Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

jimdublin15 · 09-05-2015 10:53AM

gravehold wrote: »

Fully read the unbiased site let that be your base, then the yes sites and then the no sites, make up you mind then vote. But yes the yes side are omitting a lot.

:rolleyes: Yup but in all fairness, to add the no side are telling some whoppers themselves.

Bannasidhe · 09-05-2015 10:54AM

gravehold wrote: »

Then gay couple get the rights and protections of all other parts of the constitution that references married couples so it has a far wider ramifications then just two people getting married

What other parts?

arayess · 09-05-2015 10:55AM

robert sheehan (love/hate) has told us to vote yes.
If anything was going to make me vote a certain way it would be a celebrity endorsement.

upinthesky · 09-05-2015 10:55AM

lisar816 wrote: »

So is that not what this is about changing article 41?

The Referendum Proposal

In the referendum, you are being asked to vote Yes or No to adding a clause to Article 41. If the referendum is passed, there will be a new Article 41.4 which will be as follows:

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

Am i missing something?

gravehold · 09-05-2015 10:55AM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Thats the point. They would be able to get married, hence get all of the rights and protections from the constitution.

Yes and no don't want to give you those protections cause then the next goverment can remove you CP and adoption, if you get constitunal protection that would be very hard to do.

They want to keep those protections for straight couples and not redefine marriage

Zen65 · 09-05-2015 10:57AM

gravehold wrote: »

Then gay couple get the rights and protections of all other parts of the constitution that references married couples so it has a far wider ramifications then just two people getting married

Did you hit your head getting out of bed this morning?

Of course the protection of the constitution is extended to SSMs, that's the whole point of civil marriage!!!!!

gravehold · 09-05-2015 10:59AM

Zen65 wrote: »

Did you hit your head getting out of bed this morning?

Of course the protection of the constitution is extended to SSMs, that's the whole point of civil marriage!!!!!

Yes and that's why the no side are saying vote no. I was just pointing out yes has wider ramifications then the yes side make out.

upinthesky · 09-05-2015 10:59AM

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

Both of these cannot remain, hence they will be getting rid of the second part and this was not stated very clearly.

Not a NSA agent · 09-05-2015 11:00AM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes and that's why the no side are saying vote no. I was just pointing out yes has wider ramifications then the yes side make out.

And those are we cant discriminate against gay people at a latter date?

Not a NSA agent · 09-05-2015 11:01AM

lisar816 wrote: »

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

Both of these cannot remain, hence they will be getting rid of the second part and this was not stated very clearly.

Where did you find this? Its the first I heard of it and the no side arent mentioning it.

upinthesky · 09-05-2015 11:02AM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Where did you find this? Its the first I heard of it and the no side arent mentioning it.

read from page 17

Zen65 · 09-05-2015 11:02AM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes and that's why the no side are saying vote no. I was just pointing out yes has wider ramifications then the yes side make out.

What wider ramifications?

The YES side are not asking for a YES vote so that LGBT people can have ceremonies in a Registrar's office . . they want the protections of the constitution extended to those marriages.

Talk about what rights a future government might want to take away is paranoia. When in your memory has any Irish government ever taken away a civil right through legislation?

Bannasidhe · 09-05-2015 11:02AM

lisar816 wrote: »

The Referendum Proposal

In the referendum, you are being asked to vote Yes or No to adding a clause to Article 41. If the referendum is passed, there will be a new Article 41.4 which will be as follows:

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

Am i missing something?

Sort of...

A new article will be added. This will not change any of the other articles in anyway whatsoever.

We are being asked to add a specific article - not subtract/alter any other article.

Should a time come when we are asked to change/subtract any thing else there will be another referendum.

gravehold · 09-05-2015 11:02AM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

And those are we cant discriminate against gay people at a latter date?

One they are married hrc discrimination laws come into effect and a gay married family is the same a straight one

Bannasidhe · 09-05-2015 11:04AM

gravehold wrote: »

One they are married hrc discrimination laws come into effect and a gay married family is the same a straight one

Which is the whole bloody point of the Referendum!

Not a NSA agent · 09-05-2015 11:05AM

lisar816 wrote: »

read from page 17

Im still not seeing it. There are currently 3 parts on article 41. The referendum proposes to add a 4th. No other changes to the other 3 that I can find.

gravehold wrote: »

One they are married hrc discrimination laws come into effect and a gay married family is the same a straight one

Exactly, thats the whole point of this referendum, nobody is omitting it, they are making it the main cause of the referendum.

One eyed Jack · 09-05-2015 11:05AM

gravehold wrote: »

Fully read the unbiased site let that be your base, then the yes sites and then the no sites, make up you mind then vote. But yes the yes side are omitting a lot.

If I didn't know better gravehold I'd say you studied in the IONA school of subliminal suggestion :pac:

"Make up your own mind... But yes the yes side are omitting a lot" :rolleyes:

Why didn't you point out the dishonesty of the no campaign in that same sentence then?

You're also aware that the Referendum Commission are an independent body who have nothing to do with Government, and Fine Gael are advocating for support for marriage equality, as the Fine Gael Party, independent of their role in Government.

You're also aware that the sections of Article 41 that refer to the special position of women in the home are actually irrelevant to what is being asked of the electorate in the upcoming referendum.

You're also aware that the Children and Family Relationship Act addresses guardianship issues and that the issues there that you're trying to hint at - "custody case when the woman cheats", really gravehold?

In trying to come across as "unbiased", you're just coming off as bitter, very bitter, and the reason I say you're aware of all the points I've said you're aware of already is that all of these things have been previously explained to you by many posters who went to great lengths to engage with you and try and explain what this referendum was proposing, and yet still, here you are peddling your own lies and misguided ramblings in an effort to mislead rather than inform people.

Zen65 · 09-05-2015 11:05AM

lisar816 wrote: »

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

Both of these cannot remain, hence they will be getting rid of the second part and this was not stated very clearly.

Lisar816 you are wrong.

They can both be in the constitution, and they will if a yes vote is passed.

I do not doubt that at some later stage there will be another referendum to amend the wording of article 41.2, but it will not happen as a result of this referendum!

upinthesky · 09-05-2015 11:09AM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Im still not seeing it. There are currently 3 parts on article 41. The referendum proposes to add a 4th. No other changes to the other 3 that I can find.

Exactly, thats the whole point of this referendum, nobody is omitting it, they are making it the main cause of the referendum.

http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/

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.
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

this is left out in my booklet.

Not a NSA agent · 09-05-2015 11:12AM

lisar816 wrote: »

[ul]refcom2015.ie/marriage/[/url]

Thats exactly where I was looking.

It is proposed to add the following to Article 41 of the Constitution:

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

Which is what I was saying. If anything else was being changed then it would mention it.

gravehold · 09-05-2015 11:14AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which is the whole bloody point of the Referendum!

Yes and the no side know that hence the want to stop gays getting married so this stays in effect

The State must at least ensure parity of treatment between marital and non-marital families and may discriminate positively in favour of families based on marriage.

So that it can be made that straight familes get priority of kids in adoption again in the future.

They have this on all their poster they are being upfront and truthful and if they want to keep it so you can at some point give preference back to straight married kids vote no to protect kids and give them a chance of a mother and father.

upinthesky · 09-05-2015 11:14AM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Thats exactly where I was looking.

Which is what I was saying. If anything else was being changed then it would mention it.

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.
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

why leave this out in the booklet?

Not a NSA agent · 09-05-2015 11:20AM

lisar816 wrote: »

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.
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

why leave this out in the booklet?

No idea, I never noticed it and can't find the booklet we got but that part isn't going anywhere.

upinthesky · 09-05-2015 11:23AM

well it has to go, i cant see the too sections being in the same article.

upinthesky · 09-05-2015 11:24AM

you cant have this

“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”
and this

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.
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

in the same article

Bannasidhe · 09-05-2015 11:25AM

lisar816 wrote: »

http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/

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.
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

this is left out in my booklet.

It's not being changed.

It will not be impacted in any way by the Referendum.

I am looking at my booklet and it clearly says 'below is an extract' and lists three articles specifically dealing with the family - these will be impacted because currently, constitutionally speaking, the family is defined as consisting only of a married [heterosexual] couple (with or without children). Should referendum pass, constitutionally speaking, a family will consist of a married couple [heterosexual or homosexual] (with or without children) therefore the constitutional meaning of family will change.

The terms 'women', 'home' and 'work' will not change in any way.

Nowhere does it say this is article 41 in it's entirety - it clearly says here is an extract meaning it's not the whole thing. They gave us the bits that the Referendum will have an impact upon - even if that impact it not an actual change but a broadening of what a specific term -in this case 'family' - will mean.

upinthesky · 09-05-2015 11:30AM

it clearly says here is an extract meaning it's not the whole thing

They have every part of article 41 in the booklet apart from the most import part, so hardly an extract.

This is the only thing that was left out in article 41 in the booklet

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.
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

Not a NSA agent · 09-05-2015 11:30AM

lisar816 wrote: »

you cant have this

“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”
and this

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.
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

in the same article

They can be, if they couldnt we would have a referendum to remove the second one. It definitely needs updating but that doesn't have to happen first.

Bannasidhe · 09-05-2015 11:31AM

lisar816 wrote: »

you cant have this

“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”
and this

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.
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

in the same article

Yes. They can.

One had no baring on the other. They do not mention marriage or families.

Plus - women are forced by economic necessity to work outside the home and this will continue whether or not a woman has a husband/wife or is single or if a man has a husband/wife or is single.

upinthesky · 09-05-2015 11:31AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's not being changed.

It will not be impacted in any way by the Referendum.

Nowhere does it say this is article 40 in it's entirety

It's article 41 this referendum will change not 40

Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

Comments