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

gandalf · 15-05-2015 03:53PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

Breda O'Brien is smashing up her collection of all his albums now!!

RobertKK · 15-05-2015 03:53PM

floggg wrote: »

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.

Looking at the where it is inserted though, fathers are seen as lesser, it is a fact. In the family: mother > father.
Wonder why they didn't have this changed in a referendum on the same date, because if the referendum passes, you can have two men with a child, they can be seen as lesser than a mother with a child in the constitution whether married or not.

ixoy · 15-05-2015 03:53PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

Really? That's actually a good endorsement I think for some of the older generation.

RobertKK · 15-05-2015 03:54PM

Does anyone care if some celeb or sports person is voting yes or no?

jobbridge4life · 15-05-2015 03:55PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

Genuinely delighted. Called for it on twitter a few weeks ago!

Hyzepher · 15-05-2015 03:55PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Looking at the where it is inserted though, fathers are seen as lesser, it is a fact. In the family: mother > father.
Wonder why they didn't have this changed in a referendum on the same date, because if the referendum passes, you can have two men with a child, they can be seen as lesser than a mother with a child in the constitution whether married or not.

Not sure that is true

Maximus Alexander · 15-05-2015 03:56PM

Hyzepher wrote: »

Not sure that is true

It doesn't need to be. None of these soundbites do, so long as they confuse people.

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 03:57PM

ixoy wrote: »

Indeed the polling card itself isn't sufficient to vote. You can be asked for photo ID. It's only to tell you where to vote.

A marriage cert will do as ID... but not a Civil Partnership one...

drunkmonkey · 15-05-2015 03:57PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Does anyone care if some celeb or sports person is voting yes or no?

Courtney might have swung a few to the No side, an evil grin came across my face when he said he might leave.

RobertKK · 15-05-2015 03:58PM

Hyzepher wrote: »

Not sure that is true

Well one can make that interpretation from it:

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.

SafeSurfer · 15-05-2015 03:58PM

osarusan wrote: »

Did you see any of the comments about the donations from Atlantic Philanthropies you mentioned?

Were you reassured?

I wasn't really reassured. I think it is a serious issue. How we go about deciding what issues are voted on in referendums and so changed in our constitution is fundamental to our democracy. I believe in equality. I don't believe a wealthy individual be it Chuck Feeny or Denis O Brien should decide the issues citizens can vote on.

Having said that I intend to vote yes. Essentially I believe the Irish people are decent and generous. If two people love each other why should I vote to deny them from expressing their love to the same extent as I , as a married man have been able to? I do have some niggling fears about the law of unintended consequences. However maybe this referendum can be the first step to a different and more tolerant Ireland. I would like to see legislation for the decriminalisation of drugs and for drugs policy to be repositioned as a health rather than criminal justice issue. I would also like to see a more accessible democracy none whereby, for example a referendum could be triggered over an issue where say 200,000 signatures has been collected.

floggg · 15-05-2015 03:58PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Looking at the where it is inserted though, fathers are seen as lesser, it is a fact. In the family: mother > father.
Wonder why they didn't have this changed in a referendum on the same date, because if the referendum passes, you can have two men with a child, they can be seen as lesser than a mother with a child in the constitution whether married or not.

Which is irrelevant to this debate - because regardless of where you insert it, the result is the same. It is equally applicable to all fathers, and is one of the least cited provisions in the constitution.

So rather than muddy the waters again with an irrelevant debate, lets just go back to marriage equality.

(Oh, and you're legal analysis is also highly questionable)

frostyjacks · 15-05-2015 04:03PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

If you play "I Just Want to Dance With You" backwards, he clearly says Opus Dei are trying to take over the world and calls for everyone to abandon religion and drink lots of tea.

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 04:05PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

If you play "I Just Want to Dance With You" backwards, he clearly says Opus Dei are trying to take over the world and calls for everyone to abandon religion and drink lots of tea.

I am currently drink tea... I thought it was because I forgot to buy coffee but now... :eek:

floggg · 15-05-2015 04:06PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I wasn't really reassured. I think it is a serious issue. How we go about deciding what issues are voted on in referendums and so changed in our constitution is fundamental to our democracy. I believe in equality. I don't believe a wealthy individual be it Chuck Feeny or Denis O Brien should decide the issues citizens can vote on.

Having said that I intend to vote yes. Essentially I believe the Irish people are decent and generous. If two people love each other why should I vote to deny them from expressing their love to the same extent as I , as a married man have been able to? I do have some niggling fears about the law of unintended consequences. However maybe this referendum can be the first step to a different and more tolerant Ireland. I would like to see legislation for the decriminalisation of drugs and for drugs policy to be repositioned as a health rather than criminal justice issue. I would also like to see a more accessible democracy none whereby, for example a referendum could be triggered over an issue where say 200,000 signatures has been collected.

But Chuck Feeney didn't decide anything. He enabled Irish people to get the issue on the agenda, but he didn't decide the matter. There was a team of very committed activisits who got this on the agenda.

And less committed volunteers such as myself working on this before there was even a mention of a Constitutional Convention. It was grass roots activism that got this on the agenda.

I also don't know what degree of involvement Chuck Feeney has in the decision making process.

Do you also object to his funding of the Children's Council? Barnados? groups for the elderly? James Hospital? Universities? etc?

Finally, are you concerned about the No side's funding? Why aren't you asking questions about that?

It would seem the No campaign has a smaller network of grass roots volunteers than the Yes side (if judging even by the canvassing efforts). How is it then that they can outspend the Yes side on posters? The No side are matching Yes Equality and all political parties combined.

Who is funding that, and why aren't you concerned by their lack of transparency? Do you not find the use of undisclosed campaign funds more sinister than disclosed contributions?

ProfessorPlum · 15-05-2015 04:07PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Looking at the where it is inserted though, fathers are seen as lesser, it is a fact. In the family: mother > father.
Wonder why they didn't have this changed in a referendum on the same date, because if the referendum passes, you can have two men with a child, they can be seen as lesser than a mother with a child in the constitution whether married or not.

Like I said before, the constitution was written a long time ago. Social norms were very different. The idea that there would be a household (because we can't actually call it a family) with a relationship other than a married husband and wife, with children unless of course the woman was 'barren') would have been absurd. So yes, there's lots of things about the constitution that should be changed. But here's the other interesting point. The constition is not written as a literal document of law. It is intended to be interpreted in the spirit of what is intended by it, not literally, like areas of legislation. So I believe that if the referendum is passed, there is a very good arguement that a SSM couple, where one is staying at home in the role of cater/homemaker, would not be discriminated by the constitution, as the spirit of the section is to protect stay at home spouses who support the state in their role as carers/homemakers.

In any case, none of this is a valid reason to vote no? Yes?

AtomicHorror · 15-05-2015 04:08PM

alchemist33 wrote: »

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

I have a spare one if you want it

frostyjacks · 15-05-2015 04:12PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am currently drink tea... I thought it was because I forgot to buy coffee but now... :eek:

They'll be burning effigies of him in Donegal. Paddy Power has Donegal North-East as favorite for highest no vote. Followed closely by Donegal South-West

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 04:13PM

Just hung a Rainbow Flag from front bedroom window - it was worth the several trips to the attic, swearing, shouting at dogs to let effin go of the fecking flag, stabbing myself with a sewing needle and ripping half my thumb nail off to hear the passing cars beep support.

Hope it gives cheer to those out canvassing and a boost to people on the way to the local polling station which is just down the road.

SafeSurfer · 15-05-2015 04:15PM

floggg wrote: »

But Chuck Feeney didn't decide anything. He enabled Irish people to get the issue on the agenda, but he didn't decide the matter. There was a team of very committed activisits who got this on the agenda.

And less committed volunteers such as myself working on this before there was even a mention of a Constitutional Convention. It was grass roots activism that got this on the agenda.

I also don't know what degree of involvement Chuck Feeney has in the decision making process.

Do you also object to his funding of the Children's Council? Barnados? groups for the elderly? James Hospital? Universities? etc?

Finally, are you concerned about the No side's funding? Why aren't you asking questions about that?

It would seem the No campaign has a smaller network of grass roots volunteers than the Yes side (if judging even by the canvassing efforts). How is it then that they can outspend the Yes side on posters? The No side are matching Yes Equality and all political parties combined.

Who is funding that, and why aren't you concerned by their lack of transparency? Do you not find the use of undisclosed campaign funds more sinister than disclosed contributions?

A team of very committed activists funded by Chuck Feeny. I am sure that the NO side are funded by some dubious right wing groups but the point is that they were not funded to change our constitution. The yes side was. Also I don't believe for a second that there are more no posters than yes. In my area yes posters outnumber no ones 20 to 1.

Our political elite have identified this issue as an easy win ahead of next years general election which will give them kudos with many. Thornier, less palatable issues, both constitutional and legislative have been ignored. Regardless of ones position on the yes or no side it is hard not to be cynical.

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 04:17PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A team of very committed activists funded by Chuck Feeny. I am sure that the NO side are funded by some dubious right wing groups but the point is that they were not funded to change our constitution. The yes side was. Also I don't believe for a second that there are no no posters than yes. In my area yes posters outnumber no ones 20 to 1.

Our political elite have identified this issue as an easy win ahead of next years general election which will give them kudos with many. Thornier, less palatable issues, both constitutional and legislative have been ignored. Regardless of ones position on the yes or no side it is hard not to be cynical.

Ever hear of the 8th Amendment?

MrWalsh · 15-05-2015 04:19PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just hung a Rainbow Flag from front bedroom window - it was worth the several trips to the attic, swearing, shouting at dogs to let effin go of the fecking flag, stabbing myself with a sewing needle and ripping half my thumb nail off to hear the passing cars beep support.

Hope it gives cheer to those out canvassing and a boost to people on the way to the local polling station which is just down the road.

I gave mine into my local gym to hang, Im sure itll be seen by a lot more people than if I hung it in my window. My car has flags too

SafeSurfer · 15-05-2015 04:21PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ever hear of the 8th Amendment?

The one supported by all main political parties in 1983?

In fairness the Iona institute wasn't founded until 2007.

VinLieger · 15-05-2015 04:21PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A team of very committed activists funded by Chuck Feeny. I am sure that the NO side are funded by some dubious right wing groups but the point is that they were not funded to change our constitution. The yes side was. Also I don't believe for a second that there are more no posters than yes. In my area yes posters outnumber no ones 20 to 1.

Our political elite have identified this issue as an easy win ahead of next years general election which will give them kudos with many. Thornier, less palatable issues, both constitutional and legislative have been ignored. Regardless of ones position on the yes or no side it is hard not to be cynical.

Iona's self proclaimed mandate is a lobby group for conservative religious values, if you are unaware of the disgusting links they have with the US conservative catholic lobby just google "lolek ltd"

SafeSurfer · 15-05-2015 04:25PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Iona's self proclaimed mandate is a lobby group for conservative religious values, if you are unaware of the disgusting links they have with the US conservative catholic lobby just google "lolek ltd"

I am not surprised. But the whataboutery argument doesn't deflect from the ability of well connected foreign billionaires to set the political agenda of this country and I accept the good work done by AP.
However we cannot condemn Sinn Fein for using foreign funds for political purposes if one side of a political campaign does the same.

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 04:26PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The one supported by all main political parties in 1983?

In fairness the Iona institute wasn't founded until 2007.

You made a comment about dubious Right Wing groups not trying to change the Constitution. That is exactly what happened in 83.

alchemist33 · 15-05-2015 04:27PM

ixoy wrote: »

Indeed the polling card itself isn't sufficient to vote. You can be asked for photo ID. It's only to tell you where to vote.

Which is actually a slight problem for me. I moved 18 months ago, went through the hoops of changing my address on the register, and had that confirmed. But I don't know where my new polling station is! I'll just have to ask a neighbour.

Not a NSA agent · 15-05-2015 04:27PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Does anyone care if some celeb or sports person is voting yes or no?

Someone said they were voting no because celebrities supported a yes so there is at least one person.

sunshine and showers · 15-05-2015 04:29PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The one supported by all main political parties in 1983?

In fairness the Iona institute wasn't founded until 2007.

It was initiated by the same people who brought us Youth Defence, the Iona Institute, Cóir, Mothers and Fathers Matter and most of the other religious political groups of the last forty odd years.

The mother of them all (literally, in some cases): Una.

VinLieger · 15-05-2015 04:29PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I am not surprised. But the whataboutery argument doesn't deflect from the ability of well connected foreign billionaires to set the political agenda of this country and I accept the good work done by AP.
However we cannot condemn Sinn Fein for using foreign funds for political purposes if one side of a political campaign does the same.

I agree but at this time there is no legislation to stop outside money influencing our democratic process so why should the yes side handicap itself if the other side is playing by a different set of rules?

We seriously need legislation to stop this kind of external interference

And the only public whataboutery has come from Iona, the yes side have not once mentioned Iona's dubious funding to my knowledge

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

Comments