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

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Yes for jobs

If the referendum is passed, there is a good chance we might get a good vote in the Eurovision on Sunday, a win would be good for jobs. (Would it?)

DarkyHughes wrote: »

A big argument I hear from the NO camp it that it will change the definition of marriages.

In fairness, while the point hasn't generally been well made, that relates more to whether it will be necessary to amend the law that currently applies to marriage. The Referendum Commission made a statement yesterday that makes the context clear (although their statement was chiefly concerned with whether the amendment had any implications for surrogacy)

http://refcom2015.ie/news/

<...>
• 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.

This raises a couple of issues that haven't really been coherently addressed. In other jurisdictions, specifically UK, they've found it hard to apply identical laws to all marriages

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/05/gay-marriage-some-inequalities-remain

<..>Those who draft the parliamentary bills have been unable to define what constitutes consummation of a same-sex union. Consequently there is no provision for divorce on the grounds of non-consummation of a gay marriage.

That problem also means that same-sex couples who wish to divorce will not be able to cite adultery with someone of the same sex – the civil servants similarly struggled to find a definition of adultery between two men or two women.

Adultery will, nonetheless, be a permitted grounds for divorce if it follows sexual intercourse between one of the couple and someone of the opposite sex. That, at least, is consistent with existing marriage laws: if a man decides he is gay and leaves his wife for a man, she can divorce him for unreasonable behaviour but not adultery, which is defined as sexual intercourse.<...>

The UK doesn't have a written Constitution like ours, so their Parliament can nuance legislation whatever way they want.

In our case, the Oireachtas will very likely have less freedom to nuance legislation. Hence, if they find they cannot frame a generally applicable definition of adultery, they might have to generally disapply the concept - and anyone seeking a divorce on similar grounds would be claiming to have suffered "unreasonable behaviour" instead.

Now, as some have pointed out, a case could be made for amending marriage law in these ways. The concept of consummation was abolished in Australia, and Scotland has thought about abolishing it. But that does mean law on existing marriages will change in some respects. In practical terms, the changes might not bother a lot of people. But it is a change (and it would be much better if these issues were made explicit from the start.)

sunshine and showers wrote: »

It could also be Ursula's piece - so beautiful and personal!

A lot of people seem to have read it, and it does a lot to highlight how the Referendum has raised the expectations of people and how closely their hopes are now connected to it.

I'll be honest. I found her story gave me problems, and I'm not given to sentiment. I dislike this Referendum because I see it as a cynical political act, and part of a strategy to frustrate deeper political change. But then you have to consider other possibilities. If the amendment is successful, and people feel empowered, who knows where it might lead? And if younger voters get into a habit of voting, for something that matters to them, maybe they'll vote for other changes.

There's an honesty in her article that's missing from a lot of the ritual declarations from celebrities. I notice she's actually rekindled interest in the relevance of the vote from a few people who had Referendum news fatique.

We are all yes in this house. I don't think I know anyone voting no.