Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

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

1129130132134135327

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 55 ✭✭NJto.IE


    With all the problems facing Ireland, I can't believe this is the big question they're asking voters. Do the Irish spin a wheel full of Guardian themes and decide that's the next moral crusade?

    Whatever, if it was up to me I'd allow a domestic partnership/marriage. I don't see why not as many are living as husband/husband wife/wife and paying taxes without the benefits of being married.

    It just comes down to fairness under the law.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,434 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    NJto.IE wrote: »
    With all the problems facing Ireland, I can't believe this is the big question they're asking voters. Do the Irish spin a wheel full of Guardian themes and decide that's the next moral crusade?

    Whatever, if it was up to me I'd allow a domestic partnership/marriage. I don't see why not as many are living as husband/husband wife/wife and paying taxes without the benefits of being married.

    It just comes down to fairness under the law.

    Well, we could hold a referendum every Tuesday? Sort it all out?

    :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Has anything awful happened to heterosexual marriages and families since they legislated for equal marriage? Are the children of these countries now suffering inequality as the Iona posters suggest?

    Indeed one could ask has there been a loss of children's rights in Ireland since the passing of the Civil Partnership Act in 2010?

    At the time the Iona Institute were making all the same arguments that they are making now. It would be funny if it were not the case that this time there is a public vote and they get a lot of airtme.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,744 ✭✭✭diomed


    I predict this will lead to invitations to gay weddings.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Does gay marriage exist in the UK?

    Can't gay couples just go there to marry if so?

    I think the UK already solve enough of Irelands problems on issues of personal freedom no? I'm suprised they havn't just legislated for UK LGBT marriages to be recognised here, while leaving couples unable to have the actual wedding in this jurisdiction. That's the usual way this country likes to solve such problems isn't it? Something to think about in the case of a no vote!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,434 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    diomed wrote: »
    I predict this will lead to invitations to gay weddings.

    Bollix. Didn't think of that. I'm done with the 'all my friends are getting married' phase.

    I can't afford more weddings. Changing my vote to no. May I congratulate you, by the way, on coming up with the first logical, rational, and coherent reason for anybody to vote no. You should email John Waters.

    :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,141 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    David Quinn has just said that gay men can have children, but adopted children only. He's made it plain through Iona that he doesn't approve or agree with gay men being allowed marry, but during the radio debate just now, he said he had been in favour of it. The anomaly is David's position on gay men adopting is that he's OK with 2 same-sex parented families raising children.

    David can dance around on the head of a pin as long as he likes, but can't get away from the fact that he does not want male and female homosexuals to be part of the procreation routine that heterosexual people use to procreate and have children, because that would mean he agrees with 2 fathers or 2 mothers being the only adults doing the parenting of children in married families.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 420 ✭✭thegreatescape


    Zen65 wrote: »
    Indeed one could ask has there been a loss of children's rights in Ireland since the passing of the Civil Partnership Act in 2010?

    At the time the Iona Institute were making all the same arguments that they are making now. It would be funny if it were not the case that this time there is a public vote and they get a lot of airtme.

    Children of parents who are married are fully protected in the eyes of the State. Both parents are seen as legal gaurdians, they have full rights in terms of family homes and mortgaging etc.

    Children of civil partnerships only have legal ties to their biological parent, meaning if this parent dies that the child goes into foster care because the other person is not seen to have anything with them. Civil partners when having a home are seen to have a shared home and not a family home, which raises lots of legal issues including desertion and not being able to sell the house without the other's permission. In marriage you can ask the court to give you permission to sell but this is exclusive to marriage.

    Voting in favour of marriage increases the equality of the child as gay people can already adopt them, but if this goes through they will be able to give the best protection available from the state.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 55 ✭✭NJto.IE


    endacl wrote: »
    Well, we could hold a referendum every Tuesday? Sort it all out?

    :rolleyes:


    I think that would go over quite well, as ideological conviction and understanding in Ireland seems to be a mile wide and an inch thick.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,355 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    The Yes Equality campaign repeat the simple and appealing mantra that by voting yes in Fridays referendum it will simply allow 2 people, regardless of sex. to marry each other.

    This is untrue.

    Marriage is not defined in the constitution. There are a large number of people who are precluded from marrying each other and who will still be precluded from marrying each other whatever the outcome of Fridays referendum.

    Here is a list of people who cannot marry. This restrictions are not included in our constitution. These are legislative restrictions. These can be removed or extended by an act of the Oireachtas, as could the right to same sex marriage.



    Consanguinity – blood relationships
    A man may not marry his:
    • Grandmother
    • Mother
    • Father’s sister (aunt)
    • Mother’s sister (aunt)
    • Sister
    • Father’s Daughter (half sister)
    • Mother’s Daughter (half sister)
    • Daughter
    • Son’s Daughter (granddaughter)
    • Daughter’s Daughter (granddaughter)
    • Brother’s Daughter (niece)
    • Sister’s Daughter (niece)
    A woman may not marry her:
    • Grandfather
    • Father.
    • Father’s Brother (uncle)
    • Mother’s Brother (uncle)
    • Brother
    • Father’s Son (half brother)
    • Mother’s Son (half brother)
    • Son
    • Son’s Son (grandson)
    • Daughter’s Son (grandson)
    • Brother’s Son (nephew)
    • Sister’s Son (nephew)
    Affinity – relationship by marriage
    A man may not marry his:
    • Grandfather’s Wife (step-grandmother)
    • Father’s Wife (stepmother)
    • Father’s Brother’s Wife
    • Mother’s Brother’s Wife
    • Son’s Wife
    • Son’s Son’s Wife
    • Daughter’s Son’s Wife
    • Brother’s Son’s Wife
    • Sister’s Son’s Wife
    • Wife’s grandmother (grandmother-in-law)
    • Wife’s Mother (mother-in-law)
    • Wife’s Father’s Sister
    • Wife’s Mother’s Sister
    • Wife’s Daughter (stepdaughter)
    • Wife’s Son’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Daughter’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Brother’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Sister’s Daughter
    A woman may not marry her:
    • Grandmother’s Husband (step-grandfather)
    • Mother’s Husband (stepfather)
    • Father’s Sister’s Husband
    • Mother’s Sister’s Husband
    • Daughter’s Husband
    • Son’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Daughter’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Brother’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Sister’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Husband’s Grandfather (grandfather-in-law)
    • Husband’s Father (father-in-law)
    • Husband’s Father’s Brother
    • Husband’s Mother’s Brother
    • Husband’s Son (stepson)
    • Husband’s Son’s Son
    • Husband’s Daughter’s Son
    • Husband’s Brother’s Son
    • Husband’s Sister’s Son
    Contrary to what is widely believed a yes vote in the referendum will not simply update an outdated societal view that will bring us into line with other more liberal countries. It will in fact be the first time that same sex marriage will be enshrined in the constitution of any state. I am not saying that it is bad thing.
    Just pointing out that the simple yes equality mantra has caveats, caveats based on legislation not the constitution.


    Similarly, the oft quoted "right to procreate" of married couples is an inaccurate myth peddled by the no side. The "right to procreate" also has caveats and its unlimited vindication has been rejected in case law, Murray vs Ireland 1991.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Does gay marriage exist in the UK?

    Can't gay couples just go there to marry if so?


    yes lets export all the issues people dont want to talk about to england...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,141 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    I think the UK already solve enough of Irelands problems on issues of personal freedom no? I'm suprised they havn't just legislated for UK LGBT marriages to be recognised here, while leaving couples unable to have the actual wedding in this jurisdiction. That's the usual way this country likes to solve such problems isn't it? Something to think about in the case of a no vote!

    Don't think they could only discriminate in favour of UK (mainland) same sex marriages and leave other countries out. Senator Zappone would blow, and quite rightly, if that was proposed as her's (amongst other gay and lesbian couples marriages here) is Canadian.

    The Govt, on our behalf, has used the (our) CP Act to get past the problem by stating foreign same sex marriages have the status of our CP's in law here, recognized as valid legal contracts (only don't call them marriages).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Don't think they could only discriminate in favour of UK (mainland) same sex marriages and leave other countries out. Senator Zappone would blow, and quite rightly, if that was proposed as her's (amongst other gay and lesbian couples marriages here) is Canadian.

    The Govt, on our behalf, has used the (our) CP Act to get past the problem by stating foreign same sex marriages have the status of our CP's in law here, recognized as valid legal contracts (only don't call them marriages).

    I was being sarcastic! :D It is terrible suggest that people should have to go to the nearest liberal country to get equal rights.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Contrary to what is widely believed a yes vote in the referendum will not simply update an outdated societal view that will bring us into line with other more liberal countries. It will in fact be the first time that same sex marriage will be enshrined in the constitution of any state. I am not saying that it is bad thing.
    Just pointing out that the simple yes equality mantra has caveats, caveats based on legislation not the constitution.

    All articles of the Constitution are (to be) enacted through legislation. Only the Supreme Court can address a constitutional matter; issues of legislation may be dealt with in lower order courts. That's how the whole Constitution thing works.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 351 ✭✭Dimithy


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    The Yes Equality campaign repeat the simple and appealing mantra that by voting yes in Fridays referendum it will simply allow 2 people, regardless of sex. to marry each other.

    This is untrue.

    ((Snipped the rest of the post, cos of the length))

    So gay and straight people will be subject to the same laws. Equal.

    Also, is this something that you think should be changed? Or is it a case of throwing something else at the wall, and seeing if something sticks?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,355 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Zen65 wrote: »
    All articles of the Constitution are (to be) enacted through legislation. Only the Supreme Court can address a constitutional matter; issues of legislation may be dealt with in lower order courts. That's how the whole Constitution thing works.

    Can you show me where in the constitution it states that I cannot marry my wife's mother's sister?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,496 ✭✭✭NSAman


    diomed wrote: »
    I predict this will lead to invitations to gay weddings.

    I was invited to my first gay wedding last year.

    If this is what I can expect in Ireland, roll on Gay Marriage. The ceremony was lovely and highly personal to both men. It was actually lovely, as a big old softie I was literally dabbing my eyes.

    The reception? All I can say is WOW, food, music, fun and celebration were simply fantastic. I hate weddings normally, this was something that me as a straight guy I really enjoyed. The one thing I noticed there was no division of families. Everyone was mingled and at the table there were straight couples gay couples and singles. It was a fantastic night after a lovely ceremony.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Can you show me where in the constitution it states that I cannot marry my wife's mother's sister?

    already married.

    can't marry anyone else.

    :P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,355 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Dimithy wrote: »
    So gay and straight people will be subject to the same laws. Equal.

    Also, is this something that you think should be changed? Or is it a case of throwing something else at the wall, and seeing if something sticks?

    So the myth of being given the right to marry the person you love should be shelved. There are exclusions in law. Is the love I could have for a stranger any less than the love I could have for my aunt in law? Is this equality?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,887 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Marriage is not defined in the constitution. There are a large number of people who are precluded from marrying each other and who will still be precluded from marrying each other whatever the outcome of Fridays referendum.
    There are a large number of people who are precluded rom marrying each other and who will still be precluded from marrying each other whatever the outcome of Fridays referendum.

    I hope that two unrelated adult men and two unrelated adult women won't be part of that large number, after this referendum.

    Do you hope so too?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    The Yes Equality campaign repeat the simple and appealing mantra that by voting yes in Fridays referendum it will simply allow 2 people, regardless of sex. to marry each other.

    This is untrue.

    Marriage is not defined in the constitution. There are a large number of people who are precluded from marrying each other and who will still be precluded from marrying each other whatever the outcome of Fridays referendum.

    Here is a list of people who cannot marry. This restrictions are not included in our constitution. These are legislative restrictions. These can be removed or extended by an act of the Oireachtas, as could the right to same sex marriage.



    Consanguinity – blood relationships
    A man may not marry his:
    • Grandmother
    • Mother
    • Father’s sister (aunt)
    • Mother’s sister (aunt)
    • Sister
    • Father’s Daughter (half sister)
    • Mother’s Daughter (half sister)
    • Daughter
    • Son’s Daughter (granddaughter)
    • Daughter’s Daughter (granddaughter)
    • Brother’s Daughter (niece)
    • Sister’s Daughter (niece)
    A woman may not marry her:
    • Grandfather
    • Father.
    • Father’s Brother (uncle)
    • Mother’s Brother (uncle)
    • Brother
    • Father’s Son (half brother)
    • Mother’s Son (half brother)
    • Son
    • Son’s Son (grandson)
    • Daughter’s Son (grandson)
    • Brother’s Son (nephew)
    • Sister’s Son (nephew)
    Affinity – relationship by marriage
    A man may not marry his:
    • Grandfather’s Wife (step-grandmother)
    • Father’s Wife (stepmother)
    • Father’s Brother’s Wife
    • Mother’s Brother’s Wife
    • Son’s Wife
    • Son’s Son’s Wife
    • Daughter’s Son’s Wife
    • Brother’s Son’s Wife
    • Sister’s Son’s Wife
    • Wife’s grandmother (grandmother-in-law)
    • Wife’s Mother (mother-in-law)
    • Wife’s Father’s Sister
    • Wife’s Mother’s Sister
    • Wife’s Daughter (stepdaughter)
    • Wife’s Son’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Daughter’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Brother’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Sister’s Daughter
    A woman may not marry her:
    • Grandmother’s Husband (step-grandfather)
    • Mother’s Husband (stepfather)
    • Father’s Sister’s Husband
    • Mother’s Sister’s Husband
    • Daughter’s Husband
    • Son’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Daughter’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Brother’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Sister’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Husband’s Grandfather (grandfather-in-law)
    • Husband’s Father (father-in-law)
    • Husband’s Father’s Brother
    • Husband’s Mother’s Brother
    • Husband’s Son (stepson)
    • Husband’s Son’s Son
    • Husband’s Daughter’s Son
    • Husband’s Brother’s Son
    • Husband’s Sister’s Son
    Contrary to what is widely believed a yes vote in the referendum will not simply update an outdated societal view that will bring us into line with other more liberal countries. It will in fact be the first time that same sex marriage will be enshrined in the constitution of any state. I am not saying that it is bad thing.
    Just pointing out that the simple yes equality mantra has caveats, caveats based on legislation not the constitution.


    Similarly, the oft quoted "right to procreate" of married couples is an inaccurate myth peddled by the no side. The "right to procreate" also has caveats and its unlimited vindication has been rejected in case law, Murray vs Ireland 1991.

    Blah blah blah what about incest blah. There's a bold new angle that hasn't been brought up before.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,887 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Also, you're a few pages behind in the No Campaign playbook.

    The whole 'it's not really equality if I can't marry my sister' argument was two weeks ago.

    and it's a pretty tiresome argument - so tiresome that even Iona don't try to make it. It's obvious that equality here refers to same sex couples having equsl rights and protections as opposite sex couples.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,355 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    already married.

    can't marry anyone else.

    :P

    Eh no. I am forbidden from marrying my late wife's mother's sister. If we have been divorced no such restrictions apply.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,355 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    osarusan wrote: »
    There are a large number of people who are precluded rom marrying each other and who will still be precluded from marrying each other whatever the outcome of Fridays referendum.

    I hope that two unrelated adult men and two unrelated adult women won't be part of that large number, after this referendum.

    Do you hope so too?

    Do you think it is fair that it is against the law to marry someone, regardless of sex that you are not related to?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,887 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Do you think it is fair that it is against the law to marry someone, regardless of sex that you are not related to?
    How about you answer the question I asked you first - do you hope that after this referendum, two people will no longer be ineligible for marriage simply because they want to marry somebody of the same sex?

    Or do you hope they remain ineligible?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,141 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    The Yes Equality campaign repeat the simple and appealing mantra that by voting yes in Fridays referendum it will simply allow 2 people, regardless of sex. to marry each other.

    This is untrue.

    Marriage is not defined in the constitution. There are a large number of people who are precluded from marrying each other and who will still be precluded from marrying each other whatever the outcome of Fridays referendum.

    Here is a list of people who cannot marry. This restrictions are not included in our constitution. These are legislative restrictions. These can be removed or extended by an act of the Oireachtas, as could the right to same sex marriage.



    Consanguinity – blood relationships
    A man may not marry his:
    • Grandmother
    • Mother
    • Father’s sister (aunt)
    • Mother’s sister (aunt)
    • Sister
    • Father’s Daughter (half sister)
    • Mother’s Daughter (half sister)
    • Daughter
    • Son’s Daughter (granddaughter)
    • Daughter’s Daughter (granddaughter)
    • Brother’s Daughter (niece)
    • Sister’s Daughter (niece)
    A woman may not marry her:
    • Grandfather
    • Father.
    • Father’s Brother (uncle)
    • Mother’s Brother (uncle)
    • Brother
    • Father’s Son (half brother)
    • Mother’s Son (half brother)
    • Son
    • Son’s Son (grandson)
    • Daughter’s Son (grandson)
    • Brother’s Son (nephew)
    • Sister’s Son (nephew)
    Affinity – relationship by marriage
    A man may not marry his:
    • Grandfather’s Wife (step-grandmother)
    • Father’s Wife (stepmother)
    • Father’s Brother’s Wife
    • Mother’s Brother’s Wife
    • Son’s Wife
    • Son’s Son’s Wife
    • Daughter’s Son’s Wife
    • Brother’s Son’s Wife
    • Sister’s Son’s Wife
    • Wife’s grandmother (grandmother-in-law)
    • Wife’s Mother (mother-in-law)
    • Wife’s Father’s Sister
    • Wife’s Mother’s Sister
    • Wife’s Daughter (stepdaughter)
    • Wife’s Son’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Daughter’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Brother’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Sister’s Daughter
    A woman may not marry her:
    • Grandmother’s Husband (step-grandfather)
    • Mother’s Husband (stepfather)
    • Father’s Sister’s Husband
    • Mother’s Sister’s Husband
    • Daughter’s Husband
    • Son’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Daughter’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Brother’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Sister’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Husband’s Grandfather (grandfather-in-law)
    • Husband’s Father (father-in-law)
    • Husband’s Father’s Brother
    • Husband’s Mother’s Brother
    • Husband’s Son (stepson)
    • Husband’s Son’s Son
    • Husband’s Daughter’s Son
    • Husband’s Brother’s Son
    • Husband’s Sister’s Son
    Contrary to what is widely believed a yes vote in the referendum will not simply update an outdated societal view that will bring us into line with other more liberal countries. It will in fact be the first time that same sex marriage will be enshrined in the constitution of any state. I am not saying that it is bad thing.
    Just pointing out that the simple yes equality mantra has caveats, caveats based on legislation not the constitution.


    Similarly, the oft quoted "right to procreate" of married couples is an inaccurate myth peddled by the no side. The "right to procreate" also has caveats and its unlimited vindication has been rejected in case law, Murray vs Ireland 1991.

    Good on you making the effort of collating the parties barred under statute law here from marrying, thank's. People should be aware that inter-familial marriages you listed are illegal and criminal.

    Thank's also for mentioning the "assumed" right to procreate, which some people claim would be given in the constitution to same-sex married couples if the referendum got a YES vote majority, because they think there is a constitutional right for married couples to procreate unhindered in any way by law.

    It's just a pity that you didn't include the little piece "in accordance with law" when you wrote in your 1st paragraph the wording "it will simply allow 2 people, regardless of sex. to marry each other". Maybe it was a keyboard error on your part.

    With reference to surrogacy, it's been made clear that there are NO laws declaring that it is a legal or illegal practice here. There is NO legislation here governing surrogacy. The Govt (through Minister Fitzgerald) has said it is proceeding with legislation to cover surrogacy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,141 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    I was being sarcastic! :D It is terrible suggest that people should have to go to the nearest liberal country to get equal rights.

    Cue father Jack *&^% it, my sarcasm detector was off :mad:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,355 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Good on you making the effort of collating the parties barred under statute law here from marrying, thank's. People should be aware that inter-familial marriages you listed are illegal and criminal.

    Thank's also for mentioning the "assumed" right to procreate, which some people claim would be given in the constitution to same-sex married couples if the referendum got a YES vote majority, because they think there is a constitutional right for married couples to procreate unhindered in any way by law.

    It's just a pity that you didn't include the little piece "in accordance with law" when you wrote in your 1st paragraph the wording "it will simply allow 2 people, regardless of sex. to marry each other". Maybe it was a keyboard error on your part.

    With reference to surrogacy, it's been made clear that there are NO laws declaring that it is a legal or illegal practice here. There is NO legislation here governing surrogacy. The Govt (through Minister Fitzgerald) has said it is proceeding with legislation to cover surrogacy.

    What relation am I to my late wife's mother's sister? If we fall in love why does the state not allow me to marry her?

    The law will not preclude me from marrying my late wife's mother's brother after the passing of Friday's referendum. Hence the inequality.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    diomed wrote: »
    I predict this will lead to invitations to gay weddings.

    An invitation to a wedding is like a tax demand from the Revenue :(


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Eh no. I am forbidden from marrying my late wife's mother's sister. If we have been divorced no such restrictions apply.

    Yeah,..but your question was "your wife", not "late wife" or "ex wife".

    So, I was giving you a sarcy reply.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement