How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Nodin · 03-05-2015 01:17PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Gardening apparently.

Yesterday was, apparently, World Naked Gardening Day.

Nothing to do with the Referendum but hey - neither does who parents children.

Sounds like a recipe disaster, but I suppose that's another thread.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-05-2015 01:25PM

opiniated wrote: »

I've read a couple of times that there are 100+ differences between marriage and civil partnership. I will check those differences when time allows.

For what it's worth, the link below is the best (quick!) coherent description of remaining differences that I've found. It's refreshingly factual, and written by someone who actually wants you to understand the issues at stake. And knows you haven't all feckin day to do it.

http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No amount of legislation can change that - only 'marriage' grants full Constitutional protection. Blame Dev.

Indeed, because if we take a step back we can sort of see Article 41 will be left as odd as when it started.

On the one hand, it will say "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."

On the other had, it will extend protection to families with no women, despite apparently asserting that such families prevent the achievement of the 'common good'.

Of course, this apparent inconsistency could be addressed by primary legislation. The Oireachtas could make provision for a quota system, so the reduction from the common good of all male marriages will be balanced by the surplus amount of common good produced by an equal number of all female marriages.

Ozymandius2011 · 03-05-2015 01:25PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

John Waters just had a brilliant interview on Newstalk a few minutes ago. Very relevant and valid points for No side ... get it on Podcast if you missed it :-)

I heard it He just said 'the gay community want to take away the rights of the family' and 'bring everyone down to the "same level of poverty".

Nasty.

WoolyJumper · 03-05-2015 01:34PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters is far from insane. He is one of the most educated and articulate jounalists and speakers we have in this country. I dont understand the agression of all the YES voters here on Boards?

Be the subject of national debate. Listen to BS about your life and effect on society on a daily basis. Have your rights put up for public vote. It tends to make you a little cranky.

MrWalsh · 03-05-2015 01:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters just had a brilliant interview on Newstalk a few minutes ago. Very relevant and valid points for No side ... get it on Podcast if you missed it :-)

No. It was homophobia masked as concern for children. Children have nothing to do with this referendum. So it was essentially a disingenuous waffly load of nonsense.

Smiley92a · 03-05-2015 02:02PM

Are there really people out there who think John Waters is intelligent just because they can't understand him? have you considered that maybe you can't understand him because he talks sh1te?

Fudge You · 03-05-2015 02:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters is far from insane. He is one of the most educated and articulate jounalists and speakers we have in this country. I dont understand the agression of all the YES voters here on Boards?

But he is insane, he is a religious nut, and has proved many times that he is homophobic. Sure he says there is no such thing as depression.

The aggression is because you no voters cant come up with a logical reason to vote no.

Just tell me the real reason you are voting no.
John Waters cares about children, fair play to john, but he didnt articulate the reason why voting no will affect children, I'd say Coleman was about to call him out about the bull but he couldnt because the no voters would complain about newstalk, yes side blah blah, not fair blah blah.

El Weirdo · 03-05-2015 02:10PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

The guy is an ignorant fool.

And a homophobe.

timetogo · 03-05-2015 02:25PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

For what it's worth, the link below is the best (quick!) coherent description of remaining differences that I've found. It's refreshingly factual, and written by someone who actually wants you to understand the issues at stake. And knows you haven't all feckin day to do it.

http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html
Indeed, because if we take a step back we can sort of see Article 41 will be left as odd as when it started.

On the one hand, it will say "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."

On the other had, it will extend protection to families with no women, despite apparently asserting that such families prevent the achievement of the 'common good'.

Of course, this apparent inconsistency could be addressed by primary legislation. The Oireachtas could make provision for a quota system, so the reduction from the common good of all male marriages will be balanced by the surplus amount of common good produced by an equal number of all female marriages.

160 differences.
Here they are in a spreadsheet.
http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/full-list

Before this referendum I thought there were about 4

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-05-2015 02:30PM

Good interview, valid contribution. As always, John Waters will get stick because he's not trying to say something simple.

http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/The_Sunday_Show/The_Sunday_Show/87859/John_Waters_speaks_about_the_upcoming_referendum

I find I'm fantastically in agreement with what he's actually saying, as distinct from what he'll be presented as saying.

An adequate summary of his concern might be whether the net effect of the referendum is a reduction in autonomy, the private space that the State cannot interfere in.

Given that we're a society that practices exclusion - that's how we penalise people - autonomy is not a trivial concern.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-05-2015 02:32PM

timetogo wrote: »

160 differences.
Here they are in a spreadsheet.
http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/full-list

Before this referendum I thought there were about 4

Unfortunately, that spreadsheet is about as readable as Linear B and about as relevant.

Again, I'd recommend Fergus Ryan's post for anyone who wants to actually understand what differences remain, and what the referendum might add to the substantial protections already provided by civil partnership legislation.

david75 · 03-05-2015 02:50PM

MFM are now backtrackin WILDLY saying its nothing to do with marriage equality..yet they used it as their main weapon AGAINST marriage equality!! the main author of the research FROM Unicef tried to contact them & they wouldnt take his calls..says it all really..https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEEjeOVWoAASeXN.jpg

WoolyJumper · 03-05-2015 02:56PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Good interview, valid contribution. As always, John Waters will get stick because he's not trying to say something simple.

http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/The_Sunday_Show/The_Sunday_Show/87859/John_Waters_speaks_about_the_upcoming_referendum

I find I'm fantastically in agreement with what he's actually saying, as distinct from what he'll be presented as saying.

An adequate summary of his concern might be whether the net effect of the referendum is a reduction in autonomy, the private space that the State cannot interfere in.

Given that we're a society that practices exclusion - that's how we penalise people - autonomy is not a trivial concern.

Admittedly I didnt listen to the whole thing, because listening to John Waters is not my idea of relaxing Sunday. But as expected his issue is to do with Fathers rights. He constantly uses the lack of fathers rights as an argument against ssm. I agree fathers rights in this country needs to be addressed and the current bill (which has nothing to do with ssm ref) doesn't go far enough in regards to that.

He then goes on to vaguely say something bad might happen but admits he doesnt know what that might be. When the presenter asked for an example he gives the example of how a straight married couple with children could get divorced and one of them remarry a same sex partner. Then that partner could apply for guardianship of the child. He then admits this already happens with heterosexual couples but could become worse if this referendum passes. But gave no real reason as to why it suddenly would become worse. At this point I stopped listening.

Anyway nothing particularly new here. His issue is with the family and relationships bill... not same sex marriage.

aloyisious · 03-05-2015 02:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters just had a brilliant interview on Newstalk a few minutes ago. Very relevant and valid points for No side ... get it on Podcast if you missed it :-)

Did John mention the marriage referendum during his Newstalk interview, and, if so, did he mention children as being part of the marriage deal?

It's because in the Irish Times report (see link below) on the launch of First Families First, the party he is a direct partner in, he said the following.... “We’re a completely self-standing group with a completely different agenda to everybody else.

One of the features that separates FFF from other No groups, in particular from the elements proclaiming that every child needs a father and a mother. That’s not their thing, said Waters. :end quote...........

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/kathy-sheridan-first-families-first-take-up-fight-for-no-side-1.2197525

...........................................................................

OK, ta for the NewsTalk link to the JW interview... listening to it now.

B_Wayne · 03-05-2015 03:00PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Unfortunately, that spreadsheet is about as readable as Linear B and about as relevant.

Again, I'd recommend Fergus Ryan's post for anyone who wants to actually understand what differences remain, and what the referendum might add to the substantial protections already provided by civil partnership legislation.

Here's some constitutional law experts that are much more coherent than you... You have not illustrated a negative effect of it being passed.
http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=503

timetogo · 03-05-2015 03:16PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Unfortunately, that spreadsheet is about as readable as Linear B and about as relevant.

Again, I'd recommend Fergus Ryan's post for anyone who wants to actually understand what differences remain, and what the referendum might add to the substantial protections already provided by civil partnership legislation.

I didn't say don't read the other link. It's just handy to have the whole list. Didn't seem that complicated to me and I know little about the law.

aloyisious · 03-05-2015 03:19PM

@stickyfinger: the reason that the gov't has gone the referendum way, instead of the statute law way, is that the constitution is the prime piece of law in our country. It is it that outlines the rules the courts, the Gov't and the Oireachtas operate under. It has precedent over any piece of statute law active here, and over Govt/ministerial amendments of same. Any piece of legislation (statute law) brought in by any Gov't can be changed by another Gov't. Not so something in the constitution: that's done by the people. There's also the political safety net for the Gov't of: the people said so, we didn't.

(IMO) the constitutional reference to marriage in section 41 is not completely tied up rigidly, more like A + B + C = Marriage. That may be because the writers of that section saw the need for fluidity in regard to not allying it in writing totally with any specific faith. It remind's me of the oft mentioned quote attributed to Dev, an ideal sought (same as the way the Constitution is attributed to him) of comely maidens dancing at the crossroads etc.

Zubeneschamali · 03-05-2015 03:42PM

aloyisious wrote: »

(IMO) the constitutional reference to marriage in section 41 is not completely tied up rigidly, more like A + B + C = Marriage. That may be because the writers of that section saw the need for fluidity in regard to not allying it in writing totally with any specific faith.

Or perhaps it's because our constitution is really, really crap.

endacl · 03-05-2015 03:47PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

John Waters just had a brilliant interview on Newstalk a few minutes ago. Very relevant and valid points for No side ... get it on Podcast if you missed it :-)

I very much doubt every point you made there, except the one about it being available as a podcast.

#johnwatershasissues

VinLieger · 03-05-2015 04:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters is far from insane. He is one of the most educated and articulate jounalists and speakers we have in this country. I dont understand the agression of all the YES voters here on Boards?

This is all only true if you subscribe to the idea that using larger words makes your argument more intelligent, it doesn't and waters writings are generally just incoherent ramblings that he quite obviously tries to pad out with his trusty thesaurus.

MrWalsh · 03-05-2015 04:10PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

As always, John Waters will get stick because he's not trying to say something simple.

No, he gets stick because he talks homophobic misleading rubbish.

aloyisious · 03-05-2015 04:37PM

I actually think that JW has been in the courts so long now in legal battles over custody of his kids, that he has a fixation on what a family consists of, that (IHO) a family must be a man, a woman and children. He claims's that when divorce was brought in, it was never intended that children would never be brought into any divorce. That sound's strange to me, given how divorce work's elsewhere, no lawyer here had any idea that it could happen here.

The bit where a judge, under the new Children and family bill, can remove guardianship of a child from one divorced parent and give the child to the other parent, and if that other parent re-marries, the first parent is denied access to the child. In making his point, he ignores the obvious, that the other parent from the 1st marriage, does have access to the child, so it's only a denial to one of them. That, I think, is what is niggling at him, as he's been on the losing side of that boat for years now.

He then goes on to say (if I understand him right) that would also apply if a partner of a straight marriage divorced, he/she could go on and enter a same sex marriage and have custody of children from the 1st marriage (thus denying access to the child/ren to his/her original straight marriage partner) while the new partner in the same sex marriage would have that access. He said that gay married couples with children do not have the right to be the centric thing in the changed section. That is not what would happen, straight married couples with children are not being written out of the section in any way.

His reply to the interviewer's question about his comment about there being an international gay agenda to destroy marriage sound's strange and flip-flopping: I have no problem with gay marriage, I have a problem with gay marriage....

The climate of intimidation he mention's being only introduced at the late stage (of the debate) is interesting: it's a crime to tear down election posters (only they aren't election posters), then he goes on to infer that the Gardai are against the "vote no" campaign. He mention's that a site, which one of the "vote no" groups was looking at for possible use, was hijacked by vote yes campaigners and used to post "vote yes" material, as one of the dirty tricks the "vote yes" campaign is suing. He is no stranger, nor are any of his friends, to taking court action against anyone from the LGBT community (or other persons) when it comes to him feeling that his interests are being harmed by them, so he know's what to do about intimidation.

aloyisious · 03-05-2015 04:38PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or perhaps it's because our constitution is really, really crap.

I wouldn't know about that, I'm not a constitutional lawyer

folamh · 03-05-2015 04:41PM

Hard to believe Sinead O'Connor dated that dude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3dm9J2miMs

NuMarvel · 03-05-2015 04:51PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

He then goes on to vaguely say something bad might happen but admits he doesnt know what that might be. When the presenter asked for an example he gives the example of how a straight married couple with children could get divorced and one of them remarry a same sex partner. Then that partner could apply for guardianship of the child. He then admits this already happens with heterosexual couples but could become worse if this referendum passes. But gave no real reason as to why it suddenly would become worse. At this point I stopped listening.

Based on that, Waters is spouting complete hogswash. Remarriage (or marriage if the biological parents weren't married) doesn't extinguish the rights between people and their children.

This is what Treoir's website says about the rights in respect of unmarried fathers when the mother of his child marries someone else:

The rights you already have in respect of your child do not change on the marriage of the mother:

-If you are already a joint guardian you remain so
-If you do not have any guardianship or access rights in respect of your child you can still apply for them, unless the child has been adopted by the mother and her husband
-You still have a duty to maintain your child unless your child is adopted. There is no legal relationship established between your child and her/his step-parent.

The same also applies to married fathers who are automatically the guardians of their children.

cloud493 · 03-05-2015 06:08PM

John Waters attempts to sound intelligent, but actually talks homophobic nonsense poorly masked as intelligent comment.

MrWalsh · 03-05-2015 06:14PM

cloud493 wrote: »

John Waters attempts to sound intelligent, but actually talks homophobic nonsense poorly masked as intelligent comment.

Its not even poorly masked!!

Galwayguy35 · 03-05-2015 08:45PM

I've decided to vote no.

moneyman · 03-05-2015 09:00PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I've decided to vote no.

Can I ask your reasoning?

osarusan · 03-05-2015 10:23PM

moneyman wrote: »

Can I ask your reasoning?

STOP BULLYING HIM!

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments