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

SireOfSeth · 07-05-2015 11:18AM

gravehold wrote: »

But a gay man can still marry a woman atm so he is just as equal. Sure he doesn't get to be in the marraige he wants but is equal.

That's not equal then, is it? Are you arguing with yourself now?!?

Hyzepher · 07-05-2015 11:19AM

As it stands, the government allowing foreclosing of principal private residents could be argued as unconstitutional - maybe

TwoShedsJackson · 07-05-2015 11:20AM

gravehold wrote: »

I actually want polygamous people to have the same rights as some of my firends are in a polygamous relationship, i just find the yes equality stuff hypocritical as there is no equality being sought after

Not all inequalities can be righted at one time, the fact that polygamists can't all marry each other as they see fit doesn't mean that the current referendum attempt to extend equality to one section of society shouldn't be attempted.

If and when this passes, great. A section of society that currently does not have equal rights to straight couples will then have them. After that, when there is enough political and social demand for rights to be extended to polygamists, it will happen. Could be a long wait though, it's a legal minefield.

As for posters, I think all posters should be banned. Let people advance their arguments in the media and stop plastering the countryside with emotive nonsense, or a head and shoulders of some gormless party gombeen in a general election.

Zubeneschamali · 07-05-2015 11:20AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The word "woman" is ambiguous, and this amendment will mean it unambiguously includes male only relationships? I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

The word "woman" is not the ambiguous bit.

ARTICLE 41

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2 1° 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.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

The bits about "woman" are ridiculous and should be removed, but if you stick a pin in our constitution, chances are something near that point is stupid or wrong or outdated, so let's not worry about that.

The issue is that "family" and "Marriage" are not defined. There are various court precedents stretching all the way back to 1873, but confirmed in 1995 here:

The classic position was set out in:

Hyde v Hyde [1861-73] All ER 176 (English case)
Confirmed in Ireland in **B v B [1995] 1 ILRM 491.
The test of Art. 41 was to protect the classic common law definition of marriage from this case; “the voluntary union of one man and woman to the exclusion of all others for life.”

(Obviously redefined by the divorce referendum.)

If challenged, the Supreme Court might follow precedent and accept that definition, and SSM would be out.

Or, they might use 1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law to assert that SSM is OK, we don't know. However, the Family bit is full of Natural Law type language, which can be asserted to be before and above the personal rights clauses, so...

gravehold · 07-05-2015 11:21AM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

That's not equal then, is it? Are you arguing with yourself now?!?

Just like the polygamous relationship people want to deny marraige too

gravehold · 07-05-2015 11:22AM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Not all inequalities can be righted at one time, the fact that polygamists can't all marry each other as they see fit doesn't mean that the current referendum attempt to extend equality to one section of society shouldn't be attempted.

If and when this passes, great. A section of society that currently does not have equal rights to straight couples will then have them. After that, when there is enough political and social demand for rights to be extended to polygamists, it will happen. Could be a long wait though, it's a legal minefield.

As for posters, I think all posters should be banned. Let people advance their arguments in the media and stop plastering the countryside with emotive nonsense, or a head and shoulders of some gormless party gombeen in a general election.

I agree with you point my issue is the posters say yes equality not yes ssm

Ave Sodalis · 07-05-2015 11:22AM

gravehold wrote: »

Just like the polygamous relationship people want to deny marraige too

Go start a campaign to get that and I'll back it. It's nothing to do with this referendum though.

VinLieger · 07-05-2015 11:22AM

gravehold wrote: »

Just like the polygamous relationship people want to deny marraige too

Not one person has said they want to deny polygamous marriage its just not part of this referendum however you persist in trying to put words in peoples lies for whatever bizarre agenda you have

floggg · 07-05-2015 11:22AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The right to import contraceptives is part of the right to marital privacy, yes. But not for contraception. I believe IUD's are great for getting things out from under the cushion of a sofa.The presumption of paternity is not irrelevant to straight marriages, just considerably less likely to be called on in certain circumstances. It clearly has relevance for a fertile couple, even if they initially state they have no intention to have children.The point is more that the wording very clearly says family = marriage, and uses gender-base language that assumes "woman" is an essential part of that. To read it otherwise is to deny what's there in black and white, and will still be there in black and white after 22 May.

The right to marital privacy also includes the right not to import contraceptives.

In fact, the right of marital privacy means its irrelevant to anybody else whether or not any couple imports, buys, uses or misuses contraceptives. If we want to use them for a game of kinky condom balloons, then that's not your business or the courts.

The fact that you are making this argument about import of fully legal contraceptives which LGBT already use shows how absurdly disingenuous you are being.

And the language (which itself is horrifically outdated and needs to be removed) gives a mother a special place within a family - but does not require one to be present.

Indeed, we already have many marriages which do not include a mother - again the infertile or intentionally childless couples. The fact that there is no "mother" doesn't render them any less married - it just means neither spouse gets the sexist condescending "protection" of that sub-Article.

Two men who marry will be in no different position as my 60+ year old neighbours who never had kids.

Nor does the reference to family necessarily include children - two childless married people can still form a family.

So the argument you are trying to construct is bogus.

Two men marrying will be no different than a man and a woman who voluntarily sterilise themselves prior to marriage. No possibility of or openness to procreation - but still very much married.

seamus · 07-05-2015 11:23AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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).

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.

So, on the one hand you claim, based on Article 41, that the constitution implicitly states that marriage is gender-based.

And on the other hand you claim that the Oireachtas could legislate to legalise same-sex marriage because the constitution doesn't specifically outlaw it.

Which is it?

You've pretty much defeated your own argument there about why this cannot be effectively done through legislation. Because the lack of any definition of marriage in the constitution leaves all legislation wide open for challenge.

This amendment will completely remove any confusion and explicitly state that there is no gender basis in marriage.

SireOfSeth · 07-05-2015 11:26AM

gravehold wrote: »

I agree with you point my issue is the posters say yes equality not yes ssm

With regards to THIS referendum, they ARE the same thing!

SireOfSeth · 07-05-2015 11:27AM

sup_dude wrote: »

Go start a campaign to get that and I'll back it. It's nothing to do with this referendum though.

+1

SpaceTime · 07-05-2015 11:28AM

I think it'll pass but there are two scenarios :

1) it'll be tighter than we think. Something more like the divorce referendum which had opinion polled as a likely easy Yes.

2) due to high engagement it could be a landslide Yes. There were huge numbers of first time registrations for younger voters in particular and I don't think there unlikely to turn out.

Maximus Alexander · 07-05-2015 11:31AM

SpaceTime wrote: »

2) due to high engagement it could be a landslide Yes. There were huge numbers of first time registrations for younger voters in particular and I don't think there unlikely to turn out.

Given that it takes much more effort to register to vote than to actually cast your vote, I find this hugely encouraging.

I must say I'm finding myself very impressed with the younger generation coming through, particularly secondary school age. They might not be able to vote, but they're campaigning. I have a lot of cousins and such in this age bracket, and Facebook is awash with pictures of them wearing their yes badges and handing out leaflets.

Zubeneschamali · 07-05-2015 11:33AM

aloyisious wrote: »

At least I know what Tom Finegan look's like now, assuming it is the same Dr Tom Finegan who had a letter in the papers recently in support of the "vote no" campaign.

He's a doctor of Law from Trinity, studied under some guy named Professor William Binchy.

Hyzepher · 07-05-2015 11:35AM

It's funny how children have a more pragmatic viewpoint on things. They are generally void of prejudice and usually have a better understanding of what is right - albeit from a high level viewpoint.

One eyed Jack · 07-05-2015 11:37AM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes it's unequal and discrimination just like the yes side saying to my polygamous friends they don't need to get married.

gravehold your contributions to this thread so far have been to pick holes in other people's arguments and yet your own arguments and accusations are completely inconsistent depending upon where you can find another hole to pick at. You understand fully that people here are not representatives of the Yes campaign. They are ordinary people giving their opinions, and so there is no "Yes side" saying to your polygamous friends they don't need to get married.

You know this referendum is about civil marriage, and the Yes campaign are arguing that people who are LGBT should have equal opportunity as a heterosexual couple to enter into civil marriage. Legislating for polygamous marriage is a completely separate issue and is not discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Prohibition of polygamous marriages applies equally to every citizen in this country regardless of their sex, gender or sexual orientation. Currently, only opposite sex couples have the opportunity to enter into civil marriage. If this referendum is passed, it will mean that same sex couples will have the same opportunity to enter into civil marriage.

That is, couple - two people, without distinction as to their sex. Not three, not four, not six or seven. It is not discrimination against anyone on the basis of their sex, gender or sexual orientation to say they do not meet the criteria for civil marriage.

And it's perfectly their right, I can understand why people want to keep the birth cert to show the sex of the person at their birth it's a record of time. I don't complain in public if someone misgenders me that's their right they get to chose how to gender me on their beliefs I don't have to be their friend or like it but I don't get to force my opinion on them either

You are not forcing your opinion on anyone when you stand up for yourself and correct them if they misgender you. It is NOT their right to do so, as it is utterly disrespectful to you as a person. You deserve the same respect and equal treatment as every citizen of this State and it's true, you don't have to be their friend or like it, but you do have the right to stand up for yourself and correct them on it. That is not forcing your opinion on them. That is a statement of fact.

The people campaigning for marriage equality are also standing up for themselves and what they need is support, they have enough people with "opinions" devaluing them as people and telling them that they should not be entitled to the same rights, privileges and protections as other people on the basis of their sexual orientation. That is the very essence of discrimination, and it is wrong, and people should stand up for themselves, and we should be supporting them, not trying to confuse and frustrate them and throwing in red herrings and any other sort of nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with the proposed referendum.

seamus · 07-05-2015 11:38AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I must say I'm finding myself very impressed with the younger generation coming through, particularly secondary school age. They might not be able to vote, but they're campaigning. I have a lot of cousins and such in this age bracket, and Facebook is awash with pictures of them wearing their yes badges and handing out leaflets.

There seems to have been a sea change in the attitudes amongst teens in the last 15 years. I finished school in 2000, and while there were a couple of kids who came out not long after leaving, nobody was out while in school. No way, in hell, would a teenager in the 90s be openly gay in school.

Yet in recent times I've seen and encountered plenty of kids who've been openly out at 14/15/16, in school and online. Teenagers still use "gay" and "fag" as somewhat derogatory terms, but not with the same kind of hatred and vitriol I recall. They're more generic terms used as slags like "retard", rather than pointed suggestions that someone is gay.
I find it bordering on incredible that a 15 year old boy could be openly gay and still be treated as an equal by (almost) all of his peers. But very heartening to see and I really hope these kids all come out in force to vote this time around.

MrWalsh · 07-05-2015 11:42AM

seamus wrote: »

There seems to have been a sea change in the attitudes amongst teens in the last 15 years. I finished school in 2000, and while there were a couple of kids who came out not long after leaving, nobody was out while in school. No way, in hell, would a teenager in the 90s be openly gay in school.

Its since the law was changed wrt sodomy being a crime.

No one I was in school with was openly gay and even at the beginning in college, it was unusual. There were still incidences of "gay bashing" in my first year in college.

But the year after or 2 years after I started college the law changed and then suddenly there were a lot more openly gay students and a lot less tolerance to bigotry.

smash · 07-05-2015 11:42AM

SpaceTime wrote: »

1) it'll be tighter than we think. Something more like the divorce referendum which had opinion polled as a likely easy Yes.

Definitely. It was mentioned on Vinny B last night that a lot of the No voters interviewed wouldn't consent to having the interview aired.

VinLieger · 07-05-2015 11:48AM

smash wrote: »

Definitely. It was mentioned on Vinny B last night that a lot of the No voters interviewed wouldn't consent to having the interview aired.

Im of the opinion there's a lot of closeted no voters hiding in yes polling due to their own understanding of how badly their own peers will think of them if they found out they revealed they were voting no, kinda ironic and karmic and you think it would engender a bit of empathy but these people seem to be devoid of that

Maximus Alexander · 07-05-2015 11:50AM

seamus wrote: »

There seems to have been a sea change in the attitudes amongst teens in the last 15 years. I finished school in 2000, and while there were a couple of kids who came out not long after leaving, nobody was out while in school. No way, in hell, would a teenager in the 90s be openly gay in school.

Yet in recent times I've seen and encountered plenty of kids who've been openly out at 14/15/16, in school and online. Teenagers still use "gay" and "fag" as somewhat derogatory terms, but not with the same kind of hatred and vitriol I recall. They're more generic terms used as slags like "retard", rather than pointed suggestions that someone is gay.
I find it bordering on incredible that a 15 year old boy could be openly gay and still be treated as an equal by (almost) all of his peers. But very heartening to see and I really hope these kids all come out in force to vote this time around.

I left secondary school myself just coming up on 11 years ago, and while I would say attitudes were softening, I certainly can't imagine the entire student body openly campaigning for gay rights. One of my best friends, then and now, was gay and I always knew it, but he didn't come out until college and even then it was with trepidation.

There were a few other guys in my year who I have since learned have come out, but you couldn't have done it in school, even then. I don't think you'd have been physically abused - not at my school anyway - but I expect you'd have suffered a lot of verbal harassment. It's great to see that this is changing, and so rapidly, even if there's a long way to go.

Shrap · 07-05-2015 11:56AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

There were a few other guys in my year who I have since learned have come out, but you couldn't have done it in school, even then. I don't think you'd have been physically abused - not at my school anyway - but I expect you'd have suffered a lot of verbal harassment. It's great to see that this is changing, and so rapidly, even if there's a long way to go.

Interestingly, although my eldest (6th year) and all his friends are supporting yes equality, I asked him had anyone in his year come out as gay. No, nobody has. I find that really sad, and unsurprising considering that the catcalls of "******" and "bum-boy" start in first year. My youngest has been getting that treatment and I'll be sorting that out with the school ASAP.

There sure is a long way to go. Equality in marriage will be a huge step forward along this way.

Zubeneschamali · 07-05-2015 11:57AM

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think it'll pass but there are two scenarios :

If priests in sermons soft-pedal the issue, will the holier-than-thou crew go out and vote just because David Quinn and John Waters tell them to?

I don't think so. If it looks like a done deal, a lot of No voters will just stay home, I think.

floggg · 07-05-2015 12:03PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If priests in sermons soft-pedal the issue, will the holier-than-thou crew go out and vote just because David Quinn and John Waters tell them to?

I don't think so. If it looks like a done deal, a lot of No voters will just stay home, I think.

Do not say that - unless you are actually an undercover Iona agent.

It could be a slam dunk - but only if we get everybody out to vote. If people think its already a done deal, they will have less incentive to vote and will stay at home.

That means we will lose - because there are very few soft no's - and the hard no's will vote early and vote often!

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 07-05-2015 12:25PM

I need staff.

smash wrote: »

The article does not suggest that a woman(or man) is required for marriage or a family to be qualified, or that either gender is an essential part.

We, yes it does. You've missing the significance of the words "in particular".

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The bits about "woman" are ridiculous and should be removed, but if you stick a pin in our constitution, chances are something near that point is stupid or wrong or outdated, so let's not worry about that.

So there's an issue, we should just pretend there isn't? No.

floggg wrote: »

The right to marital privacy also includes the right not to import contraceptives.

A right implies it's opposite, yes. The McGee case also found that the State would have a right to restrict access to contraceptives if there was a need to promote population growth. Can you comment on the application of that qualification on the right of marital privacy to SSM?

floggg wrote: »

Two men who marry will be in no different position as my 60+ year old neighbours who never had kids.

That assumes your neighbours don't meet any Italian Gynaecologists.
More directly, it is perfectly coherent for the presumption of paternity to apply to straight marriages. It is simply incoherent to apply it to SSM.

floggg wrote: »

Two men marrying will be no different than a man and a woman who voluntarily sterilise themselves prior to marriage.

I think you're scraping the barrel with that argument.

seamus wrote: »

So, on the one hand you claim, based on Article 41, that the constitution implicitly states that marriage is gender-based. And on the other hand you claim that the Oireachtas could legislate to legalise same-sex marriage because the constitution doesn't specifically outlaw it.

Yes, but I'm not suggesting that a uniform legal provision is possible.
The situation, as I understand it, is that there's no right to SSM under the Constitution, but the Courts haven't ruled out the possibility of legislation.
And, bear in mind, the President can refer a Bill if he thinks it's not Constitutional.

seamus wrote: »

This amendment will completely remove any confusion and explicitly state that there is no gender basis in marriage.

That's explicitly what it won't do, as the gender-specific language remains.

smash · 07-05-2015 12:37PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

yes it does. You've missing the significance of the words "in particular".

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.

This does not in any way, shape or form suggest that a woman is an essential part of a marriage. It merely states that the state recognises that by staying at home she is contributing to the common good. And it's then followed up to say that she shouldn't be forced to work, but only if she's a mother:

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

WoolyJumper · 07-05-2015 12:41PM

Just saw the latest Iona video.

2 lies in this video:
"you are not only being asked to redefine marriage but also redefine family" -You are not being asked to redefine either, just extend the protection of marriage to same sex couples

"If this referendum passes gay couples will be allowed to marry and adopt children" - whether this referendum passes or not, gay couples will be allowed to apply to adopt children.

And of course their ending graphics was two children moving from a straight couple to two gay couples. As if to subtly suggest children will be taken of their lovely Mammies and Daddies and given to the gays. So a third lie?

In true open and honest Iona fashion they disabled comments on the video.

BoatMad · 07-05-2015 12:42PM

Originally Posted by seamus View Post
This amendment will completely remove any confusion and explicitly state that there is no gender basis in marriage.

That's explicitly what it won't do, as the gender-specific language remains.

The text of the referendum states.

"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"

It explicitly allows for SSM, without disrupting meaning of article 41, where both the role of the " Family" and women is acknowledged , in that regard I see no conflict and a practical recognition of the majority situation

Its clear that there is no gender specific language in relation to marriage, while gender specific language remains in relation to the " Family", so your contention is incorrect as marriage is not the same as " Family"

Zubeneschamali · 07-05-2015 12:49PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

So there's an issue, we should just pretend there isn't? No.

Of course there is an ssue: our Constitution is rubbish. We should rip it up and write a real one, but that is never going to happen, so instead we will chip away at it, line by line.

This referendum is not about deleting the sexist stuff about woman in the Family section, because contrary to your earlier posts, that language is not the cause of the ambiguity this referendum seeks to fix, and hence is not related to marriage equality, the point of this referendum. It is an entirely different issue.

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

Comments