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

Sofiztikated · 07-05-2015 4:07pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

Remember: Every president needs wrinkles AND grey hair!

But only if they have a penis.

gravehold · 07-05-2015 4:07pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

Remember: Every president needs wrinkles AND grey hair!

You are doing a huge disservice to our greatest president mary robinson.

gravehold · 07-05-2015 4:08pm

Sofiztikated wrote: »

But only if they have a penis.

Men don't to have a penis

smash · 07-05-2015 4:09pm

seamus wrote: »

If we managed to elect a married homosexual 25 year old man with two surrogate children as the next president, I think I might chuckle a little. What would that old bat DeValera say?

Some would suggest that part of that statement is already true...

SpaceTime · 07-05-2015 4:10pm

gravehold wrote: »

You are doing a huge disservice to our greatest president mary robinson.

She just had excellent skin and naturally fabulous hair.

(cough: presidential hair dresser and makeup team!

Sofiztikated · 07-05-2015 4:10pm

gravehold wrote: »

Men don't to have a penis

I never said a man did.

This is getting a bit too weird now. Back to arguing about giving one couple the same rights as another couple.

BoatMad · 07-05-2015 4:10pm

seamus wrote: »

If we managed to elect a married homosexual 25 year old man with two surrogate children as the next president, I think I might chuckle a little. What would that old bat DeValera say?

thank God we dont have to listen to Dev anymore, he nearly destroyed this country

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 07-05-2015 4:12pm

smash wrote: »

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:

Can I suggest a reading that we might be able to agree on?

Article 41 does not define marriage or explicitly say it is limited to one man and one woman

The Courts have usually decided that marriage, when refered to in the Constitution, means the Christian conception of marriage. This is not unreasonable, as the Constitution asserts that the "Holy Trinity" is the source of all valid authority, which the Courts have interpreted to mean that the State has a Christian ethos.

Article 41 says marriage is the basis for families, which the Courts have taken to mean that the term "family" when it appears in the Constitution means families based on a marriage

Article 41 says the State protects 'the family' (based on a marriage), because it is an institution that furthers the common good

Article 41 says without the work of 'woman', 'the family' (based on a marriage) is unable to achieve the common good

In my view, that does amount to a fair amount of gender-specific thought, which doesn't sit well with same sex (and in particular all male) marriage.

BoatMad wrote: »

<...> your contention is incorrect as marriage is not the same as " Family"

It is in the Constitution, and I don't think the Yes campaign contest that. In fact, an amount of their case is that the Constitutional protection for 'the family' only applies to married couples.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

To be positive, once the existence of an issue is acknowledged, I'm not at all dogmatic about how someone should vote on the topic.

I'd argue about your phrase "hence is not related to marriage equality", as it's not possible to just switch off the gender-specific language that's there. Just because it's politically difficult to change the existing wording doesn't mean it's unimportant.

What gets on my wick more is people trying to pretend that the obvious incoherence in language doesn't exist at all, which is an attempt to pretend that changing one bit of an article has no impact on the rest of it.
How people respond to that situation is their own business. In my read, there isn't enough of a material issue at stake to bother with this change. I've no particular problem if someone else feels the resulting incoherence is a necessary price for some benefit that they see.

frostyjacks · 07-05-2015 4:16pm

BoatMad wrote: »

thank God we dont have to listen to Dev anymore, he nearly destroyed this country

Apparently he moved to Manchester and opened a corner shop.

Hyzepher · 07-05-2015 4:18pm

Article 41 has many issues

This referendum corrects one of them.

On to the next ...

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 4:19pm

BoatMad wrote: »

Marriage as defined in the constitution is being extended to include same sex etc. Normally an extension to somewhat does not fall over the definition of " redefine", changes that impacted on the status quo, could possibly be defined as " redefine". but article 41 is being left in its totality

Sweet Jesus H Christ, is that what they are spinning now?

Really,ha, so, when interpreting Article 41 and marriage (in other cases) the Irish Superior Courts still held onto the old Common Law Concept of Marriage,

“The voluntary union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”Hyde v. Hyde (1866)

B. v. R. [1995] 1 I.L.R.M. 491
“Marriage was and is regarded as the voluntary and permanent union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life.”

“A solemn contract of partnership entered into between man and woman with a special status recognised by the Constitution and that it was in principle for life.”D.T. v. C.T. [2003]

“Marriage as understood by the Constitution, by statute and by case law refers to a union by a biological man with a biological woman.

In this and in the neighbouring jurisdiction (see Corbett v. Corbett) it is crucial for legal purposes that the parties should be of the opposite biological sex. Indeed Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights is equally so predicated. All of its judgments above mentioned confirm this. Accordingly in my view there is no sustainable basis for the applicants submission that the existing law, which carries the impugned provision which prohibits the applicant from marrying a party who is of the same biological sex as herself is a violation of her constitutional right to marry.” Foy v. An tArd Chlaratheoir2002, (famous gender case of course there is more to that case, as further hearings were held later ie right to change birth cert, so the "Biological" term was removed in subsequent hearings )

Europe previously said
“In the courts opinion the right to marry guaranteed by Article 12 refers to the traditional marriage between persons of opposite biological sex. This appears also from the wording of the Article which makes it clear that Article 12 is mainly concerned to protect marriage as the basis of the family.”
Rees v. United Kingdom (1986) 9 EHRR

You get the picture......

Marriage, in this country, specifically excludes people of the same sex. It is what makes it "unique" THe legislation makes it crystal clear, man + woman club only.

The definition of family, under the Constitution is based on the definition of marriage. It excludes same sex couples and hetrosexual non married couples. It is very big deal.

Rather disingenuous to say that it merely "extends" . Highly dishonest to say that the institution of marriage is not being "redefined".

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/redefine
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redefine?s=t

BoatMad wrote: »

if my neighbour buys a car, is my car ownership being " redefined " , No, If my neighbour in the process of buying his car, destroys mine, then " yes its begin redefined". Clearly that is not happening in this referendum

Eh, cars are massed produced. They are not unique. Marriage is defined to be exclusive to a lot of classes. Comparison is laughable, almost insulting to people's intelligence.

BoatMad wrote: »

the concept of marriage as defined by the constitution and case law, is clearly being " extended" to include SSC. Marriage in itself is not being re-defined

The definition of marriage, is what?

Explain how it is not being redefined

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 07-05-2015 4:21pm

Hyzepher wrote: »

Article 41 has many issues

This referendum corrects one of them.

On to the next ...

I'm afraid, standing back from the issue with a nice soundbite doesn't wash.

SpaceTime · 07-05-2015 4:22pm

I had someone this morning trying to tell me that the amendment was unconstitutional ?!!?

I asked them what unconstitutional means (to them) and they kind of started making weird spluttering noises.

BoatMad · 07-05-2015 4:23pm

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.

Originally Posted by BoatMad View Post
<...> your contention is incorrect as marriage is not the same as " Family"
It is in the Constitution, and I don't think the Yes campaign contest that. In fact, an amount of their case is that the Constitutional protection for 'the family' only applies to married couples.

The state acknowledges that Families are founded on the institution of Marriage , Thats all, it does not define marriage per se

The courts " interpretation" of the constitution does not in itself change the constitution, referenda are needed merely to ensure that such " interpretation" does not run contary to the broad trust of the constitution

SSM is not about family protection , since no additional laws are being considered , it merely ensures that any legislation allowing SSM, is not open to constitutional challenge

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 4:24pm

BoatMad wrote: »

thank God we dont have to listen to Dev anymore, he nearly destroyed this country

Eamonn De Valera and people like him have done more for this country than the majority of you lot have done and will ever do. Last time I checked, a substantial proportion of the population, whether Blue shirter's or Fianna Failer's were pretty conservative, socially and economically

Ye seem to have mad notions that the country was up to much before he came into power. It is safe to say, the country went down hill after Lemass. Didn't Lynch nearly bankrupt the country with his give away manifesto ? Haughey failed to practice what he preached before elections and decide to spend rather than cut? Didn't Bertie publicly lambast anyone who disagreed about how the country was no longer boomier

BoatMad · 07-05-2015 4:29pm

Marriage, in this country, specifically excludes people of the same sex. It is what makes it "unique" THe legislation makes it crystal clear, man + woman club only.

The definition of family, under the Constitution is based on the definition of marriage. It excludes same sex couples and hetrosexual non married couples. It is very big deal.

Rather disingenuous to say that it merely "extends" . Highly dishonest to say that the institution of marriage is not being "redefined".

I stand my ground, The constitution as printed, does not define marriage , what courts decide can be changed and ruling change over time.

The family is based on the institution of marriage , I see nothing untoward in that.

All that is being done is to specifically and explicitly extended the concept of marriage to include SSM, to prevent a court challenge

How this " redefines" the status quo, escapes me. Its an extension of " rights" not a change to any "existing " ones

did allowing women to vote , " redefine" the voting system, no , because it did not change any rights previously associated with voting, but extended such rights to others.

to redefine a right , means that in effect , that those who had such rights experience a " redefinition" , i.e. are affected by such change, that is clearly not happening

BoatMad · 07-05-2015 4:31pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Eamonn De Valera and people like him have done more for this country than the majority of you lot have done and will ever do. Last time I checked, a substantial proportion of the population, whether Blue shirter's or Fianna Failer's were pretty conservative, socially and economically

Ye seem to have mad notions that the country was up to much before he came into power. It is safe to say, the country went down hill after Lemass. Didn't Lynch nearly bankrupt the country with his give away manifesto ? Haughey failed to practice what he preached before elections and decide to spend rather than cut? Didn't Bertie publicly lambast anyone who disagreed about how the country was no longer boomier

I presume this is seriously tongue in cheek , very good, hilarious spoof

Dev was a backward looking run away republican , that dragged this country into a civil war, then almost totally destroyed it economically and culturally

floggg · 07-05-2015 4:35pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I need staff.We, yes it does. You've missing the significance of the words "in particular".So there's an issue, we should just pretend there isn't? No.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?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.I think you're scraping the barrel with that argument.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.That's explicitly what it won't do, as the gender-specific language remains.

I like how you avoided all the important bits you couldn't explain.

Marriage doesn't require there to be a child or mother. Marriage doesn't necessitate the import of contraceptives - but even if it did lgbt couples could equally do so. The presumption of paternity is inapplicable to all childless marriages - whether same sex or opposite sex.

Your argument doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

smash · 07-05-2015 4:36pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Article 41 says without the work of 'woman', 'the family' (based on a marriage) is unable to achieve the common good

It's a completely ambiguous line of text. So I guess if you want to interpret it like that then it's up to you, but if you're going to be interpreting it like that then you might as well interpret the piece to suggest that 2 women would serve society better a man and a woman because men aren't mentioned at all there.

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 4:44pm

BoatMad wrote: »

I stand my ground, The constitution as printed, does not define marriage , what courts decide can be changed and ruling change over time.

The family is based on the institution of marriage , I see nothing untoward in that.

All that is being done is to specifically and explicitly extended the concept of marriage to include SSM, to prevent a court challenge

How this " redefines" the status quo, escapes me. Its an extension of " rights" not a change to any "existing " ones

did allowing women to vote , " redefine" the voting system, no , because it did not change any rights previously associated with voting, but extended such rights to others.

to redefine a right , means that in effect , that those who had such rights experience a " redefinition" , i.e. are affected by such change, that is clearly not happening

Stand your ground all you want, just be careful you don't fall too hard into the hole. You are wrong, but, you are hell bent in sticking to your guns, no point taking it further

Suffice to say, most people are not bothered about the nuisances and are hell bent on voting yes, despite the legal issues. They accept the wishy washy tosh of "I just want to be loved..." or waffling about "equality" despite equality NOT saying everyone should be treated the same as others. Alas that is their right, ignorant is bliss.

Some of your comments are hilarious

"The constitution as printed, does not define marriage , what courts decide can be changed and ruling change over time."

What? really?

The Constitution, can also be changed by the people. If the people don't like a Court Case's interpretation of the Constitution, they can seek to amend the Constitution in order to reject, clarify or insert a meaning to a term (as determined by the court) or recognise or reject a new right.

Somehow, unless the People amend the Constitution, it is highly unlikely, for the foreseeable future , that our Superior Courts would change their minds on the definition of marriage .Hence, why we have a referendum to redefine the concept of Marriage, to include gays.

Family based on marriage, Actually, I have issues with that. Families are not just those who are married.Article 41 excludes non married couples. So, you see no problem with that....?

Marriage is being redefined , in this country. To suggest anything else is moronic . The Status quo is that marriage is for one man , one women , to the exclusion of others, same sex need not apply. It is uniquely gender specific . From a Constitutional perspective, this unit, and only this unit , enjoys specific protections and is recognised has playing a crucial role in Irish life.... and, as we shall see with the rest of Article 41 and it's close relation, Article 42, the raising of children, though not essential, goes hand in hand with marriage . Married couples are treated differently under many areas of life; tax , social welfare......

Hyzepher · 07-05-2015 4:47pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm afraid, standing back from the issue with a nice soundbite doesn't wash.

Tackling constitutional issues is a hard task. You need to do it in small, meaningful steps.

The proposed word changes in the constitution make it clear that marriage is being extended to include same sex.

The existence of the other existing sentences within Article 41 do make things a little ambiguous but this ambiguity is not being introduced with this amendment. There are already Families that do not contain a wife or mother.

smash · 07-05-2015 4:48pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Stand your ground all you want, just be careful you don't fall too hard into the hole. You are wrong, but, you are hell bent in sticking to your guns, no point taking it further

He's not wrong, but if you don't want to debate it with him then run off all you want.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Suffice to say, most people are not bothered about the nuisances and are hell bent on voting yes, despite the legal issues. They accept the wishy washy tosh of "I just want to be loved..." or waffling about "equality" despite equality NOT saying everyone should be treated the same as others. Alas that is their right, ignorant is bliss.

Please explain to us all the legal issues that will affect future or existing heterosexual marriages.

BoatMad · 07-05-2015 4:53pm

Marriage is being redefined , in this country. To suggest anything else is moronic . The Status quo is that marriage is for one man , one women , to the exclusion of others, same sex need not apply. It is uniquely gender specific . From a Constitutional perspective, this unit, and only this unit , enjoys specific protections and is recognised has playing a crucial role in Irish life.... and, as we shall see with the rest of Article 41 and it's close relation, Article 42, the raising of children, though not essential, goes hand in hand with marriage . Married couples are treated differently under many areas of life; tax , social welfare......

a redefinition of marriage would by definition involves changes to those in existing marriages, that is not happening.

IN reality you are making this a semantic argument. All that is happening is that the constitution is being amended to allow marriage between same sex couples. The is primarily being done to proof it against legal challenge.

Its no more or less then that and you seek to complicate and obfuscate the argument , this is typical of "no" voters.

Zubeneschamali · 07-05-2015 4:56pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm afraid, standing back from the issue with a nice soundbite doesn't wash.

Yes, it does, because it is a different issue. We can sort out SSM in this referendum, and worry about the "woman" thing later, after we fix a thousand more important issues.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 07-05-2015 4:58pm

floggg wrote: »

I like how you avoided all the important bits you couldn't explain.

Nothing is avoided. I'm just trying to identify points we can all agree to.

floggg wrote: »

Marriage doesn't necessitate the import of contraceptives - but even if it did lgbt couples could equally do so.

The irrelevance of limiting fertility for same sex couples shouldn't need to be a point of dispute. You're engaged in high farce.

floggg wrote: »

The presumption of paternity is inapplicable to all childless marriages - whether same sex or opposite sex.

That's an unconvincing and superficial side-step. Unless we bring in a health check (and I don't think any reasonable person suggests that), the presumption of paternity is relevant to straight marriages - even if they've no current intention to have children, or if they experience fertility issues. But it's simply irrelevant to SSM in all cases.

Put another way, if we ask "why do same sex couples need access to the legal framework around marriage", one of the reasons isn't "because they need the presumption of paternity".

smash wrote: »

It's a completely ambiguous line of text. So I guess if you want to interpret it like that then it's up to you, but if you're going to be interpreting it like that then you might as well interpret the piece to suggest that 2 women would serve society better a man and a woman because men aren't mentioned at all there.

Ah, yeah, I'm only saying it's incoherent - and agree that, strictly speaking, it could mean lesbian couples are twice as good.

Again, once folk acknowledge the existence of the ambiguity, I feel the matter is resolved satisfactorily. My only issue is with Yes voters maintaining the "nothing else has changed" line, as if the new text didn't have to co-exist with what's there already.

Believe it or not, I actually do appreciate that a same sex couple might say "I really don't give two hoots about the wider ramifications, I just want this change in the Constitution."

Hyzepher wrote: »

The existence of the other existing sentences within Article 41 do make things a little ambiguous but this ambiguity is not being introduced with this amendment. There are already Families that do not contain a wife or mother.

Ah, no. The Constitution is clear enough and the Courts are similarly clear that a family is one based on marriage. 'Woman' is not the same as 'mother', but the context makes it clear that the Constitution expects significant overlap between the two groups.

So, as I see it, there is a new ambiguity there. And, while I know we've been focused on the wording per se in recent posts, I think this does point out that's there more important issues than this to be tackled first.

One biggy: should the concept of family and marriage be decoupled? What's so special about married families, that we'd protect them but leave (say) a single parent living with her mother outside that protection?

WoolyJumper · 07-05-2015 5:00pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Stand your ground all you want, just be careful you don't fall too hard into the hole. You are wrong, but, you are hell bent in sticking to your guns, no point taking it further

Suffice to say, most people are not bothered about the nuisances and are hell bent on voting yes, despite the legal issues. They accept the wishy washy tosh of "I just want to be loved..." or waffling about "equality" despite equality NOT saying everyone should be treated the same as others. Alas that is their right, ignorant is bliss.

Some of your comments are hilarious

"The constitution as printed, does not define marriage , what courts decide can be changed and ruling change over time."

What? really?

The Constitution, can also be changed by the people. If the people don't like a Court Case's interpretation of the Constitution, they can seek to amend the Constitution in order to reject, clarify or insert a meaning to a term (as determined by the court) or recognise or reject a new right.

Somehow, unless the People amend the Constitution, it is highly unlikely, for the foreseeable future , that our Superior Courts would change their minds on the definition of marriage .Hence, why we have a referendum to redefine the concept of Marriage, to include gays.

Family based on marriage, Actually, I have issues with that. Families are not just those who are married.Article 41 excludes non married couples. So, you see no problem with that....?

I keep hearing about these legal issues from the no side. Yet with all their waffling on I've yet to actually here one solid example of these potential legal issues. Surely they could come up with one example, they are certainly have plenty of access to legal advice.

Maybe you could enlighten us on what these potential legal issues are?

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Marriage is being redefined , in this country. To suggest anything else is moronic . The Status quo is that marriage is for one man , one women , to the exclusion of others, same sex need not apply. It is uniquely gender specific . From a Constitutional perspective, this unit, and only this unit , enjoys specific protections and is recognised has playing a crucial role in Irish life.... and, as we shall see with the rest of Article 41 and it's close relation, Article 42, the raising of children, though not essential, goes hand in hand with marriage . Married couples are treated differently under many areas of life; tax , social welfare......

I thought it was just the yes side that went around calling people morons? Anyway, it isn't really a redefinition. It's just extending the rights, protections and responsibilities to same sex couples.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 07-05-2015 5:00pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, it does, because it is a different issue. We can sort out SSM in this referendum, and worry about the "woman" thing later, after we fix a thousand more important issues.

Ah, now, the points is that putting SSM and 'woman' in the same article is incoherent.

I don't accept the "yes there's a problem, lets pretend its not there" argument.

The "Yes there's a problem, but I'll take the incoherence because I really want SSM" argument is a credible view, even if I don't share it.

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 5:03pm

BoatMad wrote: »

I presume this is seriously tongue in cheek , very good, hilarious spoof

Dev was a backward looking run away republican , that dragged this country into a civil war, then almost totally destroyed it economically and culturally

Evidentially, your knowledge on Irish history finishes at Secondary School, and is developed by that Nell Jordan Film.

1. If De Valera back to America in June 1921, stayed away from Ireland in October 1921, this country would still have been caught up in a Civil War. He had little or no influence whatsoever in the Council of the IRB or IRA. None. He was a glorified figure head thereafter . There were plenty of TD's just as vocal against the Treaty. And, we haven't even talked about a "Civil War" between the South and the North ...

2. You seriously trying to suggest that many parts of the Country that hid under their bed during the Tan War, but were out and figthing during the Civil War , is Dev's fault?

3. Let me guess, you heard or read a few lines of the "river of blood" speech and interpreted as arseways as your interpretation of the issues in this topic

4. "backward"? Really? Eh, Our Constitution, with the exceptions of the religious stuff (which was a sign of the times as recent as the early 1990's,20 years after he died) has more of less stood the tests of time, AND, in fact was allowed to develop and grow through the powers that the Constitution has given the Courts in order to allow them interpret it; which lead to many many many rights eg right to contraceptives

While even I think Article 41 could do with a couple of changes, I would wager a lot of money , that for all the rubbish one poster talked about "ripping" up the Constitution and starting again, very little in the said document would be changed. Artificial changes in most, and possibly the explicit confirmation of case law (never a bad thing)

To talk about Bunreacht na hEireann being backward, means people people haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about

5. Like, the populace sure were liberal and enlightening in the 1940's, 1950's...totally DeV's fault ,sure, totally . A "liberal" priest (was their one?) could not fart without some Ned Flanders coming up telling him what The Church should say about X,Y,Z

6. Economics :well the Economic War didn't help alright, but, he was standing up to a bully. Why should Ireland continue paying money to Britain for land its people owned? (land annuities) In the long run it helped Ireland stay out of WW2 (Treaty Ports returned). Protectionism was rife not just in Ireland, sunny! What indigenous companies were there before Independence, bar Guinness and Jacobs?

7. Culturally? , yep, all Dev's fault alright. Cumann na nGaedheal and, hell, even McBride's Clann na Poblachta had no role in the supposed "cultural ruin"... Yep, Dev had more power than The Church....

Come, on, your history is as weak as the legal arguments, let's not get bogged down on this stuff, it's not really relevant

floggg · 07-05-2015 5:05pm

gravehold wrote: »

Not trying to make it worse but you shouldn't bring politics into you work accounts, can you get some else to take over for the rest of the day.

I saw Lolly & Cooks have a huge Yes Equality sign in their windows today.

And multitrip.com have it on their bus sign.

Never been a customer of either place before but I would be much more inclined to do so now.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 07-05-2015 5:08pm

floggg wrote: »

Never been a customer of either place before but I would be much more inclined to do so now.

I'll vote Yes if you pay me a million dollars. In cash.

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

Comments