Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

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

1…9394969899…327

Comments

  • #2852
    jameskil
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58 ✭✭jameskil


    Tasden wrote: »
    I'm glad you have that love and support, don't forget that, regardless of the result. I'm hoping to be celebrating too :) As of this morning, after months and months of debates and discussions among family members, there's an extra yes vote in our house now. I'm so proud the person has taken everything on board and made their decision based on the facts even though they had doubts initially.

    Thats is excellent and endearing :) ! I agree with you, regardless of the outcome i think the gay community has done ourselves proud and fostered new friendships and changed the opinions of many people across the country. And that is nothing short of success!


  • #2853
    jameskil
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58 ✭✭jameskil


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    I sincerely hope the streets are alive with rainbow flag waving happy people on Saturday - Im actually going to be out of the country (ill be here to vote) so I have a number of people on standby to text me the result.

    It will be a nice text to receive if its a Yes!


  • #2854
    thegreatescape
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 420 ✭✭thegreatescape


    An article in Irish Examiner I saw this morning, a marriage certificate is accepted as a form of ID for entry to the polling station, but a civil partnership certificate is not! Oh the irony. How can people say this is enough? Equality should be a right, not a privilege.


  • #2855
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,239 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    seamus wrote: »
    Re-reggers.

    Long polls on boards tend to do that, the same thing happens with political polls, as the Sinn Fein quotient bizarrely creeps upwards at the expense of all others, the longer the poll goes on.

    A sitewide poll started next Monday or Tuesday would likely be a better measure of true feeling.

    And there's no Re-regerrs on the yes side? Social media is awash with the yes side, I'd say that poll is about 40% off the mark. I don't think a site wide poll will call it correctly either.
    At 80% I would have said it'll scape through, 70% still hope, if it dips below 60% forget about it.


  • #2856
    Merry Prankster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 262 ✭✭Merry Prankster


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    Is there anybody that can give an answer apart from generic ones such as "because we want to" or "because we want equality" and state exactly what this will change.

    I did answer your question ( #2844 ). You just chose to ignore it.


  • Advertisement
  • #2857
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    Would you have a link to the list of rights that this referendum Would change?

    For instance, what right now is preventing gay families from being a family?! I didn't think marraige is the be all and end all of being a family so I'd like to know this aspect- there 1000's of families in this country where the parents are not married and some never will be .

    You are wrong. In this country a heterosexual couple with children who are not married are not legally considered a family. I know this because when OH and I purchased our house we had to sign a statement to say that it is not the 'family home'. When I asked the lawyer why we had to do it he informed me that it cannot be a family home because we are not married and therefore legally cannot be considered a family. Also my OH had no legal rights to our child. We could not be legally considered each others next of kin either and we had no automatic inheritance rights.

    This situation, once I became fully aware of it, scared the **** out of me and we got married. All sorted! LGBT people do not have this option currently and civil partnership does not fully address the legal issues.


  • #2858
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,926 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    but dont existing civil partnership laws allow people to marry? a friend of mine was at a Gay wedding last August for instance. im sure they call their partner their husband, am sure they class themselves as a family so what exactly more is needed? tax breaks?

    the fact that 4 people have responded to my post but nobody has yet to actually answer my question makes me wonder just what exactly is the

    is there anybody that can give an answer apart from generic ones such as "because we want to" or "because we want equality" and state exactly what this will change.
    To answer your question - no, gay people cannot get married in Ireland. Civil partnership is what is available to them. A fundamental difference between the two is that marriage is protected by the constitution, whereas civil partnership is not - it could be changed, or abolished, by legislation alone, without any referendum.

    That couple may have used terms like husband or family, and they may even have children, but they are not a family which has protection under the constitution.

    That's important right - I mean, they may be, for all intents and purposes, a family like any other, and love and support each other, just like any other, but the state does not give them the same rights and protections.

    That, I'm sure you will agree, is a pretty significant difference, and one that should be rectified.


  • #2859
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    but dont existing civil partnership laws allow people to marry? a friend of mine was at a Gay wedding last August for instance. im sure they call their partner their husband, am sure they class themselves as a family so what exactly more is needed? tax breaks?

    the fact that 4 people have responded to my post but nobody has yet to actually answer my question makes me wonder just what exactly is the

    is there anybody that can give an answer apart from generic ones such as "because we want to" or "because we want equality" and state exactly what this will change.


    A civil partnership is not a marriage.
    Why don't we just scrap marriage altogether and have everyone have civil partners? Shouldn't be a problem if it's all the same.

    And if lgbt can already have civil partnership and marriage is no different, why not let them have that too?


  • #2860
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,816 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »

    No, but it appropriate for society to support children having arrangements that are as ideal as possible, and that includes encourages men and women to marry and provide a responsible environment to nurture children, without confusing the definition of marriage with sterile combinations as some propose.

    The constitution already protects and supports heterosexual married couples ("the family") and their children, if there are any. That will not change if the referendum passes.
    All the referendum is proposing is that all couples will have the chance to benefit from that protection, by being permitted to marry, and to be recognised as a family. Surely that is an improvement??


  • #2861
    thegreatescape
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 420 ✭✭thegreatescape


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    but dont existing civil partnership laws allow people to marry? a friend of mine was at a Gay wedding last August for instance. im sure they call their partner their husband, am sure they class themselves as a family so what exactly more is needed? tax breaks?

    the fact that 4 people have responded to my post but nobody has yet to actually answer my question makes me wonder just what exactly is the

    is there anybody that can give an answer apart from generic ones such as "because we want to" or "because we want equality" and state exactly what this will change.

    Civil Partnership extends many of the same rights of straight couples to same sex couples, however, there are still very important differences not protected under this. For example, the no side make out to be so concerned with the welfare of children. Gay people can currently adopt children without marriage, and they have done so in society for a long time.
    Without marriage however, these children only have a recognised relationship with their biological parent. This means that if the biological parent died, they would be taken away from their other parent, regardless. Marriage protects children in the fact the other person is seen as their legal guardian. So if the no side are so concerned about protecting children, they would know that by voting no they are leaving children of gay parents that can already be done in Ireland less rights as a result of their parents being discriminated against.

    Civil partners are seen to live in a Shared Home, rather than a Family Home, legislation ensures that same sex couples who have registered a civil partnership are not recognized as (or even called) a family. This is because only a family based on marriage is recognised as a family in Irish law. This relates back to the biological parent issue, they're not seen as a family in the eyes of the State. The Family Home Protection Act includes a broad definition of "dependent children", which recognises that ALL children in a married family - biological or not - are dependent children and therefore need protection. This definition does NOT apply to civil partners with children.

    If you're married, and your spouse deserts you, you can ask a court for permission to sell the 'family home' (the house that you as a married couple normally live(d) in) without the permission of the deserting spouse.

    If you're in a civil partnership, and your partner deserts you, you can't ask a court for permission to sell the 'shared home' without the permission of the deserting partner.

    So there is a lot in terms of legal that marriage entitles couples to vs civil partnership, which again brings us back to the point of gay people being seen as equal in the eyes of the State as straight people.


  • Advertisement
  • #2862
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    but dont existing civil partnership laws allow people to marry? a friend of mine was at a Gay wedding last August for instance. im sure they call their partner their husband, am sure they class themselves as a family so what exactly more is needed? tax breaks?

    the fact that 4 people have responded to my post but nobody has yet to actually answer my question makes me wonder just what exactly is the

    is there anybody that can give an answer apart from generic ones such as "because we want to" or "because we want equality" and state exactly what this will change.

    I don't think you should look down on equality as a reason by itself. It is a pretty good one actually, when you think about it.

    Also, because there are gay people out there who would like to get married, please. That is a good reason in itself too: especially since right now we are only offering them a sort of back-of-the-bus option.

    But there are loads of others too. Just a quick selection to get us started:

    - It grants more protection, as another referendum would be needed to change it back again

    - Protects existing gay families, granting them the same sort of protection they would get in cases of bereavement, hospitalization, guardianship of children, etc etc etc.

    - Recognizes same sex couples' rights to many social supports that may be needed in hardship situations and may literally leave a loved one out in the cold.

    - defines the home of civil partners as a "shared home", rather than a "family home" , as is the case for married couples.


  • #2863
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,051 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    but dont existing civil partnership laws allow people to marry?

    It's been posted a few times but probably gets lost amidst the noise : There are currently 160 legal differences. These include areas like next of kin and inheritance rights. Legislating for these would, firstly, be expensive. It would also be open to challenge.
    Civil partnership is not constitutionally protected either : The state could repeal it. They can't happen with marriage.
    These make it an unequal institution.


  • #2864
    Professey Chin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 51,054 ✭✭✭✭Professey Chin


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    but dont existing civil partnership laws allow people to marry? a friend of mine was at a Gay wedding last August for instance. im sure they call their partner their husband, am sure they class themselves as a family so what exactly more is needed? tax breaks?

    the fact that 4 people have responded to my post but nobody has yet to actually answer my question makes me wonder just what exactly is the

    is there anybody that can give an answer apart from generic ones such as "because we want to" or "because we want equality" and state exactly what this will change.

    They allow civil partnerships not marriage.
    Marriage as it currently stands was interpreted by a really old court case as being between a man and woman so thats what applies to. This could be legally challenged over and over and over from both sides. The referendum will change the constitution to say that the sex of the 2 people doesnt matter when marriage is involved so they can get fully married.
    Laws can be changed to give more rights to SSM without referendum but they can be changed and taken away just as easily. This will put same sex marriage on equal footing with the same constitutional protection as hetro marriage.


  • #2865
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    A civil partnership is not a marriage.
    Why don't we just scrap marriage altogether and have everyone have civil partners? Shouldn't be a problem if it's all the same.

    And if lgbt can already have civil partnership and marriage is no different, why not let them have that too?

    It seems to work for the french.


  • #2866
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    but dont existing civil partnership laws allow people to marry? a friend of mine was at a Gay wedding last August for instance. im sure they call their partner their husband, am sure they class themselves as a family so what exactly more is needed? tax breaks?

    the fact that 4 people have responded to my post but nobody has yet to actually answer my question makes me wonder just what exactly is the

    is there anybody that can give an answer apart from generic ones such as "because we want to" or "because we want equality" and state exactly what this will change.

    I did answer and you ignored it. They want equality. They want to be on par with heterosexuals like me. I could get married and I did. Why shouldn't they be allowed to? Adding one line into the constitution gives them the protection of the constitution rather than a whimsical government who can change legalisation at a whim. Why would you not want them to be equal to you and have the same protection you have?


  • #2867
    upinthesky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭upinthesky


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNR4hKbSH7I


  • #2868
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    It seems to work for the french.


    We are not in France. We should go with what works for the Irish.


  • #2869
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Well tonight's Prime Time did refer to some studies, many were inconclusive and four showed disadvantage for children brought up in Gay relationships. Now personally I think these studies do not have a proper sample to establish anything, but if you are making claims about them then the evidence is somewhat in favour of the No side. But then you probably had the blinkers on during that bit.



    This is the kind of pointless emotive language that characterises this campaign. No person needs permission to love and pursue a relationship with anyone else, gay people cannot call this marriage because marriage is for men and women, there is no reason for anyone to apologise for that. You can't call soccer rugby because you don't carry the ball.

    then why did prime time, and their legal experts all agree that there was no evidence of any difference.

    4 studies out of 75 showing a difference doesn't suggest that same sex parents are worse. It suggests those 4 studied got it wrong.


  • #2870
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    We are not in France. We should go with what works for the Irish.

    Well what we have was introduced by the English and co-opted by the Church of Rome so what would be the problem with changing it?


  • #2871
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    Would you have a link to the list of rights that this referendum Would change?

    For instance, what right now is preventing gay families from being a family?! I didn't think marraige is the be all and end all of being a family so I'd like to know this aspect- there 1000's of families in this country where the parents are not married and some never will be .

    I'm asking this as somebody who sees no reason to vote no but always as somebody who doesn't quite understand what the Yes side are looking for, so would like somebody to explain please!

    Put simply...
    Presently, heterosexual couples are allowed to get married. Homosexual couples are not! We are voting on extending that right to homosexual couples. It really is that simple.

    How could there possibly be any valid reason for not allowing gay couples to get married? I'm heterosexual, in a happy marriage, with a great kid... and it baffles me that people would want to block gay couples from having that same civil right and constitutional protection that we have.


  • Advertisement
  • #2872
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Just back from dropping the Mrs to work in Cavan. A lot of the Yes posters are suddenly not there. But not to fear, the Iona Institute posters with "Equality for children, Vote No" and "Freedom of Conscience, Vote No" have popped up.


  • #2873
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    We are not in France. We should go with what works for the Irish.

    So something that includes stating the obvious, with slightly nationalistic overtones? Maybe little stickers that show This Marriage Is Irish Owned?


  • #2874
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,051 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    Just back from dropping the Mrs to work in Cavan. A lot of the Yes posters are suddenly not there.

    You mean the No side are tearing down posters? I thought only the bullying Yes side did this...


  • #2875
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    Marriage Is Irish Owned?

    Administered by the usual a public/private partnership mess...


  • #2876
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    Would you have a link to the list of rights that this referendum Would change?

    For instance, what right now is preventing gay families from being a family?! I didn't think marraige is the be all and end all of being a family so I'd like to know this aspect- there 1000's of families in this country where the parents are not married and some never will be .

    I'm asking this as somebody who sees no reason to vote no but always as somebody who doesn't quite understand what the Yes side are looking for, so would like somebody to explain please!

    At present, civil partnerships provide many of the same or similar rights as marriage, but is not a constitutionally protected relationship in the same way as marriage.

    Therefore a same sex relationship can never be equal to marriage as a matter of law without this change. It also means that civil partnerships can be amended, withdrawn or abolished on a whim by the Government.

    So we are asking for the same status and protection.

    Secondly, civil partnership is a recognition of our relationships, but it comes with an asterisks. It is similar to marriage, but not quite. We are recognised by the state, but not in the same way. It's a distinct status, only given to gay relationships and which sets us apart.

    We don't see our relationships as being inherently different - nor do our friends, families etc. But the state does. It tells us that our relationships are seen and valued differently to our straight friends' and family's relationships. It's recognition with the asterisks.

    We are asking for that asterisks to be removed. To recognise, value and protect our relationships on the same basis as anybody elses.

    To do so causes no harm or detriment to anybody else, but it would mean a world of good to us. It tells us we are valued, we are accepted, we are the same. That we aren't seen by our State and Government as something different, other or marginalised.

    That's all we ask.

    As you said, there has been no reason offered to vote no, so in light of how much good it would do for lgbt people I sincerely wish you do vote yes.


  • #2877
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    jameskil wrote: »
    Why im voting yes and why i think everyone should!

    https://www.facebook.com/jameskil/posts/10153349173235681:0

    Just my experience and a yes vote will hopefully pave the way for significant future change!

    Beautiful and moving. Well done.

    Now go canvass!


  • #2878
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,894 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    I hope that answers your question, homerjay2005


  • #2879
    That_Guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 51,342 ✭✭✭✭That_Guy


    This has probably been posted before but this is a pretty good summary of what we're actually voting on.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFCYBunWEAA-10x.jpg


  • #2880
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,051 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    That_Guy wrote: »
    This has probably been posted before but this is a pretty good summary of what we're actually voting on.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFCYBunWEAA-10x.jpg
    This would be better posted on poles than some of the current posters. Factual and combats a lot of the misdirection.


  • Advertisement
  • #2881
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    floggg wrote:
    Secondly, civil partnership is a recognition of our relationships, but it comes with an asterisks. It is similar to marriage, but not quite. We are recognised by the state, but not in the same way. It's a distinct status, only given to gay relationships and which sets us apart.

    If gays are the same as everyone else, then there is no need to change the constitution to cater for them. If they are different then of course they need different arrangements to meet their needs. But there is a case of having cake and eating it here.
    That_Guy wrote: »
    This has probably been posted before but this is a pretty good summary of what we're actually voting on.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFCYBunWEAA-10x.jpg

    hardly an unbiased account.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement