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

Anita Blow · 15-05-2015 11:07AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

They don't, if they get married as you did. They are unwilling to do so, but want marriage reorganised to suit them.

Ah, right- the "They can get married, just not to the person they love" argument. One of the sillier ones out there. Would you accept being told you're only allowed to marry someone to which you will never love or have an attraction towards?
I find the people who parrot this argument (who like to harp on about 'redefinition of marriage') have the worst understanding of that definition of all. A marriage without love is not a marriage, and I think it's utterly pathetic that someone would rather consign a person to a life of unhappiness just because they deem them unworthy to join their club.

Vivisectus · 15-05-2015 11:07AM

Look at it this way:

Let us say we do not allow interreligious marriage and are debating changing that law. Does that mean that a protestant / catholic couple that want this changed are looking to re-organize marriage to suit their needs? Are they looking for special treatment? After all, they are both free to marry people of their own religion just like everyone else....

ProfessorPlum · 15-05-2015 11:09AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

They don't, if they get married as you did. They are unwilling to do so, but want marriage reorganised to suit them.

But isn't that the point? I married the person I love, and the person I wanted to found a family with. Gay people don't have that option. Marriage won't be 'reorganised' but would be extended to include everybody. It won't affect my marriage in anyway. But it will allow everyone the chance of happiness in a marriage. Not to mention all the other legal protections for the couple and their children.

traprunner · 15-05-2015 11:09AM

upinthesky wrote: »

I was originally a yes voter until i started researching, i thought why not just let two people get married, who am i to deny them of this, of coarse there is way more to it than this, so much needs to be changed if this is to be passed because a lot of the wording is contradicting itself.

If you take a look of all the conclusions in this report same sex marriage should not be the number 1 priority.

http://archive.constitution.ie/reports/10th-Report-Family.pdf

There are loads of items fighting for priority but you make it as if the reason you are voting no is because of priority....we can't change what referendum in in front of us now. If you disagree about priorities then get onto your local TD's and spoil your vote as a protest.

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 11:10AM

upinthesky wrote: »

I was originally a yes voter until i started researching, i thought why not just let two people get married, who am i to deny them of this, of coarse there is way more to it than this, so much needs to be changed if this is to be passed because a lot of the wording is contradicting itself.

If you take a look of all the conclusions in this report same sex marriage should not be the number 1 priority.

http://archive.constitution.ie/reports/10th-Report-Family.pdf

A 2006 report?

osarusan · 15-05-2015 11:10AM

upinthesky wrote: »

I was originally a yes voter until i started researching, i thought why not just let two people get married, who am i to deny them of this, of coarse there is way more to it than this, so much needs to be changed if this is to be passed because a lot of the wording is contradicting itself.

If you take a look of all the conclusions in this report same sex marriage should not be the number 1 priority.

http://archive.constitution.ie/reports/10th-Report-Family.pdf

Sorry, I don't have time to read 431 pages.

Could you summarise the parts that made you switch from a yes voter to a no voter? What did you uncover that changed your mind?

SireOfSeth · 15-05-2015 11:11AM

upinthesky wrote: »

I was originally a yes voter until i started researching, i thought why not just let two people get married, who am i to deny them of this, of coarse there is way more to it than this, so much needs to be changed if this is to be passed because a lot of the wording is contradicting itself.

If you take a look of all the conclusions in this report same sex marriage should not be the number 1 priority.

http://archive.constitution.ie/reports/10th-Report-Family.pdf

So? We are voting on what we have been presented. Regardless of other issues, this is this a major injustice in the constitutional rights of our fellow men and women.

endacl · 15-05-2015 11:12AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Do am he horrible distance marriage so although. Afraid assure square so happen mr an before. His many same been well can high that. Forfeited did law eagerness allowance improving assurance bed. Had saw put seven joy short first.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Duggy747 · 15-05-2015 11:16AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A 2006 report?

Justin Barrett's Right Nation features quite a bit in that report, especially with this nugget:

Right Nation is of the view that the only constitutional change or amendment that the Committee should recommend with regard to the family, as a legal entity, is the restoration of indissoluble marriage by the prohibition of divorce

:pac:

floggg · 15-05-2015 11:17AM

upinthesky wrote: »

I find this conclusion to be true, looking at this report, i think article 41 needs to be changed in a lot of ways not just adding in same sex marriage, why choose to add this above everything else in regards to " The Family"

Conclusion
In the case of the family, the committee takes the view that an
amendment to extend the definition of the family would cause
deep and long-lasting division in our society and would not
necessarily be passed by a majority. Instead of inviting such
anguish and uncertainty, the committee proposes to seek through a
number of other constitutional changes and legislative proposals to
deal in an optimal way with the problems presented to it in the
submissions.

http://archive.constitution.ie/reports/10th-Report-Family.pdf

That piece is discussing extending the definition of family to include non-marital families.

The referendum is about extending the eligibility criteria for marriage.

Separate issues entirely.

Also, nobody is saying this is the only change to be made to Art 41 or the Constitution. There will surely be others in the future.

But this is the question we are being asked - and we should judge it on its own merits. Do we consider it right, just and fair to allow same sex couples equal access to marriage.

Other causes or issues are irrelevant to that question - though may well have merit in their own right.

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 11:19AM

Duggy747 wrote: »

Justin Barrett's Right Nation features quite a bit in that report, especially with this nugget:

:pac:

Well that's it.

We'll vote yes to SSM and remove divorce!

Sorted.

ProfessorPlum · 15-05-2015 11:19AM

upinthesky wrote: »

I was originally a yes voter until i started researching, i thought why not just let two people get married, who am i to deny them of this, of coarse there is way more to it than this, so much needs to be changed if this is to be passed because a lot of the wording is contradicting itself.

If you take a look of all the conclusions in this report same sex marriage should not be the number 1 priority.

http://archive.constitution.ie/reports/10th-Report-Family.pdf

Oh there's no doubt that the constitution could do with a good overhaul, particularly the bit about family, the lack of recognition of single parents and unmarried parents as a family, and especially where it goes on about a woman's special place in the home (I'm surprised it just didn't say kitchen!). It was written a long time ago. Social norms were different. It was seen as a good thing that women gave up work when they got married etc etc.

Just because there are other wrongs that ought to be righted doesn't mean we should miss this opportunity to right this particular wrong. Please reconsider and vote Yes.

upinthesky · 15-05-2015 11:22AM

osarusan wrote: »

Sorry, I don't have time to read 431 pages.

Could you summarise the parts that made you switch from a yes voter to a no voter? What did you uncover that changed your mind?

The introduction of gay marriage would effectively
discriminate against other domestic relationships that are
often as permanent and stable as a gay relationship, such as
siblings living together or an unmarried child living with an
elderly parent. There are issues of legal and financial
protection requiring attention in many such relationships.
These issues can and should be dealt with under law without
undermining the uniqueness of marriage

Provision for same-sex marriage would bring practical benefits.
But it would require a constitutional amendment to extend the
definition of the family. However, legislation could extend to such
couples a broad range of marriage-like privileges without any need
to amend the Constitution (as has been suggested in the case of
cohabiting heterosexual couples).

Conclusion
Some people feel that children’s rights are adequately secured by
the existing constitutional provisions and therefore no amendment
of the Constitution is necessary. Others believe that experience
requires us to secure the rights of the child explicitly and forcefully
in the Constitution. This might be secured by a complete re-write of
Article 41 or by the addition of a new section in Article 41

Conclusion
Legislation to promote the welfare of children should have a special
concern to secure adequate resources for lone-parent families

osarusan · 15-05-2015 11:25AM

upinthesky wrote: »

The introduction of gay marriage would effectively
discriminate against other domestic relationships that are
often as permanent and stable as a gay relationship, such as
siblings living together or an unmarried child living with an
elderly parent. There are issues of legal and financial
protection requiring attention in many such relationships.
These issues can and should be dealt with under law without
undermining the uniqueness of marriage

Provision for same-sex marriage would bring practical benefits.
But it would require a constitutional amendment to extend the
definition of the family. However, legislation could extend to such
couples a broad range of marriage-like privileges without any need
to amend the Constitution (as has been suggested in the case of
cohabiting heterosexual couples).

Conclusion
Some people feel that children’s rights are adequately secured by
the existing constitutional provisions and therefore no amendment
of the Constitution is necessary. Others believe that experience
requires us to secure the rights of the child explicitly and forcefully
in the Constitution. This might be secured by a complete re-write of
Article 41 or by the addition of a new section in Article 41

Conclusion
Legislation to promote the welfare of children should have a special
concern to secure adequate resources for lone-parent families

I honestly don't see anything that would cause a yes voter to decide to vote no, even in the part you bolded.

Could you explain your thinking?

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 11:26AM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Oh there's no doubt that the constition could do with a good overhaul, particularly the bit about family, the lack of recognition of single parents and unmarried parents as a family, and especially where it goes on about a woman's special place in the home (I'm surprised it just didn't say kitchen!). It was written a long time ago. Social norms were different. It was seen as a good thing that women gave up work when they got married etc etc.

Just because there are other wrongs that ought to be righted doesn't mean we should miss this opportunity to right this particular wrong. Please reconsider and vote Yes.

Interesting article in History Ireland on the involvement in the writing of the Constitution by the Catholic Church http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-catholic-church-and-the-writing-of-the-1937-constitution/

Apparently it was much shorter until a raft of submissions were included in the draft

There are two possible reasons for the enlargement of the original draft. It may have resulted from submissions of draft articles by the Irish province of the Jesuits, through Fr Edward Cahill, and, more substantially, owing to a deluge of material sent in by Fr John Charles McQuaid, a Holy Ghost Father from Blackrock College and future archbishop of Dublin. As strict secrecy surrounded the drafting process—with de Valera not even confiding in his cabinet—both sources could only have been made aware of the clandestine drafting process on de Valera’s personal authorisation. It is possible that the secretary of external affairs, Joseph Walshe, may also have been employed to act as a contact.

McQuaid must have taken time out from worrying about the effects of tampons http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/internal-tamponage-hockey-parturition-and-mixed-athletics/

ProfessorPlum · 15-05-2015 11:28AM

upinthesky wrote: »

The introduction of gay marriage would effectively
discriminate against other domestic relationships that are
often as permanent and stable as a gay relationship, such as
siblings living together or an unmarried child living with an
elderly parent. There are issues of legal and financial
protection requiring attention in many such relationships.
These issues can and should be dealt with under law without
undermining the uniqueness of marriage

Provision for same-sex marriage would bring practical benefits.
But it would require a constitutional amendment to extend the
definition of the family. However, legislation could extend to such
couples a broad range of marriage-like privileges without any need
to amend the Constitution (as has been suggested in the case of
cohabiting heterosexual couples).

Conclusion
Some people feel that children’s rights are adequately secured by
the existing constitutional provisions and therefore no amendment
of the Constitution is necessary. Others believe that experience
requires us to secure the rights of the child explicitly and forcefully
in the Constitution. This might be secured by a complete re-write of
Article 41 or by the addition of a new section in Article 41

Conclusion
Legislation to promote the welfare of children should have a special
concern to secure adequate resources for lone-parent families

But it's not the introduction of gay marriage that discrimates against other arraignments. These are already being discriminated against now. Weather we have SSM or not will not change that.
Next Friday we have the chance to remove a large group from the 'discriminated' box and put them into the 'treated equally' box. Why don't we take that opportunity, and continue to lobby for other arrangements to be recognised as families too?

MrWalsh · 15-05-2015 11:28AM

upinthesky wrote: »

The introduction of gay marriage would effectively
discriminate against other domestic relationships that are
often as permanent and stable as a gay relationship, such as
siblings living together or an unmarried child living with an
elderly parent. There are issues of legal and financial
protection requiring attention in many such relationships.
These issues can and should be dealt with under law without
undermining the uniqueness of marriage

Provision for same-sex marriage would bring practical benefits.
But it would require a constitutional amendment to extend the
definition of the family. However, legislation could extend to such
couples a broad range of marriage-like privileges without any need
to amend the Constitution (as has been suggested in the case of
cohabiting heterosexual couples).

Conclusion
Some people feel that children’s rights are adequately secured by
the existing constitutional provisions and therefore no amendment
of the Constitution is necessary. Others believe that experience
requires us to secure the rights of the child explicitly and forcefully
in the Constitution. This might be secured by a complete re-write of
Article 41 or by the addition of a new section in Article 41

Conclusion
Legislation to promote the welfare of children should have a special
concern to secure adequate resources for lone-parent families

The current situation is as above PLUS we dont have gay marriage.

endacl · 15-05-2015 11:30AM

Duggy747 wrote: »

Justin Barrett

Just to be clear...

We're talking about the same Justin 'Small Man Syndrome' Barrett who left his wife to set up shop with a teacher who was engaged at the time to somebody else, who was the father of her child?

Or, do you mean the Justin 'Small Man Syndrome' Barrett with links to the NDP in Germany? And Forza Nuove in Italy? The one who travelled to address a mob of neo-nazis the assembled delegates at neo-nazi rallies political demonstrations in both Italy and Germany?

Just for clarity? So we all know where he's coming from. The odious little polyp.

upinthesky · 15-05-2015 11:30AM

osarusan wrote: »

I honestly don't see anything that would cause a yes voter to decide to vote no, even in the part you bolded.

Could you explain your thinking?

I still don't know how i am going to vote yet, i was yes but tilting towards no because i feel the government have not giving out enough information as to what exactly will be changed, and also as i said already this should not be number 1 priority but why is it?

ProfessorPlum · 15-05-2015 11:30AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Interesting article in History Ireland on the involvement in the writing of the Constitution by the Catholic Church http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-catholic-church-and-the-writing-of-the-1937-constitution/

Apparently it was much shorter until a raft of submissions were included in the draft

McQuaid must have taken time out from worrying about the effects of tampons http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/internal-tamponage-hockey-parturition-and-mixed-athletics/

Thanks Bannasidhe - I shall read that later with a nice cup of tea (and some cake😀)

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 11:31AM

upinthesky wrote: »

The introduction of gay marriage would effectively
discriminate against other domestic relationships that are
often as permanent and stable as a gay relationship, such as
siblings living together or an unmarried child living with an
elderly parent. There are issues of legal and financial
protection requiring attention in many such relationships.
These issues can and should be dealt with under law without
undermining the uniqueness of marriage

Provision for same-sex marriage would bring practical benefits.
But it would require a constitutional amendment to extend the
definition of the family. However, legislation could extend to such
couples a broad range of marriage-like privileges without any need
to amend the Constitution (as has been suggested in the case of
cohabiting heterosexual couples).

Conclusion
Some people feel that children’s rights are adequately secured by
the existing constitutional provisions and therefore no amendment
of the Constitution is necessary. Others believe that experience
requires us to secure the rights of the child explicitly and forcefully
in the Constitution. This might be secured by a complete re-write of
Article 41 or by the addition of a new section in Article 41

Conclusion
Legislation to promote the welfare of children should have a special
concern to secure adequate resources for lone-parent families

Given the special protection given to married couples (and only to married couples) by the Constitution it may be possible to legislate for marriage-like (or marriage-lite even :P) but unless it is 'marriage' there is no Constitutional protection. Beside we did legislate for marriage-lite, it's called Civil Partnership. It has no Constitution protection which is why we are having this referendum. The legislation route didn't work.

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 11:32AM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Thanks Bannasidhe - I shall read that later with a nice cup of tea (and some cake😀)

I would recommend not drinking tea while reading the tampon article unless you like soggy tea splattered cake.

Maximus Alexander · 15-05-2015 11:33AM

upinthesky wrote: »

I still don't know how i am going to vote yet, i was yes but tilting towards no because i feel the government have not giving out enough information as to what exactly will be changed, and also as i said already this should not be number 1 priority but why is it?

I'll list the changes:

The following line will be inserted into the constitution: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

endacl · 15-05-2015 11:33AM

upinthesky wrote: »

I still don't know how i am going to vote yet, i was yes but tilting towards no because i feel the government have not giving out enough information as to what exactly will be changed, and also as i said already this should not be number 1 priority but why is it?

1. Yes they have. As have many other organizations.
2. Did you make any submissions to the referendum commission abut what, in your opinion, is the number one priority for consideration? You are aware that, as a citizen, that option is open to you.

endacl · 15-05-2015 11:35AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would recommend not drinking tea while reading the tampon article unless you like soggy tea splattered cake.

I'm not reading that. IIRC, it was you that linked the 'sootikin' article ages ago. You're not to be trusted.

upinthesky · 15-05-2015 11:36AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I'll list the changes:
The following line will be inserted into the constitution: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

And where is the rest that needs to be changed if this is added? see, your just like the government, i didn't ask for what we are voting for, i want to know what needs to be changed as a result of this sentence added!

endacl · 15-05-2015 11:37AM

upinthesky wrote: »

And where is the rest that needs to be changed if this is added? see, your just like the government, i didn't ask for what we are voting for, i want to know what needs to be changed as a result of this sentence added!

Wedding bands will have to up their game.

sunshine and showers · 15-05-2015 11:37AM

upinthesky wrote: »

And where is the rest that needs to be changed if this is added? see, your just like the government, i didn't ask for what we are voting for, i want to know what needs to be changed as a result of this sentence added!

Even piece of legislation referring to the married couple would have to be interpreted as including same sex married couples.

The end.

Hyzepher · 15-05-2015 11:40AM

upinthesky wrote: »

And where is the rest that needs to be changed if this is added? see, your just like the government, i didn't ask for what we are voting for, i want to know what needs to be changed as a result of this sentence added!

Why would anything else need to be changed. Marriage would now include same sex couples.

The term "wife" is mentioned in Art. 41 but it means nothing in this context.

floggg · 15-05-2015 11:40AM

upinthesky wrote: »

I still don't know how i am going to vote yet, i was yes but tilting towards no because i feel the government have not giving out enough information as to what exactly will be changed, and also as i said already this should not be number 1 priority but why is it?

Because the LGBT community has worked tirelessly for years now to secure this change. Marriage Equality, GLEN, LGBT Noise and others campaigned continuosuly to get this on the agenda.

And now that it is, we are given the chance to vote on it.

It may be that other causes haven't been prioritised - perhaps they didn't have as effective grass roots organisations advocating for them as this cause did. But don't punish LGBT people for that.

Instead, give us the change we need and deserve and engage us on the other issues you feel are important. learn from how this campaign has engaged people, straight and gay, at a grass roots level and work for change.

Also, the referendum commission has clearly spelled out the effects of a Yes Vote. See here - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/marriage-referendum-q-a-what-you-need-to-know-1.2212840

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

Comments