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

Anita Blow wrote: »

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.

TBH, many of the figureheads of the No side are still coming to terms that marriage is about anything except making babies. Love is an optional extra to them.

RobertKK wrote: »

It would have stopped all those No posters about surrogacy for starters.

I am just looking at how it has affected the referendum in this case. It is being inserted into a section where it talks about the mother having a special place in society.

No. It wouldn't.

Firstly, there is no merit to the surrogacy argument - as confirmed by the RefCom. It's therefore absurd to say that where this change is included in the constitution would impact upon it.

Secondly, and most importantly, regardless of where you insert the change, the rights of a same sex couple will remain the same. You can insert it into the Article on the President, and same sex couple will still be allowed marry on the same terms as opposite sex couples and still be a constitutionally protected family.

So long as they are allowed marry on equal terms, they will be covered by Article 41, and everything that flows with it (which does not include any rights regarding surrogacy).

The suggestion the location within the Constitution makes any difference is therefore baseless, and this is just another sham argument constructed to muddy the waters and to give the facade of a principled objection.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No it wouldn't. Nothing would have and nothing will. Only a few pages ago you were casting doubt on the Referendum Commission.

I did not cast doubt, I just asked if the referendum commissioner is infallible?
I have seen both sides refer to him as if he was.

This is the section it will be inserted into, I will leave the bit about dissolution of marriage out.

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
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.
1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

This is why the No side can use all the stuff they are using, because the constitution says the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded.
Yes equality, and nothing about fathers, in the section where they plan on putting the wording in to allow same sex marriage.
In the constitution, two men with one at home minding a child, is lesser than a woman/mother at home with a child.
If one is a yes voter, do you see this as equality?

RobertKK wrote: »

I did not cast doubt, I just asked if the referendum commissioner is infallible?
I have seen both sides refer to him as if he was.

This is the section it will be inserted into, I will leave the bit about dissolution of marriage out.


This is why the No side can use all the stuff they are using, because the constitution says the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded.
Yes equality, and nothing about fathers, in the section where they plan on putting the wording in to allow same sex marriage.
In the constitution, two men with one at home minding a child, is lesser than a woman/mother at home with a child.
If one is a yes voter, do you see this as equality?

Being the devil's advocate will this extend to surrogate mothers?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Being the devil's advocate will this extend to surrogate mothers?

Currently I believe the law is, you could take an egg from woman A, get it fertilised, implant it into a different woman, and the woman who gives birth is the mother.
There was that court case and I think the woman who gives birth is the mother.
To answer your question, I don't know. Lack of regulation leaves a nice area for lawyers to fight.

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I can only imagine how upsetting hearing people being so glib about it has been. What's surprised me in her reaction was that she was a young separated mother when the divorce ref took place, so was directly affected by it. I tried putting this into that context for her- how awful it was for her to see the No campaign basically implying she failed as a parent.

She is a Yes campaign supporter, incidentally-she's just worried that people will get sick of it and not bothering to vote.

I disagree, I think there will be high turnouts in the younger demographic, with apathy higher in older voters.

Saw a poll last week where 55% of under 35 plan on voting. 40,000 people signed upto vote before the cut off date.

alchemist33 wrote: »

Anybody got their voting card yet? I haven't, and it seems later than usual

Yes, earlier this week.

RobertKK wrote: »

I did not cast doubt, I just asked if the referendum commissioner is infallible?
I have seen both sides refer to him as if he was.

This is the section it will be inserted into, I will leave the bit about dissolution of marriage out.


This is why the No side can use all the stuff they are using, because the constitution says the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded.
Yes equality, and nothing about fathers, in the section where they plan on putting the wording in to allow same sex marriage.
In the constitution, two men with one at home minding a child, is lesser than a woman/mother at home with a child.
If one is a yes voter, do you see this as equality?

As I said, insert it into whatever Article you like and they will still be married, and still a family within the meaning of Article 41.

Where you insert it therefore makes no difference.

I suggest you stop and actually think about the nonsense arguments you steal from the No camp before posting them.

alchemist33 wrote: »

Anybody got their voting card yet? I haven't, and it seems later than usual

I got mine yesterday, and one for my Ex. When I asked if he wanted it sent on he said that he'd gotten three at his new address. So if you haven't gotten yours yet I'd say it's definitely on the way.

Daniel O Donnell just told Ray D'Arcy he is an absolute Yes Voter.