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

MrWalsh · 05-05-2015 11:55AM

smash wrote: »

And now to top it all off they're trying to hold the country to ransom by threatening to discontinue performing full weddings.

In my opinion they should be left to it and we can watch them crumble away.

As far as I am concerned the Church should not be involved in registering the civil part of a marriage anyway.

Why do we accept priests signatures on legal documents? They are not employed by the state so they should not carry out functions of the state. It works fine in other countries where they only do the religious bit. I think there would be a bit of a kerfuffle initially because there wouldnt be enough civil celebrants available but that could be resolved pretty quickly.

Bannasidhe · 05-05-2015 11:58AM

smash wrote: »

And now to top it all off they're trying to hold the country to ransom by threatening to discontinue performing full weddings.

As far as I know it's not 'Full Wedding' - they seem to be refusing to do the legally required part but I haven't heard them say they won't do the legally meaningless part.

Expect some WHAAAAAAH- I can't get married.
Yes, you can.
Whaaaaaah I can't get married in a church.
Yes you can. Look, Triskel in Cork used to be Christchurch and you can get married there. Listed building. Very 'church' looking. No need for a Mass.
Wha? Oh.

smash · 05-05-2015 12:04PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As far as I know it's not 'Full Wedding' - they seem to be refusing to do the legally required part but I haven't heard them say they won't do the legally meaningless part.

Yea but without the legal part it wont be a full wedding, it'll just be 'a nice day out' as they say.

I know a lot of people who'd like a church wedding solely for the scenery. I'm surprised nobody's bought an old church to hire it out for performing civil marriages without the religious non sense.

tigger123 · 05-05-2015 12:08PM

smash wrote: »

Yea but without the legal part it wont be a full wedding, it'll just be 'a nice day out' as they say.

I know a lot of people who'd like a church wedding solely for the scenery. I'm surprised nobody's bought an old church to hire it out for performing civil marriages without the religious non sense.

Smock Alley in Dublin do a lovely church looking venue, that's not actually a church. You can have your ceremony there.

tigger123 · 05-05-2015 12:09PM

City Hall on Parliament Street (Dublin) is worth having a look at too.

Bannasidhe · 05-05-2015 12:26PM

smash wrote: »

Yea but without the legal part it wont be a full wedding, it'll just be 'a nice day out' as they say.

I know a lot of people who'd like a church wedding solely for the scenery. I'm surprised nobody's bought an old church to hire it out for performing civil marriages without the religious non sense.

Can't get much more old church than triskel tbh and I know people who have had both types of 'weddings' there -( full civil and civil partnership

) http://triskelartscentre.ie/
http://www.corkheritageopenday.ie/thebuildings/culturalbuildings/buildings/mainbody,46690,en.html

I know there are other 'heritage' sites available but d'jam rural 'broadband' means I am getting nowhere with a google search.. :mad:

Nodin · 05-05-2015 12:45PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I could answer that for me personally marriage is between man and woman but I would be called stupid, thick and a bigot.

Am I right?

No, the question would be if its 'for you personally' why you feel the need to inflict that view on others by voting no.

SpaceTime · 05-05-2015 01:13PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As far as I know it's not 'Full Wedding' - they seem to be refusing to do the legally required part but I haven't heard them say they won't do the legally meaningless part.

Expect some WHAAAAAAH- I can't get married.
Yes, you can.
Whaaaaaah I can't get married in a church.
Yes you can. Look, Triskel in Cork used to be Christchurch and you can get married there. Listed building. Very 'church' looking. No need for a Mass.
Wha? Oh.

As for a Church wedding? Do you really need one? Would you want to get married in a place or a place that looks like a place that basically doesn't like 'your sort of people'?

There are loads of nice venues that aren't and weren't churches. I think we should be looking at opening more public buildings for these kinds of life ceremonies: City Halls, Town Halls, etc should be made available (and it would be a healthy fee for the public owners of those venues too).

On the Catholic Church suggesting that they won't sign civil paperwork if this passes:

The last 4 weddings I was at were non-religious and that's a trend that's growing as many people aren't as religious as they once were and there are a lot of alternatives now, particularly just picking a really nice hotel venue and doing the whole thing there.

The church may just bite off its nose to spite its face by doing this as they're just going to cause couples to decide that they don't want their wedding mired in a church political campaign and if they were on the fence about whether or not to go with the church wedding, this may very well just cause them to go for a secular alternative.

AFAIK, weddings are major income stream for a lot of parishes, so this is a really, really stupid move from a commercial point of view.
I've also heard that a lot of priests are extremely uncomfortable with it. The Bishops are just doing some 'oh careful now, down with that sort of thing' campaign to ensure that the Vatican doesn't get cross with them. The reality of it is that they're just putting local parish priests in a very awkward situation.

I don't think it's a particularly clever move and will most likely just accelerate the decline of the Church in Ireland and elsewhere. It looks extremely petulant.

To Elland Back · 05-05-2015 01:14PM

noway12345 wrote: »

Children are better off with a mum and a dad. This is not homophobic and this is why most of the no voters will vote that way. Get over it.

I know it as nothing to do with the referendum, but I have to comment.

My opinion is that a child is better off with a loving & capable Mum & Dad. However, that is not always possible for a whole raft of reasons.

Much better for a child to be reared by a loving and capable single mum, single dad, gay couple, lesbian couple etc. than a dysfunctional hetero couple.

A child's needs must be met, but that doesn't mean the accepted norm is the best option

jobbridge4life · 05-05-2015 01:16PM

noway12345 wrote: »

Children are better off with a mum and a dad. This is not homophobic and this is why most of the no voters will vote that way. Get over it.

The preponderance of evidence indicates that this is simply not true. So perhaps it is you has something to 'get over'.

Maximus Alexander · 05-05-2015 01:18PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I could answer that for me personally marriage is between man and woman but I would be called stupid, thick and a bigot.

Am I right?

Eh?

For me personally, breakfast doesn't exist. I don't eat until lunch time. Also, for me personally, an early morning hot beverage is a coffee. For me personally, bed time is about 1:30 AM.

I accept though, that other people eat breakfast, would rather a cup of tea and hit the sack at around 11 PM. I have no desire to stand in their way.

Why do you?

OldMrBrennan83 · 05-05-2015 01:20PM

This post has been deleted.

SpaceTime · 05-05-2015 01:22PM

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you're not registered by today, it's too late.
If you get it in by close of business (by hand delivery to your council franchise office) you *might* make it.

SpaceTime · 05-05-2015 01:24PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Eh?

For me personally, breakfast doesn't exist. I don't eat until lunch time. Also, for me personally, an early morning hot beverage is a coffee. For me personally, bed time is about 1:30 AM.

Damn! I forgot to eat breakfast and I still haven't had time to go for lunch.
Me so hungry brain has stopped.

timetogo · 05-05-2015 01:27PM

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Register anyway. Chances are there'll be another election or referendum soon enough. You only need to register once.

As for not having the time to educate yourself. Hmmmm. It doesn't take that long. Even the referendum commission document that would have come in your door only takes 5 minutes to read. After that you can choose to listen to debates or read as much as you want.

Bannasidhe · 05-05-2015 01:38PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

As for a Church wedding? Do you really need one? Would you want to get married in a place or a place that looks like a place that basically doesn't like 'your sort of people'?

There are loads of nice venues that aren't and weren't churches. I think we should be looking at opening more public buildings for these kinds of life ceremonies: City Halls, Town Halls, etc should be made available (and it would be a healthy fee for the public owners of those venues too).

On the Catholic Church suggesting that they won't sign civil paperwork if this passes:

The last 4 weddings I was at were non-religious and that's a trend that's growing as many people aren't as religious as they once were and there are a lot of alternatives now, particularly just picking a really nice hotel venue and doing the whole thing there.

The church may just bite off its nose to spite its face by doing this as they're just going to cause couples to decide that they don't want their wedding mired in a church political campaign and if they were on the fence about whether or not to go with the church wedding, this may very well just cause them to go for a secular alternative.

AFAIK, weddings are major income stream for a lot of parishes, so this is a really, really stupid move from a commercial point of view.
I've also heard that a lot of priests are extremely uncomfortable with it. The Bishops are just doing some 'oh careful now, down with that sort of thing' campaign to ensure that the Vatican doesn't get cross with them. The reality of it is that they're just putting local parish priests in a very awkward situation.

I don't think it's a particularly clever move and will most likely just accelerate the decline of the Church in Ireland and elsewhere. It looks extremely petulant.

I think you misinterpreted my post - I was taking the Michael out of Bridezillas :pac:

Me, personally, I don't want to get married. I want the choice to not get married. Same as straight couples have...

There actually are a lot of venues available it's just nearly impossible to find out the info because the heritage industry here is frankly crap said the historian. We need a one stop where can you get married website such as the National Trust have in the UK and NI http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/venue-hire/weddings/

Zemuppet · 05-05-2015 01:47PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

Damn! I forgot to eat breakfast and I still haven't had time to go for lunch.
Me so hungry brain has stopped.

You see, when you try to break away from the traditional established meal times, society denegrates and leds to chaos. Vote no on the referendum to remove breakfast as a meal.

Same sex couples marrying? Ah sure why not? A person could make a killing on wedding plannings if it passes.

aloyisious · 05-05-2015 01:53PM

shamrock2004 wrote: »

I'm still undecided. The only doubt in my mind is the adoption thingy. However I have a great deal of ambivalence here. I see how many kids are absolutely dragged up in todays society by parents who dont give a crap about them. Then on the other side I was bullied as a kid in school and worry about how a kid who is raised by a same sex couple would be perceived by other kids. I wish this referendum allowed marriage for same sex couples and it stopped there. Let me say however that I disagree with the absolute disdain shown towards no voters...

Deleted my long posting, glad you read the legislation and changed your voting intent.

Ash.J.Williams · 05-05-2015 02:01PM

the gardai and DCC are working wonders for us late "supplementary" electoral register people, took me 15 mins today between the bridewell and DCC. Quite busy too.

aloyisious · 05-05-2015 02:08PM

Zemuppet wrote: »

You see, when you try to break away from the traditional established meal times, society denegrates and leds to chaos. Vote no on the referendum to remove breakfast as a meal.

Same sex couples marrying? Ah sure why not? A person could make a killing on wedding plannings if it passes.

Like the last. Think of the increased home jobs, plus people might be flocking here to the old country for their weddings, instead of Canada etc.

Akrasia · 05-05-2015 02:29PM

I was talking to my mother in law on Sunday about this
Her reason for voting no is as mad as a brush

Mother in law wrote:

"I remember reading somewhere"

(First red flag there)

Mother in law wrote:

If a man and woman who were married with children were to split up, and if the man then married another man, then the two men would get automatic custody of the children.

Huh???

Mother in law wrote:

and then if the childrens father died, his partner would then get to raise the children and his mother wouldn't have any rights of custody

This is the kind of madness that we have to deal with.

She insists that she is not 'anti gay' but she still will vote no. She just cannot join the dots. Her own son is gay (which she accepts) and it took me to get her to realise that voting no to gay marriage would deny him the right to have a family of his own with the same rights as a heterosexual couple.

RollieFingers · 05-05-2015 02:31PM

Is it too late to register?

jobbridge4life · 05-05-2015 02:33PM

RollieFingers wrote: »

Is it too late to register?

No fill in the supplimentary register

https://www.checktheregister.ie/appforms%5CRFA2_English_Form.pdf

get it signed off by a Garda and get it into your local authority before 5.

RollieFingers · 05-05-2015 02:39PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No fill in the supplimentary register

https://www.checktheregister.ie/appforms%5CRFA2_English_Form.pdf

get it signed off by a Garda and get it into your local authority before 5.

Thanks, in work til 6 though

Yes vote all the way!

SpaceTime · 05-05-2015 02:58PM

Akrasia wrote: »

I was talking to my mother in law on Sunday about this
Her reason for voting no is as mad as a brush

(First red flag there)

Huh???

This is the kind of madness that we have to deal with.

She insists that she is not 'anti gay' but she still will vote no. She just cannot join the dots. Her own son is gay (which she accepts) and it took me to get her to realise that voting no to gay marriage would deny him the right to have a family of his own with the same rights as a heterosexual couple.

If her own son is gay and ends up having a family at some stage in the future it's in her own interests as a potential grandmother that he has rights to get married. Otherwise his partner might have absolute sole rights of custody and she wouldn't be the granny!

There are automatic next of kin issues and guardianship issues that grandparents are sometimes directly impacted by too.

it also has implications for inheritance taxes.

Leaving something to an unmarried partner is expensive from a taxation point of view and he grandkids could be treated as strangers legally.

Duggy747 · 05-05-2015 03:21PM

Akrasia wrote: »

I was talking to my mother in law on Sunday about this
Her reason for voting no is as mad as a brush

(First red flag there)

Huh???

This is the kind of madness that we have to deal with.

She insists that she is not 'anti gay' but she still will vote no. She just cannot join the dots. Her own son is gay (which she accepts) and it took me to get her to realise that voting no to gay marriage would deny him the right to have a family of his own with the same rights as a heterosexual couple.

Lol, had the exact same experience at the family home at the weekend. Unfortunately, John Waters is loved in that home and he was saying this kind of stuff on Newstalk recently where it was lapped up like gospel, that in generations-time the country will be fúcked because of this.

MrWalsh · 05-05-2015 03:23PM

Duggy747 wrote: »

Lol, had the exact same experience at the family home at the weekend. Unfortunately, John Waters is loved in that home and he was saying this kind of stuff on Newstalk recently where it was lapped up like gospel, that in generations-time the country will be fúcked because of this.

Yes, he was on Ireland AM this morning and came off as very reasonable and wasnt really challenged on the misleading stuff he was saying either. Not good.

SpaceTime · 05-05-2015 03:24PM

One of the saddest bits about this is that many of the people who are very anti gay rights are probably related to quite a few gay people who just never mentioned it because of their attitudes.

It's an interesting few weeks though. I don't think any other country in the world has ever had its citizens deal with this issue themselves. We're doing something very unique with this and I really think it's making a lot of people give some deep thought to what being gay is.

This referendum campaign might actually do a hell of a lot more than just pass a technical constitutional amendment - It's very thought provoking and it's causing a profound national debate which I think most people are so far handling with a great deal of maturity.

I was absolutely horrified with how things panned out in France and it's actually put me off the whole country as a place to live. I don't think that's happening here. Yeah, a tiny minority of homophobes will jump on the edges of the No camp but, they're definitely a tiny minority.

I'm just hoping that at the end of this process, as a community maybe we'll have all grown up!

It'll say a lot for modern Ireland if this is a time when people actually show they've an ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes and show real empathy and an ability to think things out for themselves rather than jumping on a bandwagon of a particular religious community.

SpaceTime · 05-05-2015 03:40PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Yes, he was on Ireland AM this morning and came off as very reasonable and wasnt really challenged on the misleading stuff he was saying either. Not good.

There's a HUGE problem for broadcasters though. They're required to give absolute 50:50 coverage under BAI rules. It's not necessarily reflective of the production team or the presenters. They're legally compelled to not express opinions and to give equal airtime during a referendum.

I understand the intention of the law but in this case where you've very few people actually on the no side as speakers and where all the political parties and most of public opinion is one one side, and where it's a very weirdly personal topic about human rights, it doesn't quite work.

A lot of smaller and community stations are simply not covering it at all as its so complicated under BAI rules.

You literally have to log the times that each person spoke for with a stopwatch!!! It's that tight and it's also been shown that some aspects of the no campaign are monitoring and are very willing to lodge BAI complaints.

Derek Mooney had a complain upheld against him OUTSIDE the campaign period for simply expressing that he's personally like to see gay marriage available - a very reasonable position reflecting his own personal life.

It's a lot easier to give a No campaigner a grilling than a Yes campaigner as you could drive a bus through the holes in their arguments. However it's still a legal obligation do give both an equal airing due to how the BAI interprets the Crotty judgement.

BAI rules are increasingly trying to totally hamstring presenters into being nothing more than a robot that plays no part in the discussion.

This applies across the board and it's bordering on censorship because the monitoring process is complaints driven. So if you've a particularly active and legalistic campaign group, it will be able to drag more broadcasters through the complaints process even if it doesn't win all the cases.

The result is that it can chill debates.

I honestly think it's patronising not to trust the judgement of professional broadcasters and producers. Stations should have an overarching non bias policy but there's no need for the BAI to get into this level of micromanagement and having a complaints led process simply means enforcement can become driven by political externalities instead of objectivity!

Zen65 · 05-05-2015 03:43PM

noway12345 wrote: »

Children are better off with a mum and a dad. This is not homophobic and this is why most of the no voters will vote that way. Get over it.

Presidents are better placed to do their job if they have knowledge and experience of how democracies operate around the world, of dealing with global leaders, of representing the interests of minorities in our communities. I think that is generally accepted as true, even if there is not any direct evidence to support that view. This is not ageist.

So will you vote YES to the Marriage and Equality referendum because of this? I know it's not related, but hey, neither is YOUR argument.

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

Comments