Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

Stark · 20-05-2015 04:08PM

enda1 wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying all.

Has there been debate on why they're going to abolish civil partnerships (if there's a yes vote)? Or is it a case of it's assumed no one will want them?

Assumed no-one will want them. And I guess if it's going be true "equality" then you can't have two institutions for gay people and one institution for straight people after same sex marriage is introduced.

seamus · 20-05-2015 04:19PM

Stark wrote: »

Assumed no-one will want them. And I guess if it's going be true "equality" then you can't have two institutions for gay people and one institution for straight people after same sex marriage is introduced.

Yeah, I think this is it. It's basically an acknowledgement that CP is a "poor man's" marriage, and there's no point in keeping CP (and opening it up to hetero couples), when marriage offers the exact same rights, plus a few more.

It's worth noting that while some may like the idea of a "simple" marriage like CP that can be easily dissolved, the same act which brought in CP, effectively brought in "simple" marriage by default for cohabiting couples. So basic property rights and so forth are automatically conferred on cohabiting couples.

The idea was that these protections could be made permanent through marriage for heteros and through CP for homos. If marriage is universally available, CP then becomes redundant.

Stark · 20-05-2015 04:50PM

seamus wrote: »

It's worth noting that while some may like the idea of a "simple" marriage like CP that can be easily dissolved, the same act which brought in CP, effectively brought in "simple" marriage by default for cohabiting couples. So basic property rights and so forth are automatically conferred on cohabiting couples.

Should also be noted that the same 4 year wait for a divorce in Ireland also applies to civil partnerships.

gravehold · 20-05-2015 05:18PM

Enda on rte debate won't/cant't answer any of the questions asked. This is why people don't trust the government on this and the yes vote

Ave Sodalis · 20-05-2015 05:55PM

gravehold wrote: »

Enda on rte debate won't/cant't answer any of the questions asked. This is why people don't trust the government on this and the yes vote

And the no side are able to answer every question put to them honestly and fully.

gravehold · 20-05-2015 05:56PM

sup_dude wrote: »

And the no side are able to answer every question put to them honestly and fully.

They guy did very well and answered every question posed by the rte guy. Enda mess up and looked like an ass

Hero777 · 21-05-2015 09:45AM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Basically, Civil Marriage is greater than Civil Partnership. That is what we are voting on... allowing homosexual couples the same right to civil marriage as their heterosexual counterparts.

Can anyone tell me what are the differences btw a civil marrage and a civil partnership? in simple terms?

sydthebeat · 21-05-2015 09:48AM

Hero777 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what are the differences btw a civil marrage and a civil partnership? in simple terms?

http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

CramCycle · 21-05-2015 09:54AM

Hero777 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what are the differences btw a civil marrage and a civil partnership? in simple terms?

The simplest and potentially most important, is that civil marriage is protected by the constitution, civil partnership is not.

There are many more reasons, some legal, some emotive but for me this is the single most important one, as it is the one that enshrines protection and equality in the same manner as is provided to myself at this point in time. The others are all important and depending who you are, and your point of view, these other ones maybe equal, less or more important than the one I have as the most important.

Hero777 · 21-05-2015 10:41AM

CramCycle wrote: »

The simplest and potentially most important, is that civil marriage is protected by the constitution, civil partnership is not.

Apologies if I am sounding ignorant, with reading the above link and manyother sources am I right in the following distinctions? (take that all thebelow will occur if it is a yes vote)

- increased availability to social supports during hardships?

- Legally recognised relationship with children (confused with this one as Iwould have thought that adoption/surrogacy laws would cover it)

- Classified more as a family unit (regardless of children or not) - Againwhat does that mean in layman’s terms

- Divorce would come into effect as well

For me I am on the fence, trying today to get my facts straight prior tovoting.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 21-05-2015 01:31PM

Hero777 wrote: »

Apologies if I am sounding ignorant, with reading the above link and manyother sources am I right in the following distinctions? (take that all thebelow will occur if it is a yes vote)

- increased availability to social supports during hardships?

- Legally recognised relationship with children (confused with this one as Iwould have thought that adoption/surrogacy laws would cover it)

- Classified more as a family unit (regardless of children or not) - Againwhat does that mean in layman’s terms

- Divorce would come into effect as well

For me I am on the fence, trying today to get my facts straight prior tovoting.

This link has the clearest explanation I can find. Don't worry overly about the spam list of 160 differences.

http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html

SireOfSeth · 21-05-2015 01:54PM

Hero777 wrote: »

Apologies if I am sounding ignorant, with reading the above link and manyother sources am I right in the following distinctions? (take that all thebelow will occur if it is a yes vote)

- increased availability to social supports during hardships?

- Legally recognised relationship with children (confused with this one as Iwould have thought that adoption/surrogacy laws would cover it)

- Classified more as a family unit (regardless of children or not) - Againwhat does that mean in layman’s terms

- Divorce would come into effect as well

For me I am on the fence, trying today to get my facts straight prior tovoting.

For an unbiased view, you would be best to check out the Referendum Commissions website. Lots of your questions are answered in the "Civil Partnerships, including how they differ from marriages" section...
http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/
Also, some additional information is in the "News" page...
http://refcom2015.ie/news/

Kanhir · 21-05-2015 03:58PM

Breaks my heart to be a filthy emigrant who can't vote for my own right to get married.

Silly question: When do the results generally come out for these referendums?
(i.e. will there be enough time to have a big gay celebration/commiseration before Eurovision?)

galljga1 · 21-05-2015 04:02PM

Kanhir wrote: »

Breaks my heart to be a filthy emigrant who can't vote for my own right to get married.

Silly question: When do the results generally come out for these referendums?
(i.e. will there be enough time to have a big gay celebration/commiseration before Eurovision?)

Sometime on Saturday. Eurovision parties will be mental.

AlphaRed · 21-05-2015 05:30PM

galljga1 wrote: »

Sometime on Saturday. Eurovision parties will be mental.

The Eurovision lost all respectability a long time ago

Ave Sodalis · 21-05-2015 05:40PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

The Eurovision lost all respectability a long time ago

I think this is probably the first post of yours I agree with :pac:

PopePalpatine · 21-05-2015 07:07PM

Well, if it pisses off a crowd of Russian Orthodox hatebeards and Putin, it can't be all that bad.

Hotblack Desiato · 21-05-2015 07:15PM

I wonder does Putin have a few lads studying the No campaign, he could pick up a few tips.

ByfocalPhoto · 21-05-2015 07:40PM

Referring back to my perceived yes leaning media bias, I have listened carefully since.

To be honest the YES bias of the presenters is apparent but I have to admit there has been more than enough NO opinion presented to satisfy the rules.

Someone referred to the NO adverts on YouTube. I have now watched some of those. Most of them are so much hot air but one in particular is very powerful.

It is the one about the guy who running a wedding stuff shop. Invitations etc. He catered for marriages and civil unions and one or two of staff happened to be gay. He shared some space with a lady who made statuettes for cake tops. One of them featured a same sex couple and he dared to express reservations about that. She threatened to go public unless he retracted the viewpoint. He naively called her bluff. She went on line and in fairly short order he was bullied/boycotted out of business. He lost his business. He and his family were subject to dogs abuse.

If I were eligible to vote and if I was on the fence that one ad would tip me into the no camp.

That sort of PC Thought Police / economic terrorism must not be validated.

http://www.thejournal.ie/daintree-same-sex-1107532-Sep2013/

Happyman42 · 21-05-2015 08:09PM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

If I were eligible to vote and if I was on the fence that one ad would tip me into the no camp.

Why would it have anything to do with the issue? It's completely separate...we're not voting on whether the woman was a b****x or not.

L1011 · 21-05-2015 08:17PM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

It is the one about the guy who running a wedding stuff shop. Invitations etc. He catered for marriages and civil unions and one or two of staff happened to be gay. He shared some space with a lady who made statuettes for cake tops. One of them featured a same sex couple and he dared to express reservations about that. She threatened to go public unless he retracted the viewpoint. He naively called her bluff. She went on line and in fairly short order he was bullied/boycotted out of business. He lost his business. He and his family were subject to dogs abuse.

If I were eligible to vote and if I was on the fence that one ad would tip me into the no camp.

That sort of PC Thought Police / economic terrorism must not be validated.

http://www.thejournal.ie/daintree-same-sex-1107532-Sep2013/

At the time of starting the process to close the shop he denied to the hilt that it had anything to do with it, oddly enough. Claim was that it was winding down naturally for ages and he wanted to focus on another business.

What happened was that people decided to vote with their wallets - as we're often told should be done in these cases rather than resorting to the courts*. His target audience would not hugely be of people agreeing with that viewpoint, sales dropped. Shop is still open under new owners and appears to be thriving.

Additionally - this happened well before the referendum was ever mentioned. Its a spent topic, being dragged up and dusted off as if it has some relevance now when it doesn't.

If you consider it "economic terrorism" you may want to tell the many people who advocate precisely that - shopping elsewhere if you disagree with the owners ethos. Generally they are people who agree with the owners ethos and want them to continue to be allowed discriminate*

*not applicable in this case as stocking something is rather different, and not protected, to provision of goods and services. He did nothing illegal, but he made his biases public and the public decided not to support him.

Hotblack Desiato · 21-05-2015 09:38PM

Hmmm I wonder was refusing to shop in Dunnes 30 years ago while they continued to stock South African produce and lock out their staff who refused to handle it, 'economic terrorism' too?

The flip side of the 'can refuse to serve X cause I don't like X / my god doesn't like X*' is that 'X people, their friends and families, and people who don't have a problem with X can take their business elsewhere, and if that sinks you, tough titties.'

* Isn't it odd how one's god always agrees with the prejudices one holds?

ByfocalPhoto · 21-05-2015 10:40PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hmmm I wonder was refusing to shop in Dunnes 30 years ago while they continued to stock South African produce and lock out their staff who refused to handle it, 'economic terrorism' too?

I can't vote so it is irrelevant but I was making the point that it was a powerful ad and will knock people off the fence.

There is a big difference between personally deciding not to support a business and orchestrating a campaign against them.
South Africa is another thread, Johannesburg was a showpiece 30 years ago, hint, don't go there now.
If you want to start a thread on that topic I will be happy to chip in.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-05-2015 12:02AM

Escape & Evasion. It's not just for the military.

gravehold · 22-05-2015 07:07AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1vxpvHLPRo

How we really feel about our straight allies, thankfully after today no more cap in hand and fakeness needed we will have the HRC on discrimination to back us up, so no more begging for scraps we an force it through the courts

Fools think it's about equality

L1011 · 22-05-2015 08:07AM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

There is a big difference between personally deciding not to support a business and orchestrating a campaign against them.

There was no campaign 'orchestrated' - telling other people who you suspect have similar opinions to you is not "orchestrating a campaign"

As goes the former owners already revisionist line given on what happened - entire cellar of salt needed in believing any of it.

hmmm · 22-05-2015 08:21AM

I haven't seen the ad that's being discussed, but if you want to take a "moral" position on something that might affect your business, it's not "bullying" if customers who disagree with your viewpoint decide to take their business elsewhere.

seamus · 22-05-2015 08:42AM

Very hard to get a handle on how this one will go. Online, both on forums and social media it's overwhelmingly a "Yes". In journalism/enterntainment there is not a single respectable celebrity or member of the media pushing for a "No" vote.

Within the people I know, I have heard of just two people voting no, everyone else voting yes - and proper yesses too, not nodding dogs.

But then other people talk about how almost everyone they know is voting "No". So I'm obviously very wary that I could be surrounded by an environment that reflects me, and not one reflecting wider society.

I expect some pretty big gulfs in patterns. Urban/suburban Ireland will go overwhelmingly Yes - 70% or more in favour, rural areas may come much closer. As I've said before, Donegal is the one to watch. If any part of Donegal doesn't return a "No", then a win is guaranteed.

I know some people were claiming this would be a low turnout referendum, but I think the exact opposite, this one could perhaps touch 70%. People I know who never vote, turned up at the polling centre at 7am today. There's a passion in this referendum that I've never seen before. Unfortunately a high turnout likely means the presidential amendment will be squashed, but I think that's by far the lesser of two evils.

ForstalDave · 22-05-2015 08:51AM

Most people are friends with people who think like them hence the everyone i know voting yes/no. I honestly believe a yes will pass but it depends on turn out

Loafing Oaf · 22-05-2015 11:50AM

seamus wrote: »

Very hard to get a handle on how this one will go.

Well it's 1/33 Yes with Paddy Power...

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

Comments