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

Lt J.R. Bell · 09-05-2015 03:17PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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?

Sweet Jesus

Marriage was not "defined" by the Constitution because, from 1936 right up to, what 2005, there was no dispute as to what "marriage" meant, in Ireland, and vast majority of the legal jurisdictions of the world. The dog in the street knew what a "marriage" meant

The legislation filled in the details (as does European Directives and Regulations do with the Treaties) the case law left no one under any doubt what marriage meant in a Constitutional context

However, in the past ten years, talk of another form of marriage, gay marriage, has come to promience all over the legal world.

Because, of the clear definition of marriage in Ireland ; whether by the legislation (that says it's one man and women, over 18, and being of sound mind) and the Courts definition, and the social attitudes which made the government reluctant to change it on its own, we are now voting whether we want Marriage to include gays

The additional Constitional clause will ensure that marriage will include gays

Marriage IS being re defined (from being exclusive to hetros to now include everyone over 18 and not related) , and, for the first time, the Constitution expresses, that the sexuality /gender is irrelevant.

One eyed Jack · 09-05-2015 03:20PM

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.

It's not so much about a distinction, but rather an emphasis on the fact that it will now be 'two persons' rather than what was previously interpreted by legislation as an opposite sex couple (that being the sex of the persons, interpreted specifically as a man and a woman).

Ave Sodalis · 09-05-2015 03:20PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Polygamy is not illegal

Yes it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#/media/File:Legality_of_polygamy.png

Lt J.R. Bell · 09-05-2015 03:22PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Polygamy is not illegal

Polygamy is not recognised in Ireland,Irish law may not recognise some foreign marriages because of it,-law is developing here,so depends on the facts of the case). It is illegal, in Ireland, you risk faces criminal charged if you marry more than one person concurrently

Lt J.R. Bell · 09-05-2015 03:23PM

aloyisious wrote: »

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.

No need. The interest contains all of the legislation and case law

gravehold · 09-05-2015 03:28PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Yes it is wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#/media/File:Legality_of_polygamy.png[/URL]

Why are the gays adding discrimination into the constitution on it though, we can get it decriminalised like the gays did in 93 then polygamous couples can marry too. No need to purposely add a block cause the gays are against it too and then call it equality

Honestly if you are for polygamy a no vote is now better then a yes

One eyed Jack · 09-05-2015 03:30PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Sweet Jesus

Marriage was not "defined" by the Constitution because, from 1936 right up to, what 2005, there was no dispute as to what "marriage" meant, in Ireland, and vast majority of the legal jurisdictions of the world. The dog in the street knew what a "marriage" meant

The legislation filled in the details (as does European Directives and Regulations do with the Treaties) the case law left no one under any doubt what marriage meant in a Constitutional context

However, in the past ten years, talk of another form of marriage, gay marriage, has come to promience all over the legal world.

Because, of the clear definition of marriage in Ireland ; whether by the legislation (that says it's one man and women, over 18, and being of sound mind) and the Courts definition, and the social attitudes which made the government reluctant to change it on its own, we are now voting whether we want Marriage to include gays

The additional Constitional clause will ensure that marriage will include gays

Marriage IS being re defined (from being exclusive to hetros to now include everyone over 18 and not related) , and, for the first time, the Constitution expresses, that the sexuality /gender is irrelevant.

No it's not. The marriage contract remains the same. The only change being proposed by the referendum is that two persons will be able to enter into the marriage contract in accordance with law without distinction as to their sex.

The contract remains the same, but if this referendum passes, it will simply mean that more people will be able to enter into that contract (that contract of course being Civil Marriage).

Lt J.R. Bell · 09-05-2015 03:30PM

eviltwin wrote: »

You don't need to be married to go through relationship breakdown. In fact don't the stats show cohabiting couples are more likely to break up compared to married couples?

Are you for real???

Of course non married people have relationship breakdowns

But

Provided that there are no children, and they don't fall into the traps of the cohabitation act, and don't share property, non married people don't have to face too many legal implications once they breakdown. Unlike married people

What you have said is irelevant, pedantic at best

The discussion is about marriage, a legal contract. We are also talking about Civil Partnerships, also a legal contract

Lt J.R. Bell · 09-05-2015 03:33PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it's not. The marriage contract remains the same. The only change being proposed by the referendum is that two persons will be able to enter into the marriage contract in accordance with law without distinction as to their sex.

The contract remains the same, but if this referendum passes, it will simply mean that more people will be able to enter into that contract (that contract of course being Civil Marriage).

Stop. Find the legislation on marriage. Find the definition of marriage. What does it say?

We are talking about the definition of "marriage", not "marriage contract"

This is getting retarded

Ave Sodalis · 09-05-2015 03:36PM

gravehold wrote: »

Why are the gays adding discrimination into the constitution on it though, we can get it decriminalised like the gays did in 93 then polygamous couples can marry too. No need to purposely add a block cause the gays are against it too and then call it equality

Honestly if you are for polygamy a no vote is now better then a yes

Great, now you're saying if you're for polygamy, a no vote is better. A few pages ago, you had the word adoption there...

The constitution can be change, as it is. Get over the legal part of it first and then worry about the constitution.

Lt J.R. Bell · 09-05-2015 03:36PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

You said you'd be banned from site if you named the harm that gay parents would pose to children, what's the shocking thing you were going to refer to? In relation to sexual orientation of paedophiles, the below goes into plenty of detail on subject.

I made no statement, expressed or implied, at the time sex offenders was brought u, by another person, under the incorrect assuming that I was hinting at that

Suggest you stick to what I actually said, rather than put words in my mouth.

Ave Sodalis · 09-05-2015 03:36PM

LT, are you capable of making a post that doesn't have such a condenscending attitude?

swampgas · 09-05-2015 03:38PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Are you for real???

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

This is getting retarded

Wow, such eloquence! Win friends and influence people much?

gravehold · 09-05-2015 03:38PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Great, now you're saying if your for polygamy, a no vote is better. A few pages ago, you had the word adoption there...

The constitution can be change, as it is. Get over the legal part of it first and then worry about the constitution.

No need to add stuff to the constitution to make it easier to discrimination against polygamy and then have the cheek to call it equality

One eyed Jack · 09-05-2015 03:38PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Stop. Find the legislation on marriage. Find the definition of marriage. What does it say?

We are talking about the definition of "marriage", not "marriage contract"

This is getting retarded

Ehh? Sure you've written it yourself below that we're talking about a legal contract between two people -

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

What you have said is irelevant, pedantic at best

The discussion is about marriage, a legal contract. We are also talking about Civil Partnerships, also a legal contract

Now who's being pedantic?

Lt J.R. Bell · 09-05-2015 03:38PM

sup_dude wrote: »

LT, are you capable of making a post that doesn't have such a condenscending attitude?

Are you and your pals capable of making a post that actually refrains from putting words into the mouths of others, or actually do some basic research.?

If not, what you do expect?

Ave Sodalis · 09-05-2015 03:41PM

gravehold wrote: »

No need to add stuff to the constitution to make it easier to discrimination against polygamy and then have the cheek to call it equality

It doesn't make it any more or less easier to discriminate against polygamy. Polygamy is illegal. A change to the constitution would have been needed anyway. Same way as the constitution didn't specifically ban SSM, the courts did.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Are you and your pals capable of making a post that actually refrains from putting words into the mouths of others, or actually do some basic research.?

If not, what you do expect?

I don't know these people. Can you point out where I did this? You throw around stuff like this nearly every post and expect a decent level of discussion.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 09-05-2015 03:42PM

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?

I'd guess for precisely the questions you've asked. There's an obvious inconsistency that they just don't want to deal with.

Bear in mind, if they change any of the existing words they can't maintain that they haven't done anything that impacts on existing marriages. Now, you can't just slap in a random phrase into the Constitution without impacting other things. But, politically, they can pretend that's the situation.

Ave Sodalis · 09-05-2015 03:43PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd guess for precisely the questions you've asked. There's an obvious inconsistency that they just don't want to deal with.

It has nothing to do with the referendum.

Lt J.R. Bell · 09-05-2015 03:44PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ehh? Sure you've written it yourself below that we're talking about a legal contract between two people -

Now who's being pedantic?

Oh dear. You don't know what you are talking about. And, bless, you think you do.

A marriage contract is a document that is evidence of an agreement between two people to marry to the exclusion of other.

Who can enter the contract?

Well, marriageis defined to require (or did require, once the referendum comes) that you must be, inter alia

1 of the opposite sex
2 over 18
3 be of sound mind

So, two elements there

Then you have to follow the instructions to ensure that the contract is binding, there are requirements about where you marry and who witnesses the rites, and the notice requirement

gravehold · 09-05-2015 03:45PM

sup_dude wrote: »

It doesn't make it any more or less easier to discriminate against polygamy. Polygamy is illegal. A change to the constitution would have been needed anyway. Same way as the constitution didn't specifically ban SSM, the courts did.

Sure but we could have one referendum instead of the one that adds to the constitution that only couples can marry.

The fact this adds only couples can marry into it makes it hugely discriminatory and shows that yes equality posters are a huge lie

Ave Sodalis · 09-05-2015 03:47PM

gravehold wrote: »

Sure but we could have one referendum instead of the one that adds to the constitution that only couples can marry.

The fact this adds only couples can marry into it makes it hugely discriminatory and shows that yes equality posters are a huge lie

No, we couldn't because even if the couple part wasn't there, polygamy would still most likely need a referendum.

aloyisious · 09-05-2015 03:49PM

It's apparently going to be a side-effect of the passing of the 34th amendment that the Civil Partnership Act will be closed off, there will be no new Civil Partnerships registered, no new civil partnership contracts entered into. The CP's existing before the amendment takes effect will still be legal contracts, lapsing only when dissolved by divorce or "nature's" processes.

I have no idea when the stop-date for registrars doing CP's is between now and the 22nd.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 09-05-2015 03:49PM

sup_dude wrote: »

It has nothing to do with the referendum.

It simply does. This idea that we need only look at the sentence in front of our eyes is a three card trick.

One eyed Jack · 09-05-2015 03:50PM

gravehold wrote: »

No need to add stuff to the constitution to make it easier to discrimination against polygamy and then have the cheek to call it equality

"Discrimination against polygamy", what are you even talking about?

Polygamy is simply not recognised as a valid form of marriage by the State. Polygamy has absolutely nothing to do with Civil Marriage as recognised by the State, and voting no will not change that because the referendum is not about recognising and legislating for polygamous marriage.

Religious marriages are not recognised by the State either, and that's not discrimination. It's not discrimination because it's simply not legislated for. Civil Marriage is the only type of marriage recognised by the State.

The discrimination in the criteria for Civil Marriage is what is referenced by marriage equality advocates. It has nothing to do with the number of people involved. The discrimination refers to the fact that people are denied the opportunity to contract Civil Marriage on the basis of their sexual orientation. They currently can not enter into marriage with a person of the same sex.

Ave Sodalis · 09-05-2015 03:51PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It simply does. This idea that we need only look at the sentence in front of our eyes is a three card trick.

It doesn't matter how often you repeat this, it has nothing to do with the referendum. You aren't being tricked. This is from an independent neutral body. This isn't the conspiracy forum.

Bannasidhe · 09-05-2015 03:54PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Sweet Jesus

Marriage was not "defined" by the Constitution because, from 1936 right up to, what 2005, there was no dispute as to what "marriage" meant, in Ireland, and vast majority of the legal jurisdictions of the world. The dog in the street knew what a "marriage" meant

The legislation filled in the details (as does European Directives and Regulations do with the Treaties) the case law left no one under any doubt what marriage meant in a Constitutional context

However, in the past ten years, talk of another form of marriage, gay marriage, has come to promience all over the legal world.

Because, of the clear definition of marriage in Ireland ; whether by the legislation (that says it's one man and women, over 18, and being of sound mind) and the Courts definition, and the social attitudes which made the government reluctant to change it on its own, we are now voting whether we want Marriage to include gays

The additional Constitional clause will ensure that marriage will include gays

Marriage IS being re defined (from being exclusive to hetros to now include everyone over 18 and not related) , and, for the first time, the Constitution expresses, that the sexuality /gender is irrelevant.

The fact remains that Marriage is not defined in the Constitution therefore is cannot be re-defined in the Constitution.

As for marriage being 're-defined' in legislation stop acting like this has never, ever happened ever in Ireland.

Here is a handy list by barrister Mark Tottenham https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CA8ypesWkAA_EFW.png:large

which shows the numerous 're-definitions' of marriage including the most recent one which 'redefined' it in such a way that it is no longer for life. Legislation had to amended for each and everyone of these and the latter necessitated some major legislation be written, debated and enacted.

When the Constitution was written marriage was also for life - we changed that. The sky did not fall in.

When the Constitution was written there was so such thing as rape within marriage. We changed that. The sky did not fall in.

When the Constitution was written 15 year olds could get married. We changed that . The sky did not fall in.

Legislation changes. That is the nature of legislation. If it didn't women could still be raped by their husbands, they would be unable to get a barring order against a violent rapist husband, they would be banned from working in the Civil Service after marriage and 15 year old could get married - oh... widows would not have an automatic entitlement to 30% of their deceased husband's estate... and women wouldn't be allowed to keep their own wages in the unlikely even they were allowed to work outside the home. There would also be no contraception in Ireland.

Show me exactly where the Constitution makes any mention of gender or sexuality? It doesn't. It doesn't even mention men in the article dealing with marriage never mind sexual orientation.

Of all the reasons to vote no the fact that legislation will have to be amended is without doubt the most ridiculous yet.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 09-05-2015 03:54PM

sup_dude wrote: »

It doesn't matter how often you repeat this, it has nothing to do with the referendum. You aren't being tricked. This is from an independent neutral body. This isn't the conspiracy forum.

The point can't be simply dismissed. No part of the Constitution is read in isolation.

I'm not saying this is an argument for a No vote. The Yes voters who acknowledge that the new words don't fit well with existing measures are at least acknowledging wider implications exist. If they regard those implications as a lesser concern, that's their choice.

But pretending the inconsistency isn't there is too much.

And the referendum commission material is particularly lacking in substance this time.

LookingFor · 09-05-2015 03:55PM

I'd have thought people against polygamy and polyamory would welcome the amendment. Asides from the gender aspect of the amendment, it actually also for the first time makes explicit in the constitution that marriage is between two people. It would make impossible any move to recognise polygamous marriages without a referendum.

Vote yes to copper fasten marriage as between two people only!

One eyed Jack · 09-05-2015 03:55PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Oh dear. You don't know what you are talking about. And, bless, you think you do.

A marriage contract is a document that is evidence of an agreement between two people to marry to the exclusion of other.

Who can enter the contract?

Well, marriageis defined to require (or did require, once the referendum comes) that you must be, inter alia

1 of the opposite sex
2 over 18
3 be of sound mind

So, two elements there

Then you have to follow the instructions to ensure that the contract is binding, there are requirements about where you marry and who witnesses the rites, and the notice requirement

What's your point though?

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

Comments