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

Zubeneschamali · 06-05-2015 08:46PM

gravehold wrote: »

Keep being all high and mighty preaching that people are bigots you are sure to win over the fence sitters to go out of there way to vote for you on something that won't effect them in any way.

I don't need fence sitters, and there's no talking to No voters. I just need the decent folks like yourself to get off the sofa and vote.

Ave Sodalis · 06-05-2015 08:48PM

gravehold wrote: »

Keep being all high and mighty preaching that people are bigots you are sure to win over the fence sitters to go out of there way to vote for you on something that won't effect them in any way.

In fairness, I was holding back from this thread for a while and when I came back, you were desperately trying to twist my words to make it sound like I said something I never did to prove some sort of point that didn't make sense. I don't think you're exactly the right person to preach how to act.

aloyisious · 06-05-2015 08:53PM

gravehold wrote: »

I never plan to marry it would just mean I could technically marry if it came in, once the birth cert thing come in that's another way I could marry. Marraige is a stupid thing to do in this day and age though.

But I am voting yes anyway, I guess posting style is very devils advocate like the jesus is a jew joke. But really if people misgender me in public I am ok with that that's their right, personally I can understand why people still think trans people are there birth gender and I am not going to force people change there mind.

I just find some of the yes sides very hypocritical like in lgbt groups and bars I find a lot of hetrophobia anc honestly don't like the way the yes side is acting so high and mighty and would prefer if we removed our freedom for a referendum and just forced it through.

Every irish citizen get a vote and people should be aloowed to make up their mind how to use it without one side calling them names crom up on their high horse

Yeah, a lot of us relate to the "phobia" bit as we had it in our faces for so long, we tend to be aggressive through words to let off steam. Re the transphobia you face in gay bars, that's similar to what we (you and I, and others) face/d from parts of the straight community. Just keep the maxim "things get better" in mind.

gravehold · 06-05-2015 08:53PM

sup_dude wrote: »

In fairness, I was holding back from this thread for a while and when I came back, you were desperately trying to twist my words to make it sound like I said something I never did to prove some sort of point that didn't make sense. I don't think you're exactly the right person to preach how to act.

Devils advocate to point out yes side hippocrosy which there is a lot of.

gravehold · 06-05-2015 08:55PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Yeah, a lot of us relate to the "phobia" bit as we had it in our faces for so long, we tend to be aggressive through words to let off steam. Re the transphobia you face in gay bars, that's similar to what we (you and I, and others) face/d from parts of the straight community. Just keep the maxim "things get better" in mind.

I never really get transphobia in gay bars just hetrophobia.

Ave Sodalis · 06-05-2015 08:56PM

gravehold wrote: »

Devils advocate to point out yes side hippocrosy which there is a lot of.

You play devil's advocate when you have a point to make. You weren't making a point when you had to try and change what I was saying to achieve it. Can you point out where in my posts you were trying to change there was hypocrisy?

efb · 06-05-2015 08:56PM

Just finished canvassing all my neighbours.

I won't try to turn water into wine but will ask everyone that can vote to consider giving a yes for Equality for any gay friends or family members, and thank those willing to do so.

Shrap · 06-05-2015 09:16PM

gravehold wrote: »

Keep being all high and mighty preaching that people are bigots you are sure to win over the fence sitters to go out of there way to vote for you on something that won't effect them in any way.

Nope after the day ive had the last thing im doing is working out what is meant in your comment without the use of capitals or commas so if ya dont mind im sure your grand but i cant begin to make sense of you we cool? good

frostyjacks · 06-05-2015 09:24PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am a 50 year old Irish lesbian who came out in the late 1970s while in secondary school so I kinda worked out about the whole lack of equality thing the hard way.

I was quoting that as part of a discussion where frosty claimed homosexuals are looking for rights we are not entitled to... Constitution says all citizens should be held equal under the law so yes, we are entitled to equal treatment no matter what frosty thinks...

How come David Norris hasn't been campaigning for gay marriage all these years, if that was the case?

You know, I read through the spreadsheet of the 160 differences. In fairness, they're not asking for the sun, the moon and the stars. So why not just upgrade civil partnership for the inheritance and tax stuff, which seemed to be the bulk of the differences, instead of going nuclear?

Shrap · 06-05-2015 09:34PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

How come David Norris hasn't been campaigning for gay marriage all these years, if that was the case?

You know, I read through the spreadsheet of the 160 differences. In fairness, they're not asking for the sun, the moon and the stars. So why not just upgrade civil partnership for the inheritance and tax stuff, which seemed to be the bulk of the differences, instead of going nuclear?

This is nuts. The minute homosexuality was rightly decriminalised was the minute that heterosexuality and homosexuality were on par with each other. Equal, and all that. WTF has what David Norris said or didn't say got to do with it?

Going nuclear? Really? Other human beings equal to you are looking for equality in law and you think that's catastrophic? Would love to see your reaction to a real emergency! :pac:

drunkmonkey · 06-05-2015 09:35PM

anna080 wrote: »

I will be voting in favour of marriage equality because although it won't directly make a difference to my life it will make a massive difference to the lives of others.

I find it amusing how all of a sudden Ireland is so concerned with the notion of an acceptable "family unit".

frostyjacks wrote: »

How come David Norris hasn't been campaigning for gay marriage all these years, if that was the case?

You know, I read through the spreadsheet of the 160 differences. In fairness, they're not asking for the sun, the moon and the stars. So why not just upgrade civil partnership for the inheritance and tax stuff, which seemed to be the bulk of the differences, instead of going nuclear?

TV3 tonight with George Hook and Vincent brown, he's in the yes camp, there's squaring up to Cathy Synott and some young fella that's going to get chewed up. Surprised they've let Norris out was really thinking there was a gag order on him and panty.

Zubeneschamali · 06-05-2015 09:39PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

You know, I read through the spreadsheet of the 160 differences. In fairness, they're not asking for the sun, the moon and the stars. So why not just upgrade civil partnership for the inheritance and tax stuff, which seemed to be the bulk of the differences

You mean separate but equal?

Wilberto · 06-05-2015 09:40PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

TV3 tonight with George Hook and Vincent brown, he's in the yes camp, there's squaring up to Cathy Synott and some young fella that's going to get chewed up. Surprised they've let Norris out was really thinking there was a gag order on him and panty.

Oh dear lord!

Bannasidhe · 06-05-2015 09:41PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

How come David Norris hasn't been campaigning for gay marriage all these years, if that was the case?

You know, I read through the spreadsheet of the 160 differences. In fairness, they're not asking for the sun, the moon and the stars. So why not just upgrade civil partnership for the inheritance and tax stuff, which seemed to be the bulk of the differences, instead of going nuclear?

Missed the whole Civil Partnership 'dog licence' debates did you?

Because... as has been explained over and over and over again... the writers of the 1937 Constitution got it into their heads that marriage needed extra super duper legal protection so they wrote an article in the Constitution that marriage was the foundation of the family. This lead Irish courts to determine that being married made a couple (children not required) officially a family and super duper protected.
Civil Partnership does not have Constitutional protection.
It is unclear if a Civil partnered couple are, constitutionally speaking, a family and entitled to the same protections as a married couple.
Civil Partnership can be repealed and therefore cease to exist and all such partnerships rendered null and void - Marriage cannot because it is protected by the Constitution.

They are not equal but different. One is a bicycle and the other is a tank. Both are modes of transport but only one is super duper safe.

aloyisious · 06-05-2015 09:43PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

How come David Norris hasn't been campaigning for gay marriage all these years, if that was the case?

You know, I read through the spreadsheet of the 160 differences. In fairness, they're not asking for the sun, the moon and the stars. So why not just upgrade civil partnership for the inheritance and tax stuff, which seemed to be the bulk of the differences, instead of going nuclear?

It's not really going nuclear to ask that what is in the constitution is made accessible to us, and not just on the terms of others. It's not as if all versions of marriage are solely the prerogative of straight persons of religious persuasion or those intent on procreating within the boundary of religious marriage, or is it?

Penny Tration · 06-05-2015 09:43PM

I've seen posts here from people saying how happily surprised they are by the sheer amount of people here on the yes side. That's lovely.

But tbh, I'm saddened at the number of people determined to deny gay people equal marriage rights. Maybe because I'm straight, I've not encountered as many homophobes/bigots/religious people/confused people/people who don't like change or whatever other reasons people have for disliking gay people.

But Christ, the amount of people here spouting bile about gay people really saddens me.

I thought that we, as a nation, were better than that. Yes, there will always be homophobes, but seeing them be so vocal and so happy to spout their hatred is really, really gut wrenching.

Charman921 · 06-05-2015 09:47PM

It's proposed to add a sentence to Article 41 of the Constitution mentioning same sex marriage. But looking at the article you'll notice, there is no mention of man or woman. The constitution was written and agreed when the idea was, marriages only took place between man and woman. But it doesn't mention that fact. In fact, the article mentions women only. Not a man. So, surely there can be same sex marriages even under the present Article 41 - or am I missing something? The point is, is there a need for a referendum?

Zubeneschamali · 06-05-2015 09:53PM

Charman921 wrote: »

The point is, is there a need for a referendum?

The Constitution is not a simple document that means what it says, it is a legal document which means what the Supreme Court says it means.

It would be possible to pass a law making SSM legal, but it would be challenged immediately to the Supreme Court for a ruling, and the Courts have shown signs in the past of interpreting the Constitution as meaning that the family is basic, and is based on marriage, which means man+woman.

Then we'd need a referendum anyway.

This way, there is no doubt or uncertainty - if the Referendum is passed, SSM is OK and legislation is bulletproof.

More importantly, Enda & Co. don't have to own the decision - the People will decide, letting our chickensh!t "leaders" off the hook.

swampgas · 06-05-2015 09:56PM

Charman921 wrote: »

It's proposed to add a sentence to Article 41 of the Constitution mentioning same sex marriage. But looking at the article you'll notice, there is no mention of man or woman. The constitution was written and agreed when the idea was, marriages only took place between man and woman. But it doesn't mention that fact. In fact, the article mentions women only. Not a man. So, surely there can be same sex marriages even under the present Article 41 - or am I missing something? The point is, is there a need for a referendum?

Not exactly sure of the details, but I believe this ambiguity ended up with the supreme court, and they decided that the constitution implied a male-female family because of some legal principle which went right over my head. Additionally (and I might have the details completely sideways here) the supreme court can't just go and change its mind and change its interpretation of the constitution. However one way to change a supreme court judgement is to change the constitution, as that takes precedence. Or something vaguely along those lines anyway.

(Corrections most welcome!)

gravehold · 06-05-2015 09:57PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Constitution is not a simple document that means what it says, it is a legal document which means what the Supreme Court says it means.

It would be possible to pass a law making SSM legal, but it would be challenged immediately to the Supreme Court for a ruling, and the Courts have shown signs in the past of interpreting the Constitution as meaning that the family is basic, and is based on marriage, which means man+woman.

Then we'd need a referendum anyway.

This way, there is no doubt or uncertainty - if the Referendum is passed, SSM is OK and legislation is bulletproof.

More importantly, Enda & Co. don't have to own the decision - the People will decide, letting our chickensh!t "leaders" off the hook.

Yes the only reason the people are getting a choice is cause enda is scared to pick a side. :rolleyes:

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 06-05-2015 09:57PM

seamus wrote: »

You're right. Your consent is being sought because at present there are couples who are - by the constitution - denied the ability to get married to eachother by virtue of their gender.

Yeah, I got that. I just don't see any substantial issue arising from that fact.

seamus wrote: »

This amendment will address that inequality and allow such people to have their relationship recognised as equal to any other married couple in the state, and all the rights afforded thereof.

Ah, yeah, including the Constitutional right to import contraceptives for their own use, which has been a big bugbear for same sex couples for eons.

The language in Article 41 (which is the one being changed) is inherently gender-based, and includes specific recognition for the role of women within marriage (strictly, the family - but in the Constitution that's the same thing).

Exactly what this dog's dinner of an amendment will mean is anyone's guess. If this was being done for real, a complete redraft of Article 41 is necessary. But, of course, that would mean the handy fiction of "nothing is changing, we're only extending what's there" could not be maintained.

seamus wrote: »

Because of the nature of our constitution, this inequality can only be addressed by constitutional amendment and not by the law.

That's actually contested, even by some Yes voters. As I understand it, the Courts decided that same sex couples have no automatic right to marry. But that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the Oireachtas could legislate for this.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Most of the people I've encountered that are saying there going to vote 'No' because of the bullying 'Yes' campaign were going to vote No anyway. They are just looking for an excuse to vote 'No'.

Again, no-one needs a reason to vote No. That's the default choice in any referendum. People need to give you a reason to vote Yes.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 06-05-2015 10:00PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It would be possible to pass a law making SSM legal, but it would be challenged immediately to the Supreme Court for a ruling, and the Courts have shown signs in the past of interpreting the Constitution as meaning that the family is basic, and is based on marriage, which means man+woman.

And that wording is still there. This farce of a referendum isn't changing that.

If the President had a Bill put before him for signing into law that he felt was unconstitutional, he could refer it. And if the Supreme Court cleared it at that point, it could never be challenged again.

I don't know the exact motive for this referendum. I do know I'm voting No.

frostyjacks · 06-05-2015 10:01PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They are not equal but different. One is a bicycle and the other is a tank. Both are modes of transport but only one is super duper safe.

I'd say one is a tank, the other is a very well armoured security van. Why not just bulk up the armour on your van instead of trying to squeeze into my tank?

swampgas · 06-05-2015 10:05PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Again, no-one needs a reason to vote No. That's the default choice in any referendum. People need to give you a reason to vote Yes.

Technically that's true. However the very fact that a referendum is being held in the first place suggests that there must be arguments strong enough to lead the government to go to the trouble of holding a referendum in the first place.

The reasons for a Yes vote are definitely out there, what's missing from the debate is any significant counter-argument to them. I'm not sure what else people need, in order to be persuaded to vote Yes?

Of course some will stick their fingers in their ears, refuse to engage with the debate, and vote No regardless, but there isn't much anyone else can do about that.

swampgas · 06-05-2015 10:05PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'd say one is a tank, the other is a very well armoured security van. Why not just bulk up the armour on your van instead of trying to squeeze into my tank?

Surely in an equal society we'd all have the same protection? Why better armour for some and not for others?

Lyaiera · 06-05-2015 10:07PM

swampgas wrote: »

Surely in an equal society we'd all have the same protection? Why better armour for some and not for others?

Something something kids with M16s.

aloyisious · 06-05-2015 10:08PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

If the yes camp had gone about their business in a nice way, instead of beating the door down and screaming for rights that they're not actually entitled to, I might have considered allowing them their wish. Instead, they've done their cause a lot of damage, in my opinion.

Well, that's mighty kind of you, "I might have considered giving them the rights they're not actually entitled to", kind'a like "I might have thrown them a bone from my table, even though they're not entitled to it".

Now some-one posted something about gays thinking they were back in the 50's or something to that effect. Update for that person: for back in the 50's read 1993, only twenty-two (22) years ago, not fifty-five (55) years. Keith Mills, one of the openly gay men on the "vote no" campaign, will verify that date.

jimmycrackcorm · 06-05-2015 10:09PM

I think it's amusing when people argue for a yes vote to allow for constitutional protection. It's not as if anyone went down on bended knee to ask someone if they would like to get constitutionally protected.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 06-05-2015 10:11PM

swampgas wrote: »

Technically that's true. However the very fact that a referendum is being held in the first place suggests that there must be arguments strong enough to lead the government to go to the trouble of holding a referendum in the first place.

I'm afraid, I really can't relate to this touching faith in Government. Do you have similar thoughts on the referendum to reducing the qualifying age for President?

swampgas wrote: »

The reasons for a Yes vote are definitely out there

That's really not my perception of the matter. Other than symbolism, I see no coherent case for this referendum being advanced. A lot of the yes campaign is just a procession of people we're meant to have some kind of regard for telling us they're voting yes. I think Anne Doyle is a grand looking oul wan, but she'd not a reason for voting yes.

Ave Sodalis · 06-05-2015 10:12PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I think it's amusing when people argue for a yes vote to allow for constitutional protection. It's not as if anyone went down on bended knee to ask someone if they would like to get constitutionally protected.

Sounds better than asking if they would like to get partnershiped :P

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

Comments