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

floggg · 20-05-2015 06:24PM

CaveCanem wrote: »

I did know this, there is no right of a particular couple to have fertility services provided to them. But what if an equality body took the state to court saying any such legislation that bans surrogacy disproportionately infringes on the rights of several thousand families and is uniquely discriminatory?

Because the Equality Authority doesn't have any right to challenge legislation.

Because infertile couples are in the exact same position already, and no such case has ever been taken.

Because the courts have already considered surrogacy and confirmed that the Oireacthas has discretion to legislate for surrogacy.

Because the right to procreate in the Murray case is a limited right to natural procreation only.

Because surrogacy requires a person outside of the marriage, and so it cannot be claimed as something that is concerns the two spouses and relates to their rights.

There is no basis to conclude that this will effect surrogacy at all. None has been offered - other than some wild speculation which ignores the findings of the two most relevant cases to date.

This is getting close to a climate change debate now - the vast majority of qualified experts agree on a position, but because a number of mainly non-qualified and non-expert commentators say otherwise people pretend that there is a legitimate debate to be had.

osarusan · 20-05-2015 06:25PM

gk5000 wrote: »

It affect my marriage because the legal basis for my marriage - which is a man and a woman, shall have to be expanded to include man+man, and woman+woman which is complicated.

How will it change your marriage?

If this referendum passes, how will your relationship with your partner be any different than now?

How will it be legally different?

floggg · 20-05-2015 06:27PM

gk5000 wrote: »

I am saying that many gay people want a "Same Sex Marriage" so give constitutional protection to that "Same Sex Marriage" legally so that it is equal and they can get married.

One size does not fit all in that "same sex" is fundamentally different to "opposite sex".

It affect my marriage because the legal basis for my marriage - which is a man and a woman, shall have to be expanded to include man+man, and woman+woman which is complicated.

The legal concept of husband, father, wife, mother have to change to accomodate same sex marriage - somehow.

No. we want a marriage. We want the same recognition. Not a separate status.

Again, it is in place in Canada, UK, NZ, South Africa with no material legal issues.

And the Ref Com has confirmed it will not effect your marriage in the slightest. Not even the No campaign are saying it will.

Your marriage will continue on as before. It will just mean I can marry.

ebbsy · 20-05-2015 06:27PM

Did anybody here order a large ham ?

Zen65 · 20-05-2015 06:30PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I am in favour of same sex marriage but I believe that if surrogacy legislation was dealt with and clearly set out before Fridays vote, it would allay a lot of voters fears.

If there was definitive legislation in place to copper-fasten the surrogacy thing then the NO camp would still be out stirring up people's fears over children or something else. It's what they do. They have done it repeatedly whenever there is a referendum which strays into areas that compete with religious dogma.

This is how all change is dealt with and fought.

To agree a change you need to make a comprehensive argument and defend it to the hilt, against all sorts of real and daft allegations.

To prevent a change it is only necessary to create fear and uncertainty, using innuendo and nonsense.

late · 20-05-2015 06:38PM

I agree this Referendum is not about surrogacy, but if the yes side wins, then we will, down the road, when the government go legislating for surrogacy, have a clammier for surrogacy to be made available, to same sex male couples, as this is the only way, they will be able to produce babies. Babies (for the want of a better term),will become commodities, they will claim they have a equal right to have babies.
I don't believe we should set out to produce babies for same sex couples and denying the little child, the right to a mother and a father, therefore the only option is to vote NO on Friday. I don't have a problem, where in special circumstances a child is reared by a same sex couple, if this is deemed to be in the best interest of that child.
By voting NO, will give a clear message we want where possible, little children, to have the right to a mother and a father.

Not a NSA agent · 20-05-2015 06:38PM

Adding "same sex marriage" wont appease the people who are currently against what we are voting on. Iona and friend were against civil partnership, some people will have a fit that they dare to use the word marriage. Most of the people voting no will stop caring within a few hours.

Not a NSA agent · 20-05-2015 06:39PM

late wrote: »

I agree this Referendum is not about surrogacy, but if the yes side wins, then we will, down the road, when the government go legislating for surrogacy, have a clammier for surrogacy to be made available, to same sex male couples, as this is the only way, they will be able to produce babies. Babies (for the want of a better term),will become commodities, they will claim they have a equal right to have babies.
I don't believe we should set out to produce babies for same sex couples and denying the little child, the right to a mother and a father, therefore the only option is to vote NO on Friday. I don't have a problem, where in special circumstances a child is reared by a same sex couple, if this is deemed to be in the best interest of that child.
By voting NO, will give a clear message we want where possible, little children, to have the right to a mother and a father.

The government can make surrogacy illegal regardless. Voting no will not change it, you are giving the clear message that you dont want gay people to get married.

There was a case about this kind of thing already. You are free to procreate but the state doesnt have to help.

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 06:40PM

osarusan wrote: »

How will it change your marriage?

If this referendum passes, how will your relationship with your partner be any different than now?

How will it be legally different?

Amazing...keep on questioning...you'll grind the no voters to a pulp!

It affect my marriage because the legal basis for my marriage - which is a man and a woman, shall have to be expanded to include man+man, and woman+woman which is complicated.

The legal concept of husband, father, wife, mother have to change to accomodate same sex marriage - somehow.

silverfeather · 20-05-2015 06:41PM

There are a few in the no camp who will not go away. But once this hurdle is removed their protest will have to be seen for what it is. It's against gay people that is all.

Anita Blow · 20-05-2015 06:41PM

late wrote: »

I agree this Referendum is not about surrogacy, but if the yes side wins, then we will, down the road, when the government go legislating for surrogacy, have a clammier for surrogacy to be made available, to same sex male couples, as this is the only way, they will be able to produce babies. Babies (for the want of a better term),will become commodities, they will claim they have a equal right to have babies.
I don't believe we should set out to produce babies for same sex couples and denying the little child, the right to a mother and a father, therefore the only option is to vote NO on Friday. I don't have a problem, where in special circumstances a child is reared by a same sex couple, if this is deemed to be in the best interest of that child.
By voting NO, will give a clear message we want where possible, little children, to have the right to a mother and a father.

As Leo Varadkar stated on Tuesday, and Enda Kenny re-affirmed today on the Six:One News, commercial surrogacy will be banned outright this year. Combined with the fact that the RefCom, Law Society and Special Rapporteur on Children have all stated that no right to a child exists in the constitution, the above scenario has no basis in fact.

Knasher · 20-05-2015 06:44PM

gk5000 wrote: »

The legal concept of husband, father, wife, mother have to change to accomodate same sex marriage - somehow.

Can you give a single concrete, legal example where spouse wouldn't be an acceptable substitution for husband/wife? And where parent, wouldn't be a acceptable substitution for father/mother?

Anita Blow · 20-05-2015 06:45PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Amazing...keep on questioning...you'll grind the no voters to a pulp!

It affect my marriage because the legal basis for my marriage - which is a man and a woman, shall have to be expanded to include man+man, and woman+woman which is complicated.

The legal concept of husband, father, wife, mother have to change to accomodate same sex marriage - somehow.

But that's not changing your marriage at all. There is no tangible difference at all to how your marriage operates whether it's a yes or a no vote. When St. Andrew's golf club extended membership rights to women, it didn't redefine club membership for existing male members. If Saudi Arabia were to extend the right to drive to women, it doesn't redefine driving for males. In both cases, the rights, responsibilities and benefits all remain the same for existing members/drivers, but more people have access to it at no cost to anyone else.

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 06:46PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Adding "same sex marriage" wont appease the people who are currently against what we are voting on. Iona and friend were against civil partnership, some people will have a fit that they dare to use the word marriage. Most of the people voting no will stop caring within a few hours.

You shall never appease Iona or the church.
But it would appease me.

This will keep coming back in every law or court case where its relevant ...for ever.

And there is a negative for gays also. You have now 100 years of marriage and family law to content with, whereas you could have a clean slate.

Shackels work both ways you know.
Every law that same sex may want, shall have to be ok for opposite sex, whereas you could be fully independant.

marienbad · 20-05-2015 06:50PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Cakes babies surrogacy bullies wombs mothers God war paedophiles freedom

and Atlantic Philanthropies

late · 20-05-2015 06:50PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

The government can make surrogacy illegal regardless. Voting no will not change it, you are giving the clear message that you dont want gay people to get married.

There was a case about this kind of thing already. You are free to procreate but the state doesnt have to help.

I don't trust the Government on surrogacy, it may not be this government, but if we vote yes there will be on going pressure on the government to legislate for surrogacy, for same sex couple, they will claim if they can married, they have a right to have babies, anyone that thinks otherwise are in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Gerry T · 20-05-2015 06:51PM

gk5000 wrote: »

I am saying that many gay people want a "Same Sex Marriage" so give constitutional protection to that "Same Sex Marriage" legally so that it is equal and they can get married.

One size does not fit all in that "same sex" is fundamentally different to "opposite sex".

It affect my marriage because the legal basis for my marriage - which is a man and a woman, shall have to be expanded to include man+man, and woman+woman which is complicated.

The legal concept of husband, father, wife, mother have to change to accomodate same sex marriage - somehow.

That's what the vote on Fri is about, giving constitutional protection to same sex marriage...nothing more.

Its only different because you think it is, I don't. I see 2 people that want to love and live together as a married couple, no different to me or you.

Your marriage is not affected, its between two loving people, that won't change on Sat. No legal rights you would have on Fri will disappear on Sat. Everything will be the same for you. This vote just allows another segment of our population to have the same rights as you. This vote is all about removing the restrictions people in our community live with. It's time they were removed (the barriers, not the people

)

I'm no legal eagle but all you need address legally is parent & partner, legally why have a differentiator with parents. I'm speaking legally. Both parents should stand as equals in front of the law, not different. father, mother, wife, husband should not be used in a legal argument. Parent is sufficient.

Religiously yes I can appreciate why people would be against this. But the vote is nothing to do with your church or belief system. This is about the legal system. I believe if you object on religious grounds then abstain from voting, your church won't be changing its marriage laws so you should be happy. Don't force your religious beliefs on others (not speaking to you specifically GK1000, thats a general statement to others)

Not a NSA agent · 20-05-2015 06:51PM

gk5000 wrote: »

You shall never appease Iona or the church.
But it would appease me.

This will keep coming back in every law or court case where its relevant ...for ever.

And there is a negative for gays also. You have now 100 years of marriage and family law to content with, whereas you could have a clean slate.

Shackels work both ways you know.
Every law that same sex may want, shall have to be ok for opposite sex, whereas you could be fully independant.

We appease a very small minority over very little unless you can provide exact problems your version would prevent and why it is important to prevent them.

Im straight so I can take part in marriage as it is already. Nobody has to make me a special version.

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 06:52PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

But that's not changing your marriage at all. There is no tangible difference at all to how your marriage operates whether it's a yes or a no vote. When St. Andrew's golf club extended membership rights to women, it didn't redefine club membership for existing male members. If Saudi Arabia were to extend the right to drive to women, it doesn't redefine driving for males. In both cases, the rights, responsibilities and benefits all remain the same for existing members/drivers, but more people have access to it at no cost to anyone else.

Legal differences we were talking about.

Your examples are just new members, but now marriage has to accomodate 2 completly different classes - men+men and women+women which is very different than men+women.

One size does not fit all, or will so so very badly - legally, and that shall have a knock on affect.

Not a NSA agent · 20-05-2015 06:53PM

late wrote: »

I don't trust the Government on surrogacy, it may not be this government, but if we vote yes there will be on going pressure on the government to legislate for surrogacy, for same sex couple, they will claim if they can married, they have a right to have babies, anyone that thinks otherwise are in cloud-cuckoo-land.

How will a no prevent this claim that they have that right?

The courts have already said that people have no right for the state to assist them in having children. This right would have to be created first before your scenario could be considered. Even then if they cant get married they can still have children.

endacl · 20-05-2015 06:53PM

late wrote: »

I don't trust the Government on surrogacy, it may not be this government, but if we vote yes there will be on going pressure on the government to legislate for surrogacy, for same sex couple, they will claim if they can married, they have a right to have babies, anyone that thinks otherwise are in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Surrogacy is not an issue. It didn't even become a smoke screen talking point until those opposed to passing the referendum actually thought about why they were opposed, and couldn't come up with any reason that didn't sound like 'gay people? Eeeeuuuuuggggghhhh'.

CaveCanem · 20-05-2015 06:54PM

floggg wrote: »

Because the Equality Authority doesn't have any right to challenge legislation.

I didn't say the Equality Authority, I just said an equality body, could be any pressure or advocacy group.

Because infertile couples are in the exact same position already, and no such case has ever been taken.

Exactly, it has never been tested because there is currently no need to contest legislation since it doesn't exist.

Because the courts have already considered surrogacy and confirmed that the Oireacthas has discretion to legislate for surrogacy.

Which means very little? They have discretion to legislate for lots of things but when they do they will have to consult a different constitution than the one we have now.

Because the right to procreate in the Murray case is a limited right to natural procreation only.

Is that written anywhere in the constitution or in law that it must be natural? I have only seen it in the opinion of one person printed in the media.

Because surrogacy requires a person outside of the marriage, and so it cannot be claimed as something that is concerns the two spouses and relates to their rights.

But what about the state's relationship with companies or individuals providing the services? What If they can't ban them from providing the service entirely since it is an essential part of thousands of families exercising their right to beget children as stated in the constitution. You can't have a right stated in the constitution yet that right is legally entirely meaningless.

There is no basis to conclude that this will effect surrogacy at all. None has been offered - other than some wild speculation which ignores the findings of the two most relevant cases to date.

Are they really comparable cases? I don't think they are. On the one hand you have individual couples wanting to exercise a right, on the other the state has to try and limit the activities of companies from providing a service (totally different arguments and considerations) and whole groups of people from their right to beget children.

This is getting close to a climate change debate now - the vast majority of qualified experts agree on a position, but because a number of mainly non-qualified and non-expert commentators say otherwise people pretend that there is a legitimate debate to be had.

Different questions though.

Not a NSA agent · 20-05-2015 06:54PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Legal differences we were talking about.

Your examples are just new members, but now marriage has to accomodate 2 completly different classes - men+men and women+women which is very different than men+women.

One size does not fit all, or will so so very badly - legally, and that shall have a knock on affect.

As usual, a person can claim they are different and it will create problems but what are these problems? You must know of some in order to be concerned about them.

Anita Blow · 20-05-2015 06:55PM

late wrote: »

I don't trust the Government on surrogacy, it may not be this government, but if we vote yes there will be on going pressure on the government to legislate for surrogacy, for same sex couple, they will claim if they can married, they have a right to have babies, anyone that thinks otherwise are in cloud-cuckoo-land.

They can try, but it won't hold up in court, because again constitutional lawyers have stated that the constitution confers no rights to a child.
Also I don't know why you believe gay people desire surrogacy so much. As a gay person, all I've ever considered is adoption. I'm against commercial surrogacy altogether and would rather give a home to an existing child who has none. I'd imagine most are of the same mindset, especially when you consider that of the 6 (I think was stated on CBLive) domestic surrogacy cases last year, all were among heterosexuals and altruistic in nature.

marienbad · 20-05-2015 06:55PM

late wrote: »

I don't trust the Government on surrogacy, it may not be this government, but if we vote yes there will be on going pressure on the government to legislate for surrogacy, for same sex couple, they will claim if they can married, they have a right to have babies, anyone that thinks otherwise are in cloud-cuckoo-land.

They will have that right anyway irrespective of the referendum. Whatever laws are brought in on surrogacy will apply equally to all citizens, single married gay straight . Exactly as it is now on adoption

endacl · 20-05-2015 06:55PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Amazing...keep on questioning...you'll grind the no voters to a pulp!

It affect my marriage because the legal basis for my marriage - which is a man and a woman, shall have to be expanded to include man+man, and woman+woman which is complicated.

The legal concept of husband, father, wife, mother have to change to accomodate same sex marriage - somehow.

Only if your marriage is forced to accommodate an extra man/woman pair. Otherwise, nothing will change.

Relax. Be grand.

Anita Blow · 20-05-2015 06:56PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Legal differences we were talking about.

Your examples are just new members, but now marriage has to accomodate 2 completly different classes - men+men and women+women which is very different than men+women.

One size does not fit all, or will so so very badly - legally, and that shall have a knock on affect.

In a legal sense, how is it very different? If you've any evidence or case law to back up the differences it'd be appreciated.

Bannasidhe · 20-05-2015 06:57PM

late wrote: »

I don't trust the Government on surrogacy, it may not be this government, but if we vote yes there will be on going pressure on the government to legislate for surrogacy, for same sex couple, they will claim if they can married, they have a right to have babies, anyone that thinks otherwise are in cloud-cuckoo-land.

'they' - you do realise you are talking about real live Irish people reading this thread not some out there strangers sure who knows what 'they' will want like Ted.

The government has said it is going to legislate - if you don't believe the government that is hardly the fault of gay people.

There is no 'right' to have babies and if such a 'right' suddenly emerges it will apply to straight people as much as gay people and as it is straight people who are the majority seeking to avail surrogacy of perhaps we should prevent heterosexual marriage.

molloyjh · 20-05-2015 06:57PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Legal differences we were talking about.

Your examples are just new members, but now marriage has to accomodate 2 completly different classes - men+men and women+women which is very different than men+women.

One size does not fit all, or will so so very badly - legally, and that shall have a knock on affect.

Vague nonsense.

late · 20-05-2015 06:57PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

As Leo Varadkar stated on Tuesday, and Enda Kenny re-affirmed today on the Six:One News, commercial surrogacy will be banned outright this year. Combined with the fact that the RefCom, Law Society and Special Rapporteur on Children have all stated that no right to a child exists in the constitution, the above scenario has no basis in fact.

Promises like this from the government are totally meaningless, any government can change these laws in the future, due to pressure from same sex married couples.
Now is the only chance we will get to say no to children being deliberately left motherless or fatherless, so vote NO.

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

Comments