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

MrWalsh · 05-05-2015 03:47PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

There's a HUGE problem for broadcasters though.

Oh I know, although I have seen other No voters get a good grilling but not John Waters.

It annoyed me tbh, if the rules are so strict they should include rules that people cannot broadcast misleading and downright untrue rubbish.

SpaceTime · 05-05-2015 03:49PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Oh I know, although I have seen other No voters get a good grilling but not John Waters.

It annoyed me tbh, if the rules are so strict they should include rules that people cannot broadcast misleading and downright untrue rubbish.

The issue is that the whole thing is so rule bound that presenters and producers without massive legal backgrounds are tip toeing around them.

There are now so many rules you wouldn't know where to start!

Lighter shows like Ireland AM aren't likely to have the same level of familiarly with the rules as a major current affairs show. They'll be fixated on counting how many seconds each side spoke for and probably not really as focused on challenging what they're saying.

The result of challenging a No campaigner also means you've got to grill a Yes campaigner which isn't really something that is very doable as they've human rights based solid arguments or it may require the presenter to go against their own grain and present anti gay marriage arguments.

The system is well intentioned but is chilling debate.

Zen65 · 05-05-2015 03:59PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well there has to be a referendum to change it, people have different views on things and mine is different to yours, I see marriage as between man and woman and I've no problem with you and most on here thinking that's a batsh1t crazy way of looking at it.

I never said it was crazy. I went so far as to point out that it's not even stupid.

It's just not insightful. Marriage is between a man and a woman, that's a fact. You're not stating something that's crazy, just something that's obvious. The question that is being put to the people is whether or not to change that. To arrive at a reasoned position you need to be able to understand why it is the way it is, and what would be the effect of the change. If we simply took your approach to all other referenda then nothing would ever change through referenda, including not joining the European Community, not lowering the age of voting to 18, not ratifying the Single European Act, not confirming the right to travel for pregnant women, continuing the ban on divorce, and so on.

You're not being jumped on either, so frankly you should either accept that Boards.ie is a place for debate or find something less frustrating to you than posting here.

BizzyC · 05-05-2015 04:01PM

I think the funny thing here is that people on the No side seem to act like this will be the end of it.

If for whatever reason the no side win, there will be another referendum.
Sure it may be another 5 years away, but it will happen.
Human rights issues can't be voted away completely.

If they yes side win though, the country will move on and it will never come up as an issue again.

Maximus Alexander · 05-05-2015 04:05PM

BizzyC wrote: »

I think the funny thing here is that people on the No side seem to act like this will be the end of it.

If for whatever reason the no side win, there will be another referendum.
Sure it may be another 5 years away, but it will happen.
Human rights issues can't be voted away completely.

If they yes side win though, the country will move on and it will never come up as an issue again.

I said it before, they're pissing into the wind. The whole of the western world is moving on and leaving them behind. And while it's possible that they'll manage to hold Ireland back and cling to the dark ages for a little bit longer, the reality is that they'll be fossilized eventually. Ireland may be slow to catch on, but it always catches on in the end.

The sad part is thinking about the tens of thousands of people who'll have to spend even more of their lives being marginalized if they succeed this time around.

Shrap · 05-05-2015 04:08PM

RollieFingers wrote: »

Thanks, in work til 6 though

Yes vote all the way!

http://i.imgur.com/eqWQAj5.gif

WoolyJumper · 05-05-2015 04:09PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Oh I know, although I have seen other No voters get a good grilling but not John Waters.

It annoyed me tbh, if the rules are so strict they should include rules that people cannot broadcast misleading and downright untrue rubbish.

Yup, and after the first Claire Byrne Live debate I made a complaint to the BAI for that very reason. They informed me they received my complaint but that's all it amounted to. I don't have a lot of money and a fancy solicitor unlike a few others I could mention so I dont expect much of a response.

Of course if there was any action to be taken against that, Iona and friends would be first to say we are being undemocratic and bulling the no side.

Ozymandius2011 · 05-05-2015 04:10PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

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.

Young or old crowd?

RobertKK · 05-05-2015 04:10PM

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.

The church are doing what some have wanted for a long time if they do not bother with civil marriages - a clear separation of church and state.
The church could be seen as giving backing to the new civil marriage if it continues as if nothing has changed if the referendum passes.

I don't see the big deal, for some marriage is a sacrament before their God and the civil bit is the lesser, others just want a civil marriage.

All we will have if the church does do this, then all we are getting is what they have had in France for decades.
People shouldn't be getting married in the church for show and a chance to walk down an aisle. It is not there for someone to simply have a fairytale wedding.

Here is a fact...
You can have as many civil marriages/divorces as you want - male/female, and then after that get married in the church, as you are not viewed as having being married in the past.
Found this out years ago when I wondered how Nicole Kidman had a Catholic wedding to Keith Urban. The church said she was never married under God, and that she was never in their eyes married to Tom Cruise.

One could argue the church doesn't see civil marriage as real marriage, and this referendum gives them a valid excuse to not recognise civil marriage, given church marriage will always be male/female in a union joined together by God not the state.

Maximus Alexander · 05-05-2015 04:12PM

RobertKK wrote: »

One could argue the church doesn't see civil marriage as real marriage, and this referendum gives them a valid excuse to not recognise civil marriage, given church marriage will always be male/female in a union joined together by God not the state.

That sounds perfect to me.

WoolyJumper · 05-05-2015 04:12PM

BizzyC wrote: »

I think the funny thing here is that people on the No side seem to act like this will be the end of it.

If for whatever reason the no side win, there will be another referendum.
Sure it may be another 5 years away, but it will happen.
Human rights issues can't be voted away completely.

If they yes side win though, the country will move on and it will never come up as an issue again.

Yeah we will either do it now and be *slightly* ahead of the curve or do it in 5 or 10 years down the line and be one of the last Western Nations to introduce it.

Ozymandius2011 · 05-05-2015 04:15PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

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!

Well they certainly weren't dividing the airtime equally in Lisbon 2. Then they were stating that balance didn't have to mean equal time. This is also the BAI that that paid damages to John Waters rather than defending the case on court. Arising from this RTE tries to shut down the word homophobia.

RobertKK · 05-05-2015 04:17PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Yup, and after the first Claire Byrne Live debate I made a complaint to the BAI for that very reason. They informed me they received my complaint but that's all it amounted to. I don't have a lot of money and a fancy solicitor unlike a few others I could mention so I dont expect much of a response.

Of course if there was any action to be taken against that, Iona and friends would be first to say we are being undemocratic and bulling the no side.

I was told by a yes campaigner I should have complained to the BAI when I was called a bigot for a text that was read out on national radio 17 months ago, for saying each side should be respectful and not name call, that some people are traditional in their views like me, and see marriage as a male/female thing.
Also was told I shouldn't vote. A person campaigning for yes said I should have made a complaint to the BAI.
I let it go, a complaint was not going to change anything, the person would still believe what they believed and all it would be is hassle.
The same national radio station (not RTE) has been running ads for people to register to vote...
It will be good when its all over whatever the outcome.

Ash.J.Williams · 05-05-2015 04:18PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Young or old crowd?

20's 30's mostly

Ozymandius2011 · 05-05-2015 04:20PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

20's 30's mostly

I suppose better for the yes but they will need to turn out because the ould ones are remote controlled by the bishops.

gravehold · 05-05-2015 04:28PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I suppose better for the yes but they will need to turn out because the ould ones are remote controlled by the bishops.

Yes all old people are bigots, maybe they should all be gassed for social justice and soap.

Zen65 · 05-05-2015 04:28PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The church are doing what some have wanted for a long time if they do not bother with civil marriages - a clear separation of church and state.
The church could be seen as giving backing to the new civil marriage if it continues as if nothing has changed if the referendum passes.

I agree. In fact I consider that churches (of all denominations) should not be allowed to officiate at civil weddings. They are not permitted to register births nor deaths, so why allow them to register marriages?

That said, I cannot see how the church could be considered as supporting SSM if they continue to register marriages in the civil registry. That the RCC should choose/threaten to discontinue doing so at this point in time seems like a childish reactionary strategy. They would have been better to say nothing at this point in time.

Ozymandius2011 · 05-05-2015 04:33PM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes all old people are bigots, maybe they should all be gassed for social justice and soap.

No but they are very religious and historically the RCC has a great influence on their votes on moral issues. But homophobia is promoted by the Vatican.

gravehold · 05-05-2015 04:45PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

No but they are very religious and historically the RCC has a great influence on their votes on moral issues. But homophobia is promoted by the Vatican.

So people should be denied their religious freedom of expression, young people can be religious too no need to be ageist along with your religiophobia.

Maximus Alexander · 05-05-2015 04:48PM

gravehold wrote: »

So people should be denied their religious freedom of expression, young people can be religious too

Sure they can - but in Ireland they're less likely to be.

gravehold wrote: »

no need to be ageist along with your religiophobia.

Huh? He wants a yes vote. He has pointed out that Catholics who follow their church's teachings are more likely to vote no. I don't see how religophobia comes into this.

SpaceTime · 05-05-2015 04:53PM

I'm not really finding a young vs old dichotomy in this referendum (speaking anecdotally anyway).

Some of the most passionate yes voters know are in their 70s and 80s.
A lot of that generation are a bit sick of conservatives and probably don't give a **** what people think anymore.

Most of the very strongly conservatives I'm encountering are in their 50s and 60s. The generation who came to the fore in the 1970s and 80s really. There's a big cohort of people who are very well educated, but deeply conservative in that generation.

I think we all know the types, they were too conservative to join the nuns or enter the priesthood so they became teachers or something similar and seem to find everything a bit offensive.

I've certainly encountered a few of them over the years.

Maude / Ned Flanders types, only starchier.

I'm not saying *all* of that generation either, I just think they've got a higher % of that 'goodie two shoes' style of conservative. Irish version of the right wing of the Tory Party I guess.

gravehold · 05-05-2015 04:53PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Sure they can - but in Ireland they're less likely to be.

Huh? He wants a yes vote. He has pointed out that Catholics who follow their church's teachings are more likely to vote no. I don't see how religophobia comes into this.

He has a problem with people that follow a religious path even thinks bishops are mind controlling old people from the Vatican, he has an irrational fear of the Catholic religion so hence a religopobic.

The followers have every right to follow the path they see as right and use their democratic right to vote how they see fit.

Maximus Alexander · 05-05-2015 04:54PM

gravehold wrote: »

He has a problem with people that follow a religious path even thinks bishops are mind controlling old people from the Vatican, he has an irrational fear of the Catholic religion so hence a religopobic.

The followers have every right to follow the path they see as right and use their democratic right to vote how they see fit.

They do have that right, and he has the right to be unhappy about it.

I don't have a problem with women, for example, but I would have a problem with a woman forcing herself on me. Likewise, I have no problem with religion, but I have a problem with religious people forcing their beliefs on people.

05-05-2015 04:55PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'm not really finding a young vs old dichotomy in this referendum (speaking anecdotally anyway).

Agreed - at least in terms of the yes/no voting. I am not finding it there.

But having said that in my anecdotal (not representative) experience the "I am not voting - as it does not affect me in any way crowd" has so far been the older generations and much less so the younger ones.

endacl · 05-05-2015 04:57PM

gravehold wrote: »

He has a problem with people that follow a religious path even thinks bishops are mind controlling old people from the Vatican, he has an irrational fear of the Catholic religion so hence a religopobic.

The followers have every right to follow the path they see as right and use their democratic right to vote how they see fit.

Nobody's disputing that. It's a pity though, that they feel they have any business imposing 'the path that they see as right' on people they don't know, will likely never meet, and who don't share their beliefs. I don't share their beliefs. I'd never vote to stop them going to mass, though.

gravehold · 05-05-2015 04:57PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

They do have that right, and he has the right to be unhappy about it.

I don't have a problem with women, for example, but I would have a problem with a woman forcing herself on me. Likewise, I have no problem with religion, but I have a problem with religious people forcing their beliefs on people.

They are upholding their beliefs just as the yes side is upholding theirs on the day everyone get a freedom to vote and side that has the majority will win. The no side is no more forcing on people then the yes side are in the end the most popular opinion will be decided in a democratic way.

Lollipops23 · 05-05-2015 04:58PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'm not really finding a young vs old dichotomy in this referendum (speaking anecdotally anyway).

And this is why I wasn't a fan of the "call your granny" campaign. Older people don't need or want some jumped up 20 year old to tell them how to vote. I support campaigning for the side, but specifically targeting those north of 60 based purely on their age isn't fair and is outrageously presumptuous.

SpaceTime · 05-05-2015 04:59PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed - at least in terms of the yes/no voting. I am not finding it there.

But having said that in my anecdotal (not representative) experience the "I am not voting - as it does not affect me in any way crowd" has so far been the older generations and much less so the younger ones.

I'm finding a lot of the older generation is quite disillusioned with the church authorities, especially the ones who had encounters with it in the old days when it was all powerful.
They're a LOT less conservative than people think. This isn't the US or the UK in that regard.

endacl · 05-05-2015 04:59PM

gravehold wrote: »

The no side is no more forcing on people then the yes side are in the end the most popular opinion will be decided in a democratic way.

They are lying to people though. Pick any poster on any lamppost.

gravehold · 05-05-2015 05:01PM

endacl wrote: »

They are lying to people though. Pick any poster on any lamppost.

Care to point out specific lies on offical posters.

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

Comments