Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 15-05-2015 10:00AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you explain why we might want this?

Thanks

timetogo wrote: »

I don't understand this bit. Are you saying that married couples with children should be discriminated against married couples without children. I'm probably picking it up wrong there.

What I'm saying is legislation currently reflects the fact that it's perfectly normal for straight couples to have children within marriage. What I'm driving at is the frequent statement to the effect that "straight marriage won't change at all" doesn't seem robust.

The presumption of paternity is the obvious case that comes to my mind. It can't be coherently applied to a same sex couple. That suggests to me, following the Commission's advice, that the concept can no longer exist after the amendment is passed, as same sex couples can't contract marriage with that presumption.

What the Commission's statement is saying is that, post amendment, there will be very, very limited scope to have any tailoring of legislation that takes account of gender as "the referendum envisages only one constitutional status of marriage".

traprunner · 15-05-2015 10:08AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What I'm saying is legislation currently reflects the fact that it's perfectly normal for straight couples to have children within marriage. What I'm driving at is the frequent statement to the effect that "straight marriage won't change at all" doesn't seem robust.

The presumption of paternity is the obvious case that comes to my mind. It can't be coherently applied to a same sex couple. That suggests to me, following the Commission's advice, that the concept can no longer exist after the amendment is passed, as same sex couples can't contract marriage with that presumption.

What the Commission's statement is saying is that, post amendment, there will be very, very limited scope to have any tailoring of legislation that takes account of gender as "the referendum envisages only one constitutional status of marriage".

Ok, you talk about robust. As I said before, please make a constitutional challenge. If you have conviction in your beliefs then you would. Now I wouldn't promise not to laugh when it fails.

CramCycle · 15-05-2015 10:14AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The presumption of paternity is the obvious case that comes to my mind.

The presumption of paternity is something that should be looked at legislatively regardless of the referendum, there are huge issues with it in regards heterosexual couples, separated couples, non married couples etc.

It has nothing to do with the referendum AFAIK but if the referendum speeds up this legislative reform, for me, it is another reason to vote yes.

gravehold · 15-05-2015 10:25AM

CramCycle wrote: »

The presumption of paternity is something that should be looked at legislatively regardless of the referendum, there are huge issues with it in regards heterosexual couples, separated couples, non married couples etc.

It has nothing to do with the referendum AFAIK but if the referendum speeds up this legislative reform, for me, it is another reason to vote yes.

Shouldn't it be vote no till it is sorted then vote yes.

Better to be safe then sorry

timetogo · 15-05-2015 10:26AM

gravehold wrote: »

Shouldn't it be vote no till it is sorted then vote yes.

Better to be safe then sorry

What's the sorry scenario?

gravehold · 15-05-2015 10:29AM

timetogo wrote: »

What's the sorry scenario?

We can't be sure till all the questions are answered, but the yes side don't want to answer them. Hence being safe till we know all the ramifications

ByfocalPhoto · 15-05-2015 10:36AM

It has occurred to me that this is not an equality issue at all.
All of us currently have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
None of us has the right to marry someone of the same sex.

We are all equal.

If the referendum passes we will ALL have new rights that we didn't have before.
The fact that the vast majority of us will choose not to avail of these new rights is irrelevant.

We will still all be equal.

If I understand the religious aspect of the no side correctly the thinking seems to be that the sacrament of marriage will be in a way devalued by being open to any combination.
I suppose it is similar to when the Beatles got an OBE. A lot of old guys sent their OBEs back because they felt that if that scruffy bunch of ragamuffins got an OBE then it was meaningless.

Could a No voter tell me if that is the thinking ?

Greyian · 15-05-2015 10:47AM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

It has occurred to me that this is not an equality issue at all.
All of us currently have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
None of us has the right to marry someone of the same sex.

We are all equal.

Most of us can marry the person we love.

A minority can not.

We are not all equal.

gravehold · 15-05-2015 10:49AM

Greyian wrote: »

Most of us can marry the person we love.

A minority can not.

We are not all equal.

But this referendum won't fix that, we all still won't be equal

ixoy · 15-05-2015 10:57AM

gravehold wrote: »

But this referendum won't fix that, we all still won't be equal

The referendum isn't a magic cure all for equality. It's fixing one area : same sex marriage.

meglome · 15-05-2015 10:58AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Like in the bible?

Exactly like in the bible. Except the religious right won't complain about that.

gravehold · 15-05-2015 11:00AM

ixoy wrote: »

The referendum isn't a magic cure all for equality. It's fixing one area : same sex marriage.

But it's making it harder for other relationships to get recognition cause it's added the word couple to the constitution that was not there before.

It's the exact opisite of equality

traprunner · 15-05-2015 11:01AM

gravehold wrote: »

But it's making it harder for other relationships to get recognition cause it's added the word couple to the constitution that was not there before.

It's the exact opisite of equality

No it makes it equal for all couples wanting to get married.

meglome · 15-05-2015 11:02AM

gravehold wrote: »

But it's making it harder for other relationships to get recognition cause it's added the word couple to the constitution that was not there before.

It's the exact opisite of equality

The mental gymnastics are getting funnier and funnier.

gravehold · 15-05-2015 11:06AM

traprunner wrote: »

No it makes it equal for all couples wanting to get married.

But there was no discrimination of the wording for couples before. You are adding discrimination for non two person relationships and calling it equality.

What was wrong with adding

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law without distinction as to sex.

Only reason to add the couple part is to discrimination against certain relationship types

Stark · 15-05-2015 11:10AM

Presumably so "slippery slope to polygamy" arguments could't be used against SSM. But I guess there's no winning when you're down arguing in the **** with idiots.

traprunner · 15-05-2015 11:10AM

gravehold wrote: »

But there was no discrimination of the wording for couples before. You are adding discrimination for non two person relationships and calling it equality.

What was wrong with adding

Only reason to add the couple part is to discrimination against certain relationship types

Surely that is a battle further down the line for those who favour different relationship types. We are not being asked to vote on that now. In the future we may be asked to vote on any number of people rather than 2. If that's what you want then start lobbying your TD's because these things take years.

The current battle has been years in the making. It will immediately make 10%(?) of the population equal to the other 90%.

SireOfSeth · 15-05-2015 11:14AM

gravehold wrote: »

But it's making it harder for other relationships to get recognition cause it's added the word couple to the constitution that was not there before.

It's the exact opisite of equality

Surely same-sex marriage would help strengthen a future case for polygamy. However, since polygamy has nothing to do with THIS referendum, I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

gravehold · 15-05-2015 11:16AM

traprunner wrote: »

Surely that is a battle further down the line for those who favour different relationship types. We are not being asked to vote on that now. In the future we may be asked to vote on any number of people rather than 2. If that's what you want then start lobbying your TD's because these things take years.

The current battle has been years in the making. It will immediately make 10%(?) of the population equal to the other 90%.

But you naking it hard for them in the future by adding discrimination to the constitution now. And you have the check to call it equality.

If they left out the couple partit would still immediately make 8%(?) of the population equal to the other 90%. But not make it way harder for the 2% that wan't to marry more then one person discriminated more against.

gravehold · 15-05-2015 11:17AM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Surely same-sex marriage would help strengthen a future case for polygamy. However, since polygamy has nothing to do with THIS referendum, I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

It doesn't cause it adds the word couple to the constitution, if they left out that word then yes the referendum would strengthen the change in the future.

But the current wording make it way harder by adding discrimination under the wording of equality

gravehold · 15-05-2015 11:18AM

Stark wrote: »

Presumably so "slippery slope to polygamy" arguments could't be used against SSM. But I guess there's no winning when you're down arguing in the **** with idiots.

What's wrong with polygamy?

traprunner · 15-05-2015 11:21AM

gravehold wrote: »

But you naking it hard for them in the future by adding discrimination to the constitution now. And you have the check to call it equality.

If they left out the couple partit would still immediately make 8%(?) of the population equal to the other 90%. But not make it way harder for the 2% that wan't to marry more then one person discriminated more against.

“To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.” – Winston Churchill

SireOfSeth · 15-05-2015 11:21AM

gravehold wrote: »

What's wrong with polygamy?

Nothing.

Sofiztikated · 15-05-2015 11:21AM

I haven't been keeping up here.

Is gravehold still a yes voting trans female that is being "devils advocate" by coming up with more and more obscure reasons why you should vote no?

Is GCU still coming across as a <snip - no personal abuse>, and arguing that this referendum will have swathes of teenagers wanting to get married?

SireOfSeth · 15-05-2015 11:23AM

gravehold wrote: »

It doesn't cause it adds the word couple to the constitution, if they left out that word then yes the referendum would strengthen the change in the future.

But the current wording make it way harder by adding discrimination under the wording of equality

I don't really believe that to be honest. A future Ref could get the changed. I think trying to get SSM and polygamy passed within the same Ref would definitely fail - it's obviously that many still have a problem with homosexuality.

johnnyskeleton · 15-05-2015 11:23AM

Stark wrote: »

Presumably so "slippery slope to polygamy" arguments could't be used against SSM. But I guess there's no winning when you're down arguing in the **** with idiots.

MOD: Careful now

AtomicHorror · 15-05-2015 11:28AM

Stark wrote: »

Presumably so "slippery slope to polygamy" arguments could't be used against SSM.

It's a slippery slope all right, upwards. 22 years since the abolition of sodomy as a crime and here we still are debating the next step. I wonder how no campaigners would deal with actual rapid or revolutionary change if this torturous struggle has been too quick for them.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 15-05-2015 11:41AM

traprunner wrote: »

Ok, you talk about robust. As I said before, please make a constitutional challenge. If you have conviction in your beliefs then you would. Now I wouldn't promise not to laugh when it fails.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what a Constitutional challenge is. There's nothing preventing the Irish people from voting in any nonsense that they like.

CramCycle wrote: »

The presumption of paternity is something that should be looked at legislatively regardless of the referendum, there are huge issues with it in regards heterosexual couples, separated couples, non married couples etc.

It has nothing to do with the referendum AFAIK but if the referendum speeds up this legislative reform, for me, it is another reason to vote yes.

Ah, hang on, it very clearly does have something to do with the referendum, as the Commission's advice is:

http://refcom2015.ie/answers-to-questions-on-surrogacy-and-adoption/

• As the referendum envisages only one constitutional status of marriage, any law which treated one type of married couple differently from another would be likely to be very carefully scrutinised by the Courts and the circumstances in which such different treatment could ever be permitted would likely be exceptional.

• Were such different treatment possible, and such laws introduced, they would be upheld only if they did not create invidious or arbitrary discrimination between opposite sex and same sex couples. This means – in practical terms – that the reason for the different treatment would have to be a very good reason, which served a legitimate legislative purpose. The difference in treatment would also have to be relevant to its purpose and both opposite sex and same sex couples would have to be treated fairly. Whether these requirements are satisfied in any given circumstance would depend on the evidence presented.

And, you'll appreciate, my point is not particularly whether or not we want to change this. It's that the Yes campaign is saying that marriage will not change for straight couples. That's not really consistent with what the Commission is now saying.

SireOfSeth · 15-05-2015 11:50AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what a Constitutional challenge is. There's nothing preventing the Irish people from voting in any nonsense that they like.

Ah, hang on, it very clearly does have something to do with the referendum, as the Commission's advice is:

http://refcom2015.ie/answers-to-ques...-and-adoption/

• As the referendum envisages only one constitutional status of marriage, any law which treated one type of married couple differently from another would be likely to be very carefully scrutinised by the Courts and the circumstances in which such different treatment could ever be permitted would likely be exceptional.

• Were such different treatment possible, and such laws introduced, they would be upheld only if they did not create invidious or arbitrary discrimination between opposite sex and same sex couples. This means – in practical terms – that the reason for the different treatment would have to be a very good reason, which served a legitimate legislative purpose. The difference in treatment would also have to be relevant to its purpose and both opposite sex and same sex couples would have to be treated fairly. Whether these requirements are satisfied in any given circumstance would depend on the evidence presented.

And, you'll appreciate, my point is not particularly whether or not we want to change this. It's that the Yes campaign is saying that marriage will not change for straight couples. That's not really consistent with what the Commission is now saying.

So pretty much a non-issue then

CramCycle · 15-05-2015 12:18PM

gravehold wrote: »

Shouldn't it be vote no till it is sorted then vote yes.

Better to be safe then sorry

What?!?

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

Comments