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

Not a NSA agent · 09-05-2015 12:14PM

gravehold wrote: »

No it's not we have gone over this but we are not allowed to talk about how it's not equality for all adults

How many times do you have to be told it is equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples?

Ave Sodalis · 09-05-2015 12:14PM

gravehold wrote: »

No it's not we have gone over this but we are not allowed to talk about how it's not equality for all adults

Please read my first comment on this thread.

Gravehold, you're starting to go on an awful lot like previous posters on this topic, latching onto any No argument at all and then acting like it was your thought the whole time.

K4t · 09-05-2015 12:21PM

gravehold wrote: »

No it's not we have gone over this but we are not allowed to talk about how it's not equality for all adults

This referendum most definitely is about equality. As a straight person I am voting yes for myself rather than any particular gay person or same sex couple who may wish to get married if passed.

Bannasidhe · 09-05-2015 12:26PM

lisar816 wrote: »

Because it is article 41 we are adding to, and this section was left out! And i wouldn't mind but it was the only section left out, why leave a section out?

1. Because those two sections have nothing to do with the question being asked and will not be impacted by any change.
2. The Referendum Commission is charge with providing clear, relevant, unbiased information. Those sections are not relevant.
3. To avoid confusion by mentioning sections that are not relevant to the question being asked.
4. Costs. A booklet has to be delivered to every household in the country. These booklets must have all relevant information in Irish and English. This particular booklet needed to include clear, relevant, unbiased information on two separate questions. To keep costs down they include only those sections of each article (12 and 41) which will directly be impacted. Two pages per referendum question is the norm. In those two pages they have to explain the question, explain how one may vote (yes/no), give the correct wording of the proposed amendment, , explain the current constitutional situation with reference to the relevant passages in the Constitution and explain what will happen if the change is approved. In two pages. In Irish and English.

I notice on the Presidential Referendum information they do not include all of Article 12 ... why not??? It's all about the President after all!!!

Nodin · 09-05-2015 12:39PM

lisar816 wrote: »

No i don't at the minute i am just going on what is fact!

No, you are speculating about the wording being linked to various benefit payments.

Bannasidhe · 09-05-2015 12:43PM

Nodin wrote: »

No, you are speculating about the wording being linked to various benefit payments.

None of which are mentioned in the Constitution, are all due to legislation, have constantly been changed over the decades, didn't exist when the Constitution was written and don't just apply to women....

Congenital Optimist · 09-05-2015 12:56PM

lisar816 wrote: »

No i don't at the minute i am just going on what is fact!

If you were truly going on what is fact, you wouldn't have asserted that these were the only two clauses of Article 41 that were omitted and then linked this omission to benefit payments.

The Referendum Commission booklet clearly states that the clauses printed were an extract of Article 41. The booklet also doesn't reference the clause or sub-sections on dissolution of marriage "A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that..."

I hope this is just a misunderstanding on your reading of the literature rather than another attempt to mislead people on the subject of the referendum.

aloyisious · 09-05-2015 02:20PM

lisar816 wrote: »

Well i must have got a really dodgy book then, because every other section in article 41 was in my book apart from the section i highlighted previously.

Why leave out the very part they want changed?

Are these the sections that are not listed in the handbook?

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.

Reference sub-section 2 1 above, what support do you think the woman give the state by her life within the home? What does the common good mean?

Reference sub-section 2 above. what are the duties of the mother within the home that the state is worried about?

Vivisectus · 09-05-2015 02:21PM

lisar816 wrote: »

Are they planning on removing this?

No. And I since it is not bothering anyone at the moment we seem to be getting along fine while ignoring it completely - there probably won't be for a while. But it is kind of embarrassingly archaic though. I would not mind a nice passage about the value of carers, home or otherwise, or something like that, if we can make it gender neutral.

endacl · 09-05-2015 02:23PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Who was having a go at you?

Stop bullying him!!!

Ave Sodalis · 09-05-2015 02:29PM

endacl wrote: »

Stop bullying him!!!

I'm actually genuinely confused. Is this the default setting now? Gravehold in one of the other threads spent the first few pages telling everyone that you'll be bullied and called a homophobe if you have any disagreement with the Yes side... and then the next few pages calling anyone who had a disagreement with the Yes side a homophobe... and then goes and complains about the Yes side trying to silence the No side... No wonder we're getting no where

Vivisectus · 09-05-2015 02:30PM

Lisar816, if they wanted to cut benefit payments to mothers they could just do so without a referendum or a change to the constitution. That aside, the lines about mothers in the constitution will not change as a result of this referendum.

Vivisectus · 09-05-2015 02:34PM

gravehold wrote: »

The point is a yes has ramifications of stuff fair outside just ssm, but yes just want you to believe a yes will just mean gay people can have a wedding

What ramifications are these?

aloyisious · 09-05-2015 02:34PM

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.

The reason they are NOT in your booklet, or anyone else's booklet, is that we are not being asked to delete or alter them. A separate referendum is needed to alter or delete both of the sub-sections They stay put in the constitution until that happens, and carry as much weight as the new sub-section will.

aloyisious · 09-05-2015 02:51PM

lisar816 wrote: »

Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland deals with the family which is stated to be founded on marriage

Then, in that case, the constitution has been ignored by the Irish population in increasing numbers each year since 1937, because one hell of a lot of the Irish heterosexual families are not founded on marriage. Before you question that as a fact, ask yourself this: where all the new children here come from?

The answer is certainly not from same-sex couples stated by the "vote no" side as being incapable of procreation, unless you know something they don't know, or want to see.

The new section proposed for entry into the constitution is solely for those who actually show an interest in marriage and you want to shoot it down, on the grounds of protecting the institution of marriage?

Vivisectus · 09-05-2015 02:52PM

gravehold wrote: »

Well if a person say they are voting no they get called bigots and homophobes so you can understand why there is a 'shy no'

It must indeed come as a profound shock to suddenly find yourself in a position where people call you on your bigotry when you propose to withhold rights from people based on their sexual preference. This is a new situation that did not exist a decade or two ago when we could count on gay people to keep their head down.

The arguments based on children and family gender roles are all, as I pointed out in an earlier post, examples of arguments that single out gay people for such treatment and as such they are inherently discriminatory.

Please note that what I attack and call bigoted is the argument. If you hold such a position, then your position is an inherently bigoted one. I feel bad for you if this upsets you, but not very: you are free to choose your point of view, just like I am free to point out there is something wrong with it.

A sort of madness has crept into this debate where we are no longer allowed to call a bigoted point of view bigoted, because this is considered hurtful to bigots and terribly oppressive.

aloyisious · 09-05-2015 02:55PM

lisar816 wrote: »

Marriage will be defined after this referendum is passed, at present it is not.

So is the argument from the "vote no" side wrong? They claim that the new sub-section will re-define marriage.

Lt J.R. Bell · 09-05-2015 02:56PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. It won't be 'defined'.

It will just say 'marriage may be contracted' without an actual definition of what that contract consists of.

Legislation dealing with marriage laws will have to be amended to include gays.

More cleaning up job than anything,after the referendum

Jimoslimos · 09-05-2015 03:01PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

How many times do you have to be told it is equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples?

One small problem.

It only became about couples due to the new wording.

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

There was no such distinction previously, if marriage is unequivocally regarded as between two persons only then why the need to specify it in the Constitution.

I wouldn't vote no because of it, but it does strike me as a rather overly specific statement to put into a Constitution which by design is vague in nature.

Anita Blow · 09-05-2015 03:02PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Legislation dealing with marriage laws will have to be amended to include gays.

More cleaning up job than anything,after the referendum

Can't imagine there'll be much cleaning up required. I'd imagine any legislation simply refers to married couples and the marital contract, rather than specifically referring to a marriage of a man and a woman.

aloyisious · 09-05-2015 03:02PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Legislation dealing with marriage laws will have to be amended to include gays.

More cleaning up job than anything,after the referendum

I don't know the in's and out's of that, but I reckon you are probably right there. I also have no doubt that interested parties will be poring through the books in the various law libraries here to see who's got it wrong.

Edit: having read the referendum commission independent guide (pages four and five) on the 34th amendment, I agree with you about law changes needed to synchronize existing statute laws with Section 41, should the new sub-section be passed and added to it.

Anita Blow · 09-05-2015 03:04PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

One small problem.

It only became about couples due to the new wording.

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

There was no such distinction previously, if marriage is unequivocally regarded as between two persons only then why the need to specify it in the Constitution.

I wouldn't vote no because of it, but it does strike me as a rather overly specific statement to put into a Constitution which by design is vague in nature.

Well one of the main criticisms of the constitution and in particular the article being amended is that it was too vague and open to various interpretations. I'd imagine they're being specific in order to avoid legal challenges and provide a clear concise definition.

Bannasidhe · 09-05-2015 03:05PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Legislation dealing with marriage laws will have to be amended to include gays.

More cleaning up job than anything,after the referendum

That is not what I was responding to - as you would know if you have read the comment I quoted. Marriage is not defined in the Constitution and it will continue to not be defined in the Constitution.

Of course legislation will have to be amended. Legislation is constantly being amended because neither time nor the world stands still - do you have a point?

By the way - any chance you could have the courage of your convictions and actually state why you really think gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children?

Ave Sodalis · 09-05-2015 03:07PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

One small problem.

It only became about couples due to the new wording.

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

There was no such distinction previously, if marriage is unequivocally regarded as between two persons only then why the need to specify it in the Constitution.

I wouldn't vote no because of it, but it does strike me as a rather overly specific statement to put into a Constitution which by design is vague in nature.

Because polygamy is still illegal, unlike couples

Lt J.R. Bell · 09-05-2015 03:07PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Can't imagine there'll be much cleaning up required. I'd imagine any legislation simply refers to married couples and the marital contract, rather than specifically referring to a marriage of a man and a woman.

At this time, the legislation sets out who can marry. It refers to people over 18 (unless they get a court order to marry early) and people of the opposite sex. So that has to be amended. No more than a clean up job if the referendum passes

gravehold · 09-05-2015 03:07PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Well one of the main criticisms of the constitution and in particular the article being amended is that it was too vague and open to various interpretations. I'd imagine they're being specific in order to avoid legal challenges and provide a clear concise definition.

So lets change it to make it harder for polygamous relationships in the future to get married and call it equality.

It making it less equal for polygamous relationships then it was if you vote yes

Jimoslimos · 09-05-2015 03:10PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Well one of the main criticisms of the constitution and in particular the article being amended is that it was too vague and open to various interpretations. I'd imagine they're being specific in order to avoid legal challenges and provide a clear concise definition.

Constitutions are often purposely vague, in order to allow flexibility when legislating. It can actually be problematic at times when they are taken too literally - see US on gun rights (school shootings) and free speech (Westboro Baptist Church).

A preferred change for me would be;

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law without distinction to sex of persons involved

Jimoslimos · 09-05-2015 03:11PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Because polygamy is still illegal, unlike couples

Polygamy is not illegal

aloyisious · 09-05-2015 03:11PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

One small problem.

It only became about couples due to the new wording.

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

There was no such distinction previously, if marriage is unequivocally regarded as between two persons only then why the need to specify it in the Constitution.

I wouldn't vote no because of it, but it does strike me as a rather overly specific statement to put into a Constitution which by design is vague in nature.

That's for several reasons. 1. To prevent anything brought in in law which might alter a prior existing law. 2. (me being cynical) to prevent anyone, including the judges, saying "you did nothing about it" to politicians; the "the people are the ultimate judges of their future, they decided it was so" get-out clause. 3. Probably (tongue in cheek) a two-fingered salute to those who've been barracking the politicians.

gravehold · 09-05-2015 03:12PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law without distinction to sex of persons involved

this would be so much better and wouldn't be adding discrimination to constitution and call it equality

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

Comments