Gay marriage referendum: what are we actually voting on?

Carlos Orange · 20-02-2015 11:59pm

Daith wrote: »

Voting on this

'Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex'

Does the wording sound weird to anyone or is it just me? Having sex singular makes it sound to me as if it means males and females must be treated equally in a marriage.

I saw this today so maybe it isn't just me but my grasp on grammar is pretty weak.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/uncertainty-in-wording-of-marriage-equality-bill-seriously-threatens-constitution-1.2109937

Do the linguistics matter legally or is the interpretation bound by what people think they are voting on (which is pretty clear)?

oscarBravo · 21-02-2015 12:10am

psinno wrote: »

Does the wording sound weird to anyone or is it just me? Having sex singular makes it sound to me as if it means males and females must be treated equally in a marriage.

I saw this today so maybe it isn't just me but my grasp on grammar is pretty weak.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/uncertainty-in-wording-of-marriage-equality-bill-seriously-threatens-constitution-1.2109937

Do the linguistics matter legally or is the interpretation bound by what people think they are voting on (which is pretty clear)?

I'm not entirely clear on what your objection to the language is, but Bruce Arnold has clearly completely lost the plot.

I can't bring myself to believe that he genuinely thinks that the Supreme Court would interpret the proposed amendment as prohibiting marriage between a man and a woman. Given that such an interpretation of the language is only possible through deranged paranoia, either (a) he's suffering from a deranged form of paranoia, or (b) he's desperately scaremongering in an attempt to discourage people from voting in favour of this referendum.

After his veritable showcase of logical fallacies in opposition to the Children and Family Relationships Bill and now this, I'm afraid I'm rapidly losing all respect for the man.

Carlos Orange · 21-02-2015 1:08am

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not entirely clear on what your objection to the language is

I think it is that couples don't have a sex and the change should be in how pairs of sexes are considered.
Do you think this would mean the same thing or something different?

'Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sexes'

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't bring myself to believe that he genuinely thinks that the Supreme Court would interpret the proposed amendment as prohibiting marriage between a man and a woman.

There is whether they should which depends on whether they should solely consider the meaning of the words and what the words mean.
Then there is what they would actually do since passing different sex marriage would just be a formality but the law should be big on following formalities.

PopePalpatine · 21-02-2015 2:34pm

If they are capable of providing a caring, nurturing environment for raising children, then yes, but it seems like your entire knowledge of transgender people is based on the rantings of the local skinhead.

Links234 · 21-02-2015 7:16pm

I know several trans people who are already raising kids in this country, being trans and a parent aren't mutually exclusive.

conorh91 · 21-02-2015 8:50pm

psinno wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/uncertainty-in-wording-of-marriage-equality-bill-seriously-threatens-constitution-1.2109937

Do the linguistics matter legally or is the interpretation bound by what people think they are voting on (which is pretty clear)?

The exact words matter enormously. The Supreme Court has said that the meaning of constitutional amendments cannot be gleaned directly from parliamentary debates, for example. The meaning stands on its own merit, although the courts are entitled to (but not required to) interpret the amendment along historical lines in a general way, and then to deduce the intentions of the public in that way.

The courts have taken an unpredictable approach to interpretation over the past decade, so the mode of interpretation they would use is difficult to gauge.

This is a bit of a pointless diversion though, because the language seems fine to me.

The Irish Times is off its rocker lately. Fintan O'Toole's most recent foray into the Constitution doesn't even deserve to be published in a student newspaper.

Cutting Edge · 22-02-2015 5:38am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If they are capable of providing a caring, nurturing environment for raising children, then yes, but it seems like your entire knowledge of transgender people is based on the rantings of the local skinhead.

Hi, I think you may have taken me up wrong, I am hetrosexual and without any personal gender identification questions. I have children and am concerned about this issue. Do you have children and are you hetrosexual?

al22 · 22-02-2015 5:53am

Why need a marriage?

Main reason, as I see from my point, is the inheritance rights and taxes. Remove that and give people full rights to manage their own money and property as they wish, people should be able to give their own money to anybody without restrictions and limits, and there will be no reason to discuss any marriage.

Only child registration should be left as a must, to determine parenthood or guardianship and responsibilities of parents and guardians.

Not the government decide for everything. Thanks.

Cutting Edge · 22-02-2015 6:08am

You have that 100% correct.

Cutting Edge · 22-02-2015 6:12am

Links234 wrote: »

I know several trans people who are already raising kids in this country, being trans and a parent aren't mutually exclusive.

How many children do you have yourself? Or is it just other people you know who are raising them?

Cutting Edge · 22-02-2015 6:48am

My original question was removed and I was called a "troll" HA! I get it now, this is "politically correct" boards.ie
I will not be posting here anymore. I feel the Jackbooted brown shirt moderators hands on my neck. You should change the name of this site to "fascist.ie" far more appropriate,,,,,,,,,...................................

Mod Edit: if you have a problem with another poster report that post. If you are unhappy with a moderation decision you can post in dispute resolution. If you dont want to post anymore fair enough, but if you do make any more comments like the above we may have to ban you
-johnnyskeleton

Ren2k7 · 22-02-2015 2:38pm

al22 wrote: »

Why need a marriage?

Main reason, as I see from my point, is the inheritance rights and taxes. Remove that and give people full rights to manage their own money and property as they wish, people should be able to give their own money to anybody without restrictions and limits, and there will be no reason to discuss any marriage.

Only child registration should be left as a must, to determine parenthood or guardianship and responsibilities of parents and guardians.

Not the government decide for everything. Thanks.

In time the whole concept of marriage will probably die out. When it boils down to it marriage is nothing more than a legal right of one to inherit the assets of the other in the event of death. And even that is being eroded with the advent of pre-nupts.

Eventually we might just see marriage replaced with couples visiting their solicitor to enter into a legal contract with each other to avail of inheritance rights and next of kin for one another.

PopePalpatine · 22-02-2015 5:16pm

Cutting Edge wrote: »

Hi, I think you may have taken me up wrong, I am hetrosexual and without any personal gender identification questions. I have children and am concerned about this issue. Do you have children and are you hetrosexual?

I don't have children, but I am heterosexual.

Also, it's extremely ironic of you to use the term "fascism" to describe political correctness.

conorh91 · 23-02-2015 1:22am

Response of Conor O'Mahony et al to the Bruce Arnold article, which will presumably appear in tomorrow's irish Times. Although he is exaggerating the extent of the clarity of the rules of interpretation, the thrust of his argument is undoubtedly correct.

Carlos Orange · 10-03-2015 8:54pm

conorh91 wrote: »

Response of Conor O'Mahony et al to the Bruce Arnold article, which will presumably appear in tomorrow's irish Times. Although he is exaggerating the extent of the clarity of the rules of interpretation, the thrust of his argument is undoubtedly correct.

I guess it will never get tested now as the Irish language version is being changed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-language-version-of-same-sex-vote-text-changed-1.2133577

pwurple · 13-03-2015 2:46pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

In time the whole concept of marriage will probably die out. When it boils down to it marriage is nothing more than a legal right of one to inherit the assets of the other in the event of death. And even that is being eroded with the advent of pre-nupts.

Eventually we might just see marriage replaced with couples visiting their solicitor to enter into a legal contract with each other to avail of inheritance rights and next of kin for one another.

Next of kin, consent, inheritance, and automatic guardianship to any children are the main rights. Bringing up adoption is kind of moot to be honest, as adoptions are effectively a thing of the past in Ireland. No-one can practically adopt here since 2010 as far as I can tell, whether they are gay or straight. Plenty of people assessed and deemed suitable. No babies to adopt though.

I'm still on the fence on this referendum. The first three major differences... next of kin, consent for medical procedures, inheritance are practical and I'm all for them. But I have a niggle about reproduction. Specifically automatic guardianship. It relates how I perceive closed adoptions and anonymous egg/sperm donation more than anything else.

I don't have any issue with a child having two same sex parents. Families come in all shapes and sizes and the more love in a child's life, the better.

My first query is about the loss of the other biological parent. The mother or father who does exist, but may have no relationship with a baby created within a gay marriage. Historically closed adoptions in this country have reeked immeasurable harm. Children not knowing where they came from, who their biological parents were. Do we want to go down that road again? I know it's more of a egg/sperm donation query, more than relating to gay marriage specifically, and I would have hoped it would be covered in the family bill to close that gap, but I've yet to see it.

My second is around someone biologically unrelated to a child gaining automatic guardianship rights without being assessed for adoptive suitability. This is ringing a warning bell for me. And I know this happens as well here with current heterosexual marriages with donation of gametes... I have an issue with it there also. Should there be some kind of assessment? I'm not sure. What happens if the relationship breaks down? Should the biological parent of the couple have more of a right to custody than the non-biological parent? If so, on what basis, because in law the parents will be equal.

Our laws regarding reproduction are such a patchwork quilt here, with holes all over the place. This is another patch adding to that, and I don't see anything like a complete picture yet.

Hyzepher · 13-03-2015 2:50pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Eventually we might just see marriage replaced with couples visiting their solicitor to enter into a legal contract with each other to avail of inheritance rights and next of kin for one another.

In a way that is what marriage is at the moment

El Inho · 16-03-2015 9:07am

Two questions. How long does it take to a. Register for postal vote or b. Change voting address.

Annasopra · 22-03-2015 9:40am

El Inho wrote: »

Two questions. How long does it take to a. Register for postal vote or b. Change voting address.

Impossible to answer. Every County or City Council would do things differently.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 26-03-2015 9:40pm

I'm sorry but could someone answer a quick question.

Will this referendum force religious institutions like the Catholic church perform weddings for members of the LGBT community.

If the answer to that question is no I will vote in favour of Gay marriage in this referendum.

NuMarvel · 26-03-2015 9:49pm

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I'm sorry but could someone answer a quick question.

Will this referendum force religious institutions like the Catholic church perform weddings for members of the LGBT community.

If the answer to that question is no I will vote in favour of Gay marriage in this referendum.

No. The Constitution includes protections for religious bodies when it comes to the practice of their faith, so they can't be forced to marry anyone they don't want to, including same sex couples.

Edit: Also, if the referendum passes, the Marriage Act that will change the law to allow same sex couples to marry will include specific provisions saying that religious bodies and religious solemnisers aren't obliged to marry same sex couples. This referendum is only about civil marriage, like in a registry office.

metrosity · 16-04-2015 9:19pm

In other news, Twitter are now encouraging people to vote yes to same sex marriage. That might make more vote no!

And what's Twitters agenda here? More or less the same agenda as all these English language attack usurper colleges I suspect - pumping people into the country - not to work in McD's - nope to work for Twitter etc..

"Hi, We're Twiter and we endorse pumping new immigrant ""diversity"" demographics into your country".

henryporter · 16-04-2015 9:26pm

metrosity wrote: »

In other news, Twitter are now encouraging people to vote yes to same sex marriage. That might make more vote no!

And what's Twitters agenda here? More or less the same agenda as all these English language attack usurper colleges I suspect - pumping people into the country - not to work in McD's - nope to work for Twitter etc..

"Hi, We're Twiter and we endorse pumping new immigrant ""diversity"" demographics into your country".

It's to encourage more open minded countries and people to continue to do business with ours - if a same sex married couple want to relocate here, for example, then any perceived discrimination against their relationship would be discouraging. What's wrong with immigrant diversity anyways, as long as people come to work and make a positive contribution to society, including spending, paying taxes, generating growth and further employment, mixing the gene pool, encouraging open mindedness, then I'm all for it.

One eyed Jack · 16-04-2015 9:36pm

metrosity wrote: »

In other news, Twitter are now encouraging people to vote yes to same sex marriage. That might make more vote no!

And what's Twitters agenda here? More or less the same agenda as all these English language attack usurper colleges I suspect - pumping people into the country - not to work in McD's - nope to work for Twitter etc..

"Hi, We're Twiter and we endorse pumping new immigrant ""diversity"" demographics into your country".

Or, even more likely - it will inspire thousands more people in this country to vote in favour of marriage equality!

I'd love to see other social media companies follow their lead like Facebook, Google and even Boards!

Why not show the world that Ireland really is the land of a thousand welcomes, to everyone, no matter what their race, colour, orientation or creed?

bopper · 18-04-2015 1:51am

metrosity wrote: »

And what's Twitters agenda here? More or less the same agenda as all these English language attack usurper colleges I suspect - pumping people into the country - not to work in McD's - nope to work for Twitter etc..

"Hi, We're Twiter and we endorse pumping new immigrant ""diversity"" demographics into your country".

Yes because I'm sure Twitter have a real hard time finding employees, it's not like there are thousands of Irish people who would kill to work there.

metrosity · 19-04-2015 11:07pm

bopper wrote: »

Yes because I'm sure Twitter have a real hard time finding employees, it's not like there are not thousands of Irish people who would kill to work there.

That will be Twitters new excuse for pumping in non-Irish workers:
"You're not gay friendly enough, so we're bringing in foreign gays, who just happen to be straight, ordinary, unremarkable Asian-Americans."

What do we actually gain from companies like Twitter? except the occasional Donnybrook token Irish white guy executive. We don't need to listen to them.. we don't need them here. The end.

Nodin · 20-04-2015 1:45pm

metrosity wrote: »

That will be Twitters new excuse for pumping in non-Irish workers:
"You're not gay friendly enough, so we're bringing in foreign gays, who just happen to be straight, ordinary, unremarkable Asian-Americans."

What do we actually gain from companies like Twitter? except the occasional Donnybrook token Irish white guy executive. We don't need to listen to them.. we don't need them here. The end.

What point are you trying to make, might I ask?

bopper · 20-04-2015 9:10pm

metrosity wrote: »

That will be Twitters new excuse for pumping in non-Irish workers:
"You're not gay friendly enough, so we're bringing in foreign gays, who just happen to be straight, ordinary, unremarkable Asian-Americans."

What do we actually gain from companies like Twitter? except the occasional Donnybrook token Irish white guy executive. We don't need to listen to them.. we don't need them here. The end.

This can't actually be a serious post can it?

ouncer · 18-05-2015 9:59pm

There are so many things that disturb me about this referendum. And all of them are not related to same-sex marriage.

So let's start.

No 1: its a referendum where the people speak. So why do I need a politician or priest or yes or no campaigner to tell me how to vote. I have friends who are gay and relations who are gay, I know the issue. I resent being told how I should vote. So first up let me say I'm not religious. So I read about priests guiding their parishioners to vote no in the referendum. Why is this? They were put in a hole because the politicians insisted on a yes vote so they had to react. If politicians simply left these referendums alone it would be so much easier. By nature there is a natural distrust of politicians. Unfortunately we do, via our current system, have to vote for one of them. What we see in return is their wages, their expenses, their pensions, their back scratching with lobbyists (maybe a dob rate court case and his multitude of companies provided with state business might refresh the mind). So leo I'm impressed your gay. Strangely we as the citizens live with such issues as gay, abortion, choice of life and death, poverty etc.. We live these things as you do. We have a right to vote without being forced on on our viewpoint.

No 2: last week all the NO posters were stripped off the poles in our town. As said previously there should be not be a yes or no campaign. It is up to the people to decide. But I found this disgusting.

No 3: well tonight I got a visit from a bunch of yes capmaigners (registration from mayo strangely). So I decided to put them to the test. The blank expressions were funny. Purely to be a pain in the are I asked them about religious implications, surrogacy issues (basically to check them out). Bottom line they weren't sure on anything (love playing devils advocate).

So here's the point. You are voting on your opinion. Nothing else. Screw everybody else. How you feel on the matter is what's important. Like issues such as divorce, right to life, right to death, rights of children it is your choice. Vote with your heart. The only wrong vote, for me, is when you don't exercise your right to vote.

SireOfSeth · 19-05-2015 8:59am

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I'm sorry but could someone answer a quick question.

Will this referendum force religious institutions like the Catholic church perform weddings for members of the LGBT community.

If the answer to that question is no I will vote in favour of Gay marriage in this referendum.

In a word... no.

Religious institutions will not be impacted what-so-ever. The constitution provides of religious freedom. Basically, the Catholic church will not be required to preform same-sex marriages.

Gay marriage referendum: what are we actually voting on?

Comments