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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.