some of the differences between civil partnership and marriage.

There should be No "THEY" in a republic We should all be equal.

Vote YES on May 22nd.

Ghost Buster

Snegg wrote: »

So this is a question that has been bothering me for a bit in relation to the upcoming referendum.
Now I'd be lying if I said I was fully informed in the differences between marriage and a civil union, but I'll give this a go anyway.

So I am really curious and unaware as to what members of the LGBT community want want if a "yes" vote were to occur.

When I think of marriage, I think of a ceremony where a bride walks down the isle of a church, the priest does is job, and then bob's your uncle.

But with a "yes" vote, this will still not be the case, due to the fact that most religious institutions are against homosexual marriage (not something I entirely agree with, but that's a sad fact).

So with regards to the differences between a marriage and a civil union, all tax stuff and similar things are equal, so a "yes" vote will make no difference in that regard.

But the biggest thing I see a difference with comes back to family. Such as a family home and a shared home, and also the legally recognised relationship between a child and there biological parent.
My first question is, shouldn't the definition of a family be changed, as opposed to marriage?

And secondly, is it just that LGBT members want to be able to ask someone "Will you marry me?", and to tell people that "I'm married"?
Or is there something much more that I'm missing.

Right now I'm on the fence as to which way I'd vote. Although a lot of the "No Campaign" posters seem irrelevant to marriage (focusing on surrogacy and other irrelevant topics), there is one poster that stands out to me, which reads;
"We already have civil partnerships, why redefine marriage?"
To be honest I think that is a fair statement, and I would like to know why marriage needs to be redefined, as opposed to either redefining civil partnerships or the family.

And a good many, and increasingly so, do not.
I had a registry marriage and a bloody good party and my (mostly) catholic friends and family found it much more meaningful than many of the merc and merangue church weddings they usually attend.

MonkeyTennis

Being treated equally is an end in itself.

JupiterKid

Equality, pure and simple. I don't want to be treated as a 2nd class citizen.

The Diabolical Monocle

OP asked a bold question.

no bold questions allowed.

hope the zero carbon, fair trade, trans-gender hand made, fascist whips made from hemp and offense tears didn't hurt you too much OP.

jobbridge4life

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

OP asked a bold question.

no bold questions allowed.

hope the zero carbon, fair trade, trans-gender hand made, fascist whips made from hemp and offense tears didn't hurt you too much OP.

For people who love to ridicule the idea of victim based politics the new right sure do love portraying themselves that way.:rolleyes:

jobbridge4life

I want to be an equal citizen in my own country it really is that simple. I want my relationship with my partner to be entitled to the same recognition under the law as my siblings with theirs.

Ghost Buster

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

OP asked a bold question.

no bold questions allowed.

hope the zero carbon, fair trade, trans-gender hand made, fascist whips made from hemp and offense tears didn't hurt you too much OP.

Just 4 lines in demonstrates that the OP can only fathom Church based traditional marriage so it was also a dumb short sighted question.

The Diabolical Monocle

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Just 4 lines in demonstrates that the OP can only fathom Church based traditional marriage so it was also a dumb short sighted question.

looks to me like he went to pains to explain it was just a question.

Trudiha

I got married in the UK because it closed a lot of legal loopholes, made my wife's position more secure and it's my easier for my dementia suffering father to say 'daughter-in-law' than the less slippy-off-the-tongue Civil-Partner-In-Law, that he so valiantly attempted but didn't always manage to get in the right order.

LadyAthame

Snegg wrote: »

Grand, so there are all these legal differences between a Cilvil Partnerships and marriage.

So would people be happy if the definition of a Civil Partnership was changed, to make it have the same legal status as marriage, but still keep the two separate?

Definitions cannot be the same and separate they are not physical entities. two legal definitions are one definition and you cannot enter that one definition into the law under two different legal terms. That would lead to legal ....nonsense. ..that's the only way to describe that.

Snegg. You're confusing statutory law with constitutional laws. Statory laws mus tbe in harmoney with the constitution and not the other way around. We the electorate can vote on the constitution. We cannot legislate statutory laws. And in fact the legislative body does not need our permission to do so so long as they are in harmony with the constitution they can do what they like and even when it's legistlating for constitutional changes they seem to like doing what pleases them like waiting almost 20 yrs for a change to abortion statutory laws. There was no constitutional issue for gay families. There was however no statutory provision for them. The legistlative body ...govt &law makers those gobsh*tes. ...legislated for that. ..they don't need to ask anyone's permission to do so. That is because LEGALLY it is not a constitutional issue. There are things in the statutes that RECOGNIZE not define recognize marriage as part of the family unit. But there are also statutory legislation now to recognize gay adoptions. The govt does not need your permission to do that.
These families exist. And the law recognizes this. It simply does not give them as many rights.

The govt does not have to give a hoot about what the electorate thinks of it's legislation so long as it is in harmony with the constitution. That's why we already have gay adoption without a referendum they didn't need one.

We are being asked to change the constitutional definition of marriage to include same sex couples. Not your definition, the constitutional definition. We are not being asked to change anything else about it. We will still leave single parent families and divorced families not being recognized.

But the biggest thing I see a difference with comes back to family. Such as a family home and a shared home, and also the legally recognised relationship between a child and there biological parent.

Well the funny thing is the constitution does not recognize the relationship between a child and the biological parents as being family at all.

Interestingly ..the constitution does not recognize as equal the single parent family unit. It does not recognize as equal the divorced family unit nor the cohabitation family unit. Yet the law on the statutes and the family courts acknowledges these families exist but is less generous to them. It does not recognize a divorced father as part of a family unit should the mother remarry and vica versa but recognizes the remarried couple . It only recognizes married two parent families. All others have lesser rights....each group offended by this tends to take it rather personally . Men feel rightly aggrieved....but mistakenly think it's against the daddies ...nope your whole family is not legally recognized as a family unit....you all even your kids get ****ed over in different ways....you are all dirty sinners. Isn't all that nice?:(

If you are asking should we redefine the Irish family, I would say YES:) let's go for it! But we are not. The Irish constitution does not define the relationship between single mother or single father and child as a family unit. So saying family is based of biological ties is kind of a mute point especially for the right of the no side.

The electorate will not be asked for it's opinion on statutory laws. We are only asked to make amendments to the constitution. Statutory law must be in harmony with the constitution law not the other way around.

darkpagandeath

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

They want equality.

How do you get that ? Even after the referendum you will not be able to demand a religious institution marry you in the religious ceremony.

LadyAthame

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How do you get that ? Even after the referendum you will not be able to demand a religious institution marry you in the religious ceremony.

Legal equality before the state.

jobbridge4life

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How do you get that ? Even after the referendum you will not be able to demand a religious institution marry you in the religious ceremony.

Neither can straight people.

Anita Blow

Snegg wrote: »

Grand, so there are all these legal differences between a Cilvil Partnerships and marriage.

So would people be happy if the definition of a Civil Partnership was changed, to make it have the same legal status as marriage, but still keep the two separate?

Besides the pointlessness of giving CP all the same benefits of marriage but just not calling it marriage, the government can't legally do that. The Attorney General has stated that it would be unconstitutional to confer the benefits of marriage to non-marital relationships.

Anita Blow

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How do you get that ? Even after the referendum you will not be able to demand a religious institution marry you in the religious ceremony.

This has nothing to do with religious marriage. Religious marriage will be entirely unaffected by this referendum and no church will ever have to carry out a same-sex wedding. This is purely about civil marriage with the HSE performing the ceremony (as in existing civil marriages between 2 heterosexual people), which is a legal contract.

bb1234567

Do we need another gay marriage thread though

eviltwin

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

Yet why would they want to join heterosexual couples in the dying institution of marriage and share their misery & mistakes?

That's not for you to question. Why does anyone get married. It's about letting gay couples have the choice to do so if they wish.