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

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 05-05-2015 06:27PM

gravehold wrote: »

Acording to others it's not.

According to the Oireachtas it is as of last month.

Do you, by any chance, have some new and unrelated objection to SSM now that that one's been dealt with?

Bannasidhe · 05-05-2015 06:28PM

Zen65 wrote: »

I believe it is already in force.

gravehold wrote: »

Acording to others it's not.

It's up on the Dept. of Justice site so it may already be in force http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/ChildrenFamilyRelationshipsAct2015

gravehold - you are missing the point.

The legislation has already been signed.
The outcome of the referendum has nothing to do with adoption.
NOTHING.

IF the referendum is passed there will be a wait while the Constitution is amended and until the Constitution (and marriage legislation) is amended gay couples won't be able to marry. That's the way it works. It isn't instantaneous.

Zen65 · 05-05-2015 06:29PM

gravehold wrote: »

Acording to others it's not.

It was signed by the Minister on April 6th, 2015. This is the last step in enacting legislation AFAIK

lazygal · 05-05-2015 06:34PM

Zen65 wrote: »

It was signed by the Minister on April 6th, 2015. This is the last step in enacting legislation AFAIK

Some elements may require a ministerial order to come into force. I'm not sure which bits if any might require that in this Bill.

gravehold · 05-05-2015 06:40PM

Isabelle Shy Villain wrote: »

.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2015/1415/document1.htm"]According to the Oireachtas it is[/URL] as of last month.

Do you, by any chance, have some new and unrelated objection to SSM now that that one's been dealt with?

I am voting yes, just post facts it's not in force yet, it's deceitful to say a same sex couple can adopt at this point only married couples can

Zen65 · 05-05-2015 06:46PM

Great article by Fergus Finlay exposing some of the hypocrisy by Archbishop Martin in his recent statement about the Referendum. If two people can marry in the church with no prospect of having children naturally, why is it wrong to marry two other people who have no prospect of having children naturally?

Shrap · 05-05-2015 06:53PM

gravehold wrote: »

I am voting yes, just post facts it's not in force yet, it's deceitful to say a same sex couple can adopt at this point only married couples can

It has been signed and sealed but is yet to be delivered. Cannot be stopped from being delivered afaik. It still has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the referendum. Any other pedantry for us?

bb1234567 · 05-05-2015 06:57PM

My friends are planning our holiday and we got some kind of deal that may mean we will miss the referendum . I would hate to miss it and our group is quite big (14 or 15 students) and they all had said they would vote yes.So I think we could really really do without missing 15 yes votes in this referendum! So Im trying to plan it for a bit later so we don't miss it. 3 of the people in our group are gay so hopefully the others will come around and see some worth for changing the holiday dates.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 05-05-2015 07:00PM

gravehold wrote: »

I am voting yes, just post facts it's not in force yet, it's deceitful to say a same sex couple can adopt at this point only married couples can

Hmm. I think I get you now.

I am bowled over though that you apply the word deceitful to that and the word "opinion" to the no posters.

Perhaps if the no posters said "A child needs a mother and a father, I don't like the children and family relationships act" it'd make sense. Maybe it's all been a massive typo.

Except it's not, they're putting the "lying" in "implying" by trying to mix this up with an act that's for all intents and purposes a done deal.

frostyjacks · 05-05-2015 07:01PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Great article by Fergus Finlay exposing some of the hypocrisy by Archbishop Martin in his recent statement about the Referendum. If two people can marry in the church with no prospect of having children naturally, why is it wrong to marry two other people who have no prospect of having children naturally?

Because one is a same sex couple, and they believe marriage is for a man and woman.

Shrap · 05-05-2015 07:02PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

My friends are planning our holiday and we got some kind of deal that may mean we will miss the referendum . I would hate to miss it and our group is quite big (14 or 15 students) and they all had said they would vote yes.So I think we could really really do without missing 15 yes votes in this referendum! So Im trying to plan it for a bit later so we don't miss it. 3 of the people in our group are gay so hopefully the others will come around and see some worth for changing the holiday dates.

Ah jaysus, you may regret saving money in this case! I haven't had a holiday for a very long time, but if one landed into my lap today for free that meant I'd be out of the country for this vote, I'd turn it the fcuk down. We get few enough chances at important changes being made in this country. Even if it's a landslide yes, right now we can't predict it. Hope your friends' decisions will be based on the massive importance of this for our people's futures.

aloyisious · 05-05-2015 07:03PM

Frigging internet doesn't provide an answer as to when the Child and Family Relationship Act take's legal force. My understanding is that it will be legally activated and be in use before the referendii date of 22th May 2015. That way there will be no hiccups or embarrassment if there's the required majority for the Marriage referendum to be passed, can't have married same-sex couples filing adoption applications only to be told "sorry, the CP law section that only one partner can adopt a child still has force of law".

Before anyone (again) ask's the question: the CP law will automatically no longer be available for use if the marriage referendum has the required YES majority for inclusion into Section 41. CP's entered before a YES vote will still have legal effect until the partners opt for Civil Marriage, or divorce, or nature takes it's toll.

AtomicHorror · 05-05-2015 07:07PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because one is a same sex couple, and they believe marriage is for a man and woman.

That's not a reason. It's a semantic statement which is true right now. The decision before us is whether to alter that statement. How does it advance the conversation to say what marriage is right now?

Tell us why it should be for a man and woman, without reference to natural reproductive capability.

bodice ripper · 05-05-2015 07:12PM

I went into work today to bring forms, and herd colleagues. Success. There was a queue at both the Garda station and the local authority offices. Everyone queuing was young.

bb1234567 · 05-05-2015 07:13PM

How long does it take for the results to come out actually?

Bannasidhe · 05-05-2015 07:16PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Frigging internet doesn't provide an answer as to when the Child and Family Relationship Act take's legal force. My understanding is that it will be legally activated and be in use before the referendii date of 22th May 2015. That way there will be no hiccups or embarrassment if there's the required majority for the Marriage referendum to be passed, can't have married same-sex couples filing adoption applications only to be told "sorry, the CP law section that only one partner can adopt a child still has force of law".

Before anyone (again) ask's the question: the CP law will automatically no longer be available for use if the marriage referendum has the required YES majority for inclusion into Section 41. CP's entered before a YES vote will still have legal effect until the partners opt for Civil Marriage, or divorce, or nature takes it's toll.

I read somewhere.. no idea where as I have read so much on this in the last few weeks.. that it's due to come into force on the 19th May. Completely open to correction on that.

CiDeRmAn · 05-05-2015 07:16PM

Every No poster I see seems to declare things that aren't being voted on in the upcoming referendum.
At least the evangelicals and hard line Christians are honest that they consider all means to normalise homosexuality as an abomination.
Many others seem to portray themselves as moderate and speaking for the Everyman/woman yet suggest that SSM is a disaster for a whole number of either irrelevant or just plain wrong reasons.
I've yet to hear a non religious coherent argument against a Yes vote.

aloyisious · 05-05-2015 07:23PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because one is a same sex couple, and they believe marriage is for a man and woman.

And, as been pointed out no end here, the church's version of rules on what couples it decides to wed in/on it's premises is not affected at all by any additions by the voter to the version of civil marriage included in Section 41 of the constitution. I see this continued argument that the RC church's view on what a marriage, any marriage, is must apply to civil marriage, and not just it's own marriages, as damaging to the citizens liberties.

It is not merely offering guidance to it's faithful, but is attempting to impose it's version of marriage law on all same sex couples here, not just what it see's as Christians, for that is what a NO vote would do.

Bannasidhe · 05-05-2015 07:29PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

How long does it take for the results to come out actually?

Count it on the 23rd so hopefully we'll know around the time Eurovision starts.

aloyisious · 05-05-2015 07:30PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

How long does it take for the results to come out actually?

Probably a few days, as there are two results tallies to finalize. It'll be a long weekend for some workers, and might get interesting if there are any challenges to counts. The two different voting papers will have separate counting crews, different rooms/halls to avoid mix-ups. I assume it'll be white for one issue and green for the other. The tallymen for both sides on both issues will have to be on the ball.

Lollipops23 · 05-05-2015 07:45PM

aloyisious wrote: »

The tallymen for both sides on both issues will have to be on the ball.

My uncle is a tallyman. It scares me that he has so much responsibility tbh, the man is a gombeen.

Jimoslimos · 05-05-2015 07:51PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not at all. I have written about this on a few other threads - and possibly on this one too. I have borrowed the wording a little from another poster - but essentially I think of marriage as an institution that should reflect the requirements of the people in the society where it operates - in a way that is scalable with those requirements.

Given people like me are - at this time - literally statistically non-existent - I see no reason to seek or want marriage modified to accommodate us. Numerically there is no reason to accommodate us - and the effort of doing so will not scale with the requirement until there are MANY more like us. And I do not see that happening soon. I am voting "Yes" in this referendum - as are my partners and all our friends - and we are making a "day out" party day of it and all going together to do it. But if there was ALSO a vote on the same day for marriage for us - Id actually vote "no" on that one.

Even if I did want to get married that is - but even before entering into this relationship "marriage" was never something on my list of priorities. I personally have no interest in it. I do not know many people in relationships like mine in Ireland, but I know some. None of them - like me - see reason to seek or want marriage for >2 people relationships. And most of them have no interest either. I can think of one set of people who are somewhat - wistful - that they can not get married and would _like_ to - but they stoically accept that their relationship precludes it and they are down with that.

I'm slightly surprised that this response hasn't received more of a negative reaction, given that you've pretty much nearly managed to paraphrase the entire argument against gay marriage from the rare token gay on the No side.

So it boils down to;

1) Marriage is an institution between two people.

It (currently) is an institution between a man and a woman - but you're happy to change that?

2) The numbers aren't statistically significant.

So this "equality" thing only works when you reach a critical mass?

3) I'm in a polygamous relationship and I don't want to get married and my anecdotal evidence supports my viewpoint. Those that do accept their position.

So basically you'd vote No (in the case of a referendum on polygamous marriages) - even though you wouldn't get married and it wouldn't affect you. Hypocrite much.

amdublin · 05-05-2015 08:01PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

My uncle is a tallyman. It scares me that he has so much responsibility tbh, the man is a gombeen.

The guys who perch and view the voting and predict the result???

He doesn't really have any responsibility. Not like the official count comes from him.

One eyed Jack · 05-05-2015 08:07PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Great article by Fergus Finlay exposing some of the hypocrisy by Archbishop Martin in his recent statement about the Referendum. If two people can marry in the church with no prospect of having children naturally, why is it wrong to marry two other people who have no prospect of having children naturally?

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because one is a same sex couple, and they believe marriage is for a man and woman.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's not a reason. It's a semantic statement which is true right now. The decision before us is whether to alter that statement. How does it advance the conversation to say what marriage is right now?

Tell us why it should be for a man and woman, without reference to natural reproductive capability.

I think frostyjack's reply was in response to Zen asking why a same sex couple could not have a Church ceremony whereas an opposite sex couple in which either or both individuals are infertile can get married in a Church ceremony.

It takes a special sort to make that comparison really, especially when it's a point that's been made by marriage equality advocates how insulting it is for the no campaign not to have realised the error of their ignorance.

aloyisious · 05-05-2015 08:17PM

amdublin wrote: »

The guys who perch and view the voting and predict the result???

He doesn't really have any responsibility. Not like the official count comes from him.

I'm not sure, but think it also includes the "duty" of watching what's happening and informing the person in official charge of any possible hanky-panky in voting or errors by the counters of the papers during the official count.

Lollipops23 · 05-05-2015 08:23PM

amdublin wrote: »

The guys who perch and view the voting and predict the result???

He doesn't really have any responsibility. Not like the official count comes from him.

Oh I know- more that people will be looking to him for the first reports in such a contentious vote.

arayess · 05-05-2015 08:43PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Because we're the first to vote on it.

we are not - It's a myth peddled that we are first here.
I do not know where that myth came from but seen it knocking about.

croatia voted on this matter in 2013 - theirs was to insert a ban on same sex marriage into their constitional and that was passed i.e ssm was banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_constitutional_referendum,_2013

G_R · 05-05-2015 08:49PM

arayess wrote: »

we are not - It's a myth peddled that we are first here.
I do not know where that myth came from but seen it knocking about.

croatia voted on this matter in 2013 - theirs was to insert a ban on same sex marriage into their constitional and that was passed i.e ssm was banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_constitutional_referendum,_2013

Would that not be the opposite of what we're voting on?

AFAIK, were the first country voting to remove a constitutional ban on SSM. Thats not what Croatia did

Shrap · 05-05-2015 08:58PM

arayess wrote: »

we are not - It's a myth peddled that we are first here.
I do not know where that myth came from but seen it knocking about.

croatia voted on this matter in 2013 - theirs was to insert a ban on same sex marriage into their constitional and that was passed i.e ssm was banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_constitutional_referendum,_2013

I did not know that at all. Seems the no side here have taken a few lessons from the conservative Opus Dei led referendum there.

frostyjacks · 05-05-2015 08:59PM

arayess wrote: »

we are not - It's a myth peddled that we are first here.
I do not know where that myth came from but seen it knocking about.

croatia voted on this matter in 2013 - theirs was to insert a ban on same sex marriage into their constitional and that was passed i.e ssm was banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_constitutional_referendum,_2013

Fair play Croatia. Not just the best football jerseys now.

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

Comments