Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

gravehold · 08-05-2015 08:16AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The two biggest ones as I understand it are -

- Civil partnership does not protect children's relationship with a non-biological parent, they are strangers in law, cannot act as next-of-kin and cannot inherit without heavy taxation.
Whatever the no side say about surrogacy, adoption etc - these are largely red herrings. There are already children being raised by gay couples where one member was previously in a heterosexual relationship. The 'other' parent of these children is, in law, a stranger to them. There are many unmarried heterosexual couples in this situation too, bringing up children of previous relationships, but they have the option of getting married if they choose to.

- Civil partnership has no constitutional protection, a future conservative government could abolish it with a Dail vote and render all civil partnerships null and void.
Marriage is recognised by the constitution, if we vote Yes then the right of two people of any gender to marry is protected, and can't ever be withdrawn unless there is a successful referendum to reverse it.

Doesn't that mean the no side is right and voting no can protect kids even if they have to wait for a conservative goverment to fix the issue. But if the yes side wins it's to late and it can't be fixed by a Conservative goverment sometime in the future.

So I guess if someone really didn't want gays to be given kids they should vote no then lobby the next government to abolish the children's and families act.

traprunner · 08-05-2015 08:18AM

gravehold wrote: »

Doesn't that mean the no side is right and voting no can protect kids even if they have to wait for a conservative goverment to fix the issue. But if the yes side wins it's to late and it can't be fixed by a Conservative goverment sometime in the future.

So I guess if someone really didn't want gays to be given kids they should vote no then lobby the next government to abolish the children's and families act.

Are you against same sex couples having kids?

Hotblack Desiato · 08-05-2015 08:20AM

gravehold wrote: »

Doesn't that mean the no side is right and voting no can protect kids even if they have to wait for a conservative goverment to fix the issue. But if the yes side wins it's to late and it can't be fixed by a Conservative goverment sometime in the future.

So I guess if someone really didn't want gays to be given kids they should vote no then lobby the next government to abolish the children's and families act.

Try reading it again, I wasn't talking about anyone being 'given' kids.

If a man enters into a relationship with a single mother, is he being 'given' kids?

How many adoptions do you reckon there are a year in Ireland? It's already almost impossible for heterosexual couples to adopt, even from abroad.

Surrogacy isn't regulated in Irish law at all, and any objections to it apply just as much to single people or heterosexual couples.

Are you just trying to get a rise or something?

Voting No doesn't protect any kids, it won't change adoption or surrogacy at all, gay people are already able to do these things on an equal basis.

What it WILL do is deny the possibility of legal protection to the kids already being raised by homosexual couples. That's not protecting kids, it's the opposite.

gravehold · 08-05-2015 08:22AM

traprunner wrote: »

Are you against same sex couples having kids?

No and they already can biologically as a couple. But yes side has said voting yes won't effect adoption and stuff but if yes comes in it will be locked, but if no wins then while now they can adopt as a couple it can easly be changed to they can't next government.

If someone does have an issues with gays adopting voting no is the best plan then get a government to change the act so they can't adopt. If yes side wins the next government won't be able to fix the adoption problem for them

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 08:23AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I think you're just trying to get a rise tbh.

He does that. He misreads what you type and then makes up some sort of argument about it based on his misinterpretation. He calls it playing devil's advocate.

gravehold · 08-05-2015 08:27AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Try reading it again, I wasn't talking about anyone being 'given' kids.

If a man enters into a relationship with a single mother, is he being 'given' kids?

How many adoptions do you reckon there are a year in Ireland? It's already almost impossible for heterosexual couples to adopt, even from abroad.

Surrogacy isn't regulated in Irish law at all, and any objections to it apply just as much to single people or heterosexual couples.

Are you just trying to get a rise or something?

Voting No doesn't protect any kids, it won't change adoption or surrogacy at all, gay people are already able to do these things on an equal basis.

What it WILL do is deny the possibility of legal protection to the kids already being raised by homosexual couples. That's not protecting kids, it's the opposite.

At the moment the children and family act allows gay CP couple to adpot the same as married couples, if yes wins then gays are married and straight couple cannot get preference, if no wins they yes the gay cp couple are still equal for but in the future a new goverment can make it to the way it was before.

If someone has a problem with gay adoption a no vote is the best way for it to be able so married couples get preference again and the conservative goverment can make cp lesser in the childrens and families act

gravehold · 08-05-2015 08:31AM

sup_dude wrote: »

He does that. He misreads what you type and then makes up some sort of argument about it based on his misinterpretation. He calls it playing devil's advocate.

Childrens and families act and CP is not constitutionally protected so can be changed with the next government, people against gay adoption should vote no that way it doesn't get locked into the constitution and can easily be removed next government.

If you are against gay adoption vote NO so it can be fixed by the next government.

Also I told you before it's your right to misgender me, I don't care.

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 08:33AM

gravehold wrote: »

Childrens and families act and CP is not constitutionally protected so can be changed with the next government, people against gay adoption should vote no that way it doesn't get locked into the constitution and can easily be removed next government.

If you are against gay adoption vote NO so it can be fixed by the next government.

Also I told you before it's your right to misgender me, I don't care.

And what if the next government don't "fix" it?

Sorry, she. Everyone is a default he unless proven otherwise, it's just easier than trying to guess when you don't have any possible way of knowing.

MrWalsh · 08-05-2015 08:35AM

gravehold wrote: »

So I guess if someone really didn't want gays to be given kids they should vote no then lobby the next government to abolish the children's and families act.

gravehold wrote: »

If someone does have an issues with gays adopting voting no is the best plan then get a government to change the act so they can't adopt. If yes side wins the next government won't be able to fix the adoption problem for them

gravehold wrote: »

If someone has a problem with gay adoption a no vote is the best way for it to be able so married couples get preference again and the conservative goverment can make cp lesser in the childrens and families act

gravehold wrote: »

If you are against gay adoption vote NO so it can be fixed by the next government.

Why do you have to keep repeating the above?

Youre against gay people adopting. We get it.

ForstalDave · 08-05-2015 08:36AM

gravehold wrote: »

Childrens and families act and CP is not constitutionally protected so can be changed with the next government, people against gay adoption should vote no that way it doesn't get locked into the constitution and can easily be removed next government.

If you are against gay adoption vote NO so it can be fixed by the next government.

Also I told you before it's your right to misgender me, I don't care.

The constitution does not have any effect on adoption, adoption is not mentioned and will not be mentioned after this vote so a government could bar gay adoption with or without a NO vote as constitutionally it is not a guaranteed before or after this vote.

gravehold · 08-05-2015 08:40AM

ForstalDave wrote: »

The constitution does not have any effect on adoption, adoption is not mentioned and will not be mentioned after this vote so a government could bar gay adoption with or without a NO vote as constitutionally it is not a guaranteed before or after this vote.

No but married couples get protection of family unit in the constitution so after a yes vote the gay couples will have that protection.

If no wins while it's still here at the moment it's not constitutionally protected so can be removed easily. If you are against it voting NO gives you a better chance for it to be corrected in the future.

MrWalsh · 08-05-2015 08:41AM

gravehold wrote: »

No but married couples get protection of family unit in the constitution so after a yes vote the gay couples will have that protection.

If no wins while it's still here at the moment it's not constitutionally protected so can be removed easily. If you are against it voting NO gives you a better chance for it to be corrected in the future.

I dont think you understand the proposed change to the Constitution for this referendum.

Its nothing to do with adoption.

gravehold · 08-05-2015 08:45AM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I dont think you understand the proposed change to the Constitution for this referendum.

Its nothing to do with adoption.

But makes gay couple married constitutionally so cannot be discriminated against. If they don't get the constitional protection of marriage a conservative government could then in the future put things back to the way they where a few years ago and stop gay adoption again.

But with the protection that won't be possible.

Basically if you are against don't make it constitional as then it can't easily be reverted

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 08-05-2015 08:48AM

suzanne. wrote: »

What does a civil partnership give that a marriage doesn't in brief? genuine question.

I didn't find the "160 differences" list that meaningful in getting an answer to the same question.

I'd recommend this post:

http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html

It's an unbiased and short description of key differences, written by a law lecturer in Maynooth University.

MrWalsh · 08-05-2015 08:50AM

gravehold wrote: »

But makes gay couple married constitutionally so cannot be discriminated against. If they don't get the constitional protection of marriage a conservative government could then in the future put things back to the way they where a few years ago and stop gay adoption again.

But with the protection that won't be possible.

Basically if you are against don't make it constitional as then it can't easily be reverted

You are confusing two separate issues.

There was never discrimination towards married people wrt adoption. Married couples and single people could always apply to adopt children. Gay couples could not apply as married couples because we currently do not have same sex marriage. But a gay person could apply singly just the same as a married couple. The Children and Family Relationships Act changed this so that gay couples could apply as a couple.

So now married couples, civil partnered couples and single people can all still apply and no one is given precedence over anyone else.

If SSM passes then gay people will be able to apply as married couples as civil partnership will be gone.

All your waffle that a no vote means things could change in the future is ridiculous. It would require the government to outlaw civil partnerships and to ban single gay people from adopting before there would be any discrimination against gay people adopting. Unless we suddenly decide to adopt Sharia law neither of the above are going to happen.

gravehold · 08-05-2015 08:53AM

MrWalsh wrote: »

You are confusing two separate issues.

There was never discrimination towards married people wrt adoption. Married couples and single people could always apply to adopt children. Gay couples could not apply as married couples because we currently do not have same sex marriage. But a gay person could apply singly just the same as a married couple. The Children and Family Relationships Act changed this so that gay couples could apply as a couple.

So now married couples, civil partnered couples and single people can all still apply and no one is given precedence over anyone else.

If SSM passes then gay people will be able to apply as married couples as civil partnership will be gone.

All your waffle that a no vote means things could change in the future is ridiculous. It would require the government to outlaw civil partnerships and to ban single gay people from adopting before there would be any discrimination against gay people adopting. Unless we suddenly decide to adopt Sharia law neither of the above are going to happen.

aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html

You are so wrong married couple get preference, childrens and families act just make cp the same so gay couples can adopt the same as a married couple. If you vote no the next goverment can revert that easily. But if yes then the gay couple are constitutionally protected married couple.

If you are against it voting no will mean things can be set back the way it was a few years ago easily but if they get constitution protection as a married couple it's to late

The point is the government could revert cp or the children's and families act so if you are against gay adoption that will be at least possible to stop in the future if you vote no

MrWalsh · 08-05-2015 08:55AM

gravehold wrote: »

aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html

You are so wrong married couple get preference, childrens and families act just make cp the same so gay couples can adopt the same as a married couple. If you vote no the next goverment can revert that easily. But if yes then the gay couple are constitutionally protected married couple.

If you are against it voting no will mean things can be set back the way it was a few years ago easily but if they get constitution protection as a married couple it's to late

The point is the government could revert cp or the children's and families act so if you are against gay adoption that will be at least possible to stop in the future if you vote no

Again, your link only covers domestic adoptions.

gravehold · 08-05-2015 09:01AM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Again, your link only covers domestic adoptions.

aai.gov.ie/index.php/intercountry-adoption/faq-intercountry-adoption.html

This is worded that married couple get preference even so the next goverment can make that so. Also most people are concerned about domestic adoption.

SireOfSeth · 08-05-2015 09:08AM

gravehold wrote: »

aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html

You are so wrong married couple get preference, childrens and families act just make cp the same so gay couples can adopt the same as a married couple. If you vote no the next goverment can revert that easily. But if yes then the gay couple are constitutionally protected married couple.

If you are against it voting no will mean things can be set back the way it was a few years ago easily but if they get constitution protection as a married couple it's to late

The point is the government could revert cp or the children's and families act so if you are against gay adoption that will be at least possible to stop in the future if you vote no

Other than bigots, who on earth would be against gay adoption? (Regardless of whether that's gays adopting children or straights adopting gay children - or any other mix.)

ForstalDave · 08-05-2015 09:10AM

gravehold wrote: »

aai.gov.ie/index.php/intercountry-adoption/faq-intercountry-adoption.html

This is worded that married couple get preference even so the next goverment can make that so. Also most people are concerned about domestic adoption.

There are more children needing adoption than there are people willing to adopt, which is better a gay couple adopthing or a child being reared by the state?

CramCycle · 08-05-2015 09:32AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

- Civil partnership has no constitutional protection, a future conservative government could abolish it with a Dail vote and render all civil partnerships null and void.

Marriage is recognised by the constitution, if we vote Yes then the right of two people of any gender to marry is protected, and can't ever be withdrawn unless there is a successful referendum to reverse it.

That is one of the big ones in my eyes.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I didn't find the "160 differences" list that meaningful in getting an answer to the same question.

I'd recommend this post:

http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html

It's an unbiased and short description of key differences, written by a law lecturer in Maynooth University.

That's a nice article, I do realise that some of the 160 are negligible issues that may never arise but the article you have is a nice and clear overview in laymans terms.

traprunner · 08-05-2015 09:57AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I didn't find the "160 differences" list that meaningful in getting an answer to the same question.

I'd recommend this post:

http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html

It's an unbiased and short description of key differences, written by a law lecturer in Maynooth University.

So you agree that we should allow SSM to get rid of these unfair differences.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 08-05-2015 10:45AM

traprunner wrote: »

So you agree that we should allow SSM to get rid of these unfair differences.

Why the need to demand that everyone has the same view? I'm just trying to link some people to a useful source of information, because there's really very little stuff out there that gives the answers people need to make a decision.

I just think that article is a good basis for someone to make up their own mind on the matter. By a law lecturer who is a Yes voter, but has the confidence to just set out the facts of the matter.

traprunner · 08-05-2015 10:50AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Why the need to demand that everyone has the same view?

I was just letting you know that it's ok to renounce the past and change your ways

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm just trying to link some people to a useful source of information, because there's really very little stuff out there that gives the answers people need to make a decision.

I just think that article is a good basis for someone to make up their own mind on the matter. By a law lecturer who is a Yes voter, but has the confidence to just set out the facts of the matter.

You are the one that has introduced things that are not facts of the matter in your posts....just look back over a few of your posts and it's obvious.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 08-05-2015 10:52AM

traprunner wrote: »

You are the one that has introduced things that are not facts of the matter in your posts....just look back over a few of your posts and it's obvious.

I firmly disagree.

CramCycle · 08-05-2015 11:02AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Why the need to demand that everyone has the same view? I'm just trying to link some people to a useful source of information, because there's really very little stuff out there that gives the answers people need to make a decision.

It does seem quite clear and concise, and is a reasonable framework from my other readings into the referendum.

I just think that article is a good basis for someone to make up their own mind on the matter. By a law lecturer who is a Yes voter, but has the confidence to just set out the facts of the matter.

It is, but as an opinion, from yourself, if you were a no voter, and you accept the article at face value, do you think there is anything in that article that reassures your stance, or is there anything that makes you think, I never thought about that and upon revision, I might change my preference to a Yes vote.

Reading through the article, I have not found anything that shows a benefit to leaving the constitution as is, I have found several points that say to me, voting Yes is the correct course of action.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 08-05-2015 11:28AM

CramCycle wrote: »

Reading through the article, I have not found anything that shows a benefit to leaving the constitution as is, I have found several points that say to me, voting Yes is the correct course of action.

When I read it, I see the main substantial issue to be the difference between "shared home" and "family home" (and other stuff in that space).

Then I take a step back, and ask "if I was concerned with ensuring that families (in the broad sense - not just married families as per Constitution) were secure in their homes, would I see this as a priority"?

And I wouldn't. I'd see rights of renters as a bigger problem - be they married or single or cohabiting.

So I'd then frame the question "why are these rights only for married couples - be they straight or gay"? Why are they only (effectively) for owner-occupiers?

I'm afraid, I don't see the stuff about protected disclosures as material. I'm delighted to know my wife can't, usually, be forced to shop me. But, you'll appreciate, it's hard to see that in a practical way as a key protection that everyone needs. "Marry me, so you can't be compelled to give evidence against me" would be an arresting proposal.

traprunner · 08-05-2015 11:34AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

When I read it, I see the main substantial issue to be the difference between "shared home" and "family home" (and other stuff in that space).

Then I take a step back, and ask "if I was concerned with ensuring that families (in the broad sense - not just married families as per Constitution) were secure in their homes, would I see this as a priority"?

And I wouldn't. I'd see rights of renters as a bigger problem - be they married or single or cohabiting.

Ah, nice one!!! Another new excuse for you.....other things have a higher priority. You must be really proud that you thought this one up to avoid the matter we are being asked to vote on.

K-9 · 08-05-2015 11:41AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

When I read it, I see the main substantial issue to be the difference between "shared home" and "family home" (and other stuff in that space).

Then I take a step back, and ask "if I was concerned with ensuring that families (in the broad sense - not just married families as per Constitution) were secure in their homes, would I see this as a priority"?

And I wouldn't. I'd see rights of renters as a bigger problem - be they married or single or cohabiting.

So I'd then frame the question "why are these rights only for married couples - be they straight or gay"? Why are they only (effectively) for owner-occupiers?

Well historically it would relate to property rights and stuff like that I'd assume. Renters don't have a lot of rights but that's a different area of law really.

Between increased rights for tenants and big reform of family law you've quite the wishlist and a load of boxes to be ticked!

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 08-05-2015 11:42AM

traprunner wrote: »

Ah, nice one!!! Another new excuse for you.....other things have a higher priority. You must be really proud that you thought this one up.

But, sure, I've been saying that from the start. Here's a post from two weeks back.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

<...>
[*]If there's a protest element to the vote, its that there are more pressing issues requiring an amendment (specifically termination of unviable pregancy) that I expect this proposal is attempting to distract from.<...>

I've several times said that one of my reasons is I don't see this as a pressing issue, compared to other things.

What I'm finding is there's very little point is attempting a discussion, as folk just don't want one. Feck, the "new excuse" that I've been putting out there for two weeks. You couldn't make it up.

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

Comments