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

Wulfie wrote: »

Do you think civil partnership is not enough , for now ?


I'm sure it was a crime up.to 20yrs ago.

All parties in the daíl want us to vote yes.

That's enough reason to vote no.

This should be shelved . As for the vote yes for ogra FG presidency .

I'd.like to have on the ballot paper as well:
Do you want a civilian army ? Y N.
Do you want a general election tomorrow?
Would you like British troops to go back to their own island and defend their own borders ?
They can take the loyalists back too?
Does Ireland need a new Capitol city ?

More important stuff. Like.

You think Ireland needing a new Capital is more important than people's right?

The stupidity is strong.

Wulfie wrote: »

It's all a devisionary tactic by the civil service .

wat?

frostyjacks wrote: »

I would say it's more of a privilege than a right. It's not like you could sue someone for refusing to marry you.

You could up to 1981. It could be argued that this 'redefined' marriage by making a promise to enter a contract of marriage no longer legally binding. :P

Interestingly enough one can sue a couple for not getting married if they don't return gifts...

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/getting_married/legal_implications_of_a_broken_engagement.html

gravehold wrote: »

Just got a fair point in another thread, CP and gay adoption while here atm are not constitutionally protected so can be changed by the next government so gays cp couples can no longer adopt. By voting no you are making it so gay adoption can be removed again at a future point but if you voted yes the gay couple are married and constitutally cannot be seen as different then a straight couple.


If you are against gay adoption no will at least make it so they cannot adopt in the future if a government decides that.

That's actually debateable. I know Iona came up with it yesterday - "if gay marriage is legal in our constitution then it will not be possible to discriminate against gays in future" - but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

The argument is that if gay couples can get married, then in future if someone wanted to remove their ability to adopt, this wouldn't be possible since they would be equal to all other married couples.

But this isn't correct, since adoption law already allows for discrimination against married couples on the basis of age, and a whole pile of other factors. So in the event that it was found that gay couples posed a serious risk to children, there is no reason why the law couldn't be changed to restrict access to adoptive services.

The constitution does not guarantee the right of married couples to have or to adopt children, so there is no real link between marriage and adoption.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The SSM people are talking about Equality. But, Equality does not mean everyone is treated the same. In fact, one amendment I would like to see in the Constitution would be a more specific statement on Equality, as Article 40,1 is very vague, and , if you look at the Case law, it is so unpredictable as to what the Courts will say when they look at the Article. Often, (not always) people loose a part of their case (or all of it) on that ground.

Artificial differences? Since when could Same Sex Married Couples procreate, together? You can't compare that to a hetrosexual group , as the minority of those units are capable to procreate. The importance of marriage in our Constitution is that it promotes families based on marriage, and to promote it, it offers important protections to the unit (obviously, as individuals, one has the protections supplied elsewhere in the Constitution)

Seriously, though, get rid of the term "marriage" in Article 41, and bring in an more inclusive provision like Article 8 of ECHR, which includes many other families, gays and non married families, then, the opposition towards Marriage would be weak

Doubt it would happen though. Might be hard to be given better tax credits etc to one group (ie married couples however way they swing) and give nothing to non married groups.



Ya, so much so that the Courts in Ireland and European Court of Human Rights have refused to accept that the evidence is strong enough to allow the idea of same sex marriage to be a basic human right, without just going to the people.

Why shouldn't they recongise a preference for a hetrosexual couple? A child is better off with both a mother and a father, and, in an ideal world, their biological parents.



True, and possibly dilute the concept that the child is best off having contact and company of both of her/his mother and father, as another group will be taking a skip in the que over the unmarried father.



It would, if it is accepted and confirmed that the child is better off with a mother and a father as their Main carers

1. Firstly the artifiical difference I was referring to was in the legal status of the relationship - which is what a separate but equal system would be.

Secondly, Children and procreation aren't an essential feature or requirement of marriage though. We've been through this so many times it's not funny.

There are oodles of childless heterosexual marriages, who's marriages are not diminished by that fact.

If procreative capacity was a requirement for marriage, infertility would be grounds for nullify.

Furthermore same sex couples are capable of having kids - biologically (one parent or trans), adopted or with the aid of assisted reproduction. All methods relied upon by valid heterosexual marriages.

Same sex couples are in the same position as many thousands of existing and validly married couples - so to point to those circumstances as disqualifying them is silly.

2. While I'm not fully sure about the ECHR decision, I don't believe the Irish courts have ever been asked to rule on the parenting capacity of lgbt couples. Suggesting they have is disingenuous.

LGBT parenting is only a relatively recent phenomonen so even if the Zappone case considered it the evidence available even then was sparse compared to what we have to do. All major medical organisations confirm there is no difference in outcomes - so for you to claim such differences to be fact makes you look both arrogant and foolish.

Furthermore, the courts in the US have considered the issue extensively in recent times and there was an almost unanimous acceptance of the fact that there's no difference in outcomes between same and opposite sex parenting.

3. There is no accepted concept that a child is better off having A mother and father. As a society we endeavour to ensure they have their own biological parents (but only up to a point) - but where that is not possible or desirable we know that the child can do just as well with any other stable supportive two parent configuration.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'll be voting the same way as John Waters.

I know why Waters is voting No, but what have you got against Sinead O'Connor?

gravehold wrote: »

If you vote no the next goverment can revert that easily.

Whichever way the vote goes, the next government can revert the adoption laws easily.

Voting no or yes does not affect adoption.