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

Vivisectus · 22-05-2015 03:46PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Its as funny as those preaching equality before going and discriminating!

So criticizing discrimination IS discrimination, just like calling a bigot a bigot is bigotry and oppression.

Amazing.

Knasher · 22-05-2015 03:46PM

murphm45 wrote: »

There you go. I stand corrected so. My humble apologies. Hmmm I wonder why though, clearly not reading is required. Damn, this is complicated!!

It is because it is he job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution, and when the High Court made a decision that marriage was defined as being between a man and woman, the Supreme Court declined to contest it. Which lends it constitutional weight.

Zubeneschamali · 22-05-2015 03:46PM

murphm45 wrote: »

There you go. I stand corrected so. My humble apologies. Hmmm I wonder why though, clearly not reading is required.

To be more specific, there are court cases, precedents, in which marriage was defined as between a man and a woman, and an expectation that the Supreme Court would rule based on those precedents if SSM was introduced without an amendment.

murphm45 · 22-05-2015 03:47PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Referendum Commission and the Law Society disagree with you, but what do they know.

Not to be a smart @rse but where would I find said commentary (i do want to make an informed decision but I'm not really sure what I'm looking for)?

Anita Blow · 22-05-2015 03:47PM

murphm45 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity have people actually read the constitution (or the specific boy that relates to this issue)? If you have you'll see there's no definition of marriage there. This equality people are talking about could be very easily arrived legislatively. The only reason I say this is because based on some of the comments I've read and seen I suspect many people don't fully understand (that may not be the best word) the change and are jumping to one side or the other for the wrong reason (e.g. Coming home to voter yes just so they show how liberal Ireland is, or no because God says so)

Still not sure how I'll vote yet but just wanted to throw my 2c worth onto the thread.

Has already been covered dude!

The Supreme Court ruled that although the constitution makes no reference to gender, it can be inferred that a heterosexual union was implied because there was no concept of homosexual marriage at the time it was written. They advised the government that a referendum is required because any attempt to legislate for it without constitutional protection would be liable to challenge and likely be struck down as a result

An Ciarraioch · 22-05-2015 03:48PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Exit polls after 10pm. Final result by about lunchtime tomorrow, depending on how close it is.

Don't think there are any exit polls tonight - by 11 a.m./noon, should be clear which way each constituency is leaning.

PopePalpatine · 22-05-2015 03:48PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Exit polls after 10pm. Final result by about lunchtime tomorrow, depending on how close it is.

Does the counting of votes begin as soon as the ballot boxes arrive at the count centres?

Zubeneschamali · 22-05-2015 03:49PM

murphm45 wrote: »

Not to be a smart @rse but where would I find said commentary (i do want to make an informed decision but I'm not really sure what I'm looking for)?

The Referendum Commission website, under Court decisions on the constitutional status of marriage:

Definition of marriage

The generally accepted common law definition of marriage is the voluntary union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. This definition has been adopted by the Irish courts on a number of occasions, for example, Zappone & Anor -v- Revenue Commissioners & Ors:
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/597645521f07ac9a80256ef30048ca52/a4fe4e30eef23925802572790040d30c?OpenDocument
It has since been reflected in legislation.

galljga1 · 22-05-2015 03:50PM

murphm45 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity have people actually read the constitution (or the specific boy that relates to this issue)? If you have you'll see there's no definition of marriage there. This equality people are talking about could be very easily arrived legislatively. The only reason I say this is because based on some of the comments I've read and seen I suspect many people don't fully understand (that may not be the best word) the change and are jumping to one side or the other for the wrong reason (e.g. Coming home to voter yes just so they show how liberal Ireland is, or no because God says so)

Still not sure how I'll vote yet but just wanted to throw my 2c worth onto the thread.

It could have been done legislatively but would require considerable change to a number of acts. It is simpler to insert the statement in the constitution. It also protects against some future more conservative govt repealing the legislation. And I agree, a lot of people do not understand what they are voting for. Spurious arguments have been introduced: adoption, surrogacy, mother and father, morals, values etc. The vote is simply to allow same sex couples to marry or not, as the case may be.

traprunner · 22-05-2015 03:50PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Does the counting of votes begin as soon as the ballot boxes arrive at the count centres?

Nope. They stay under guard.

gladrags · 22-05-2015 03:51PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Does the counting of votes begin as soon as the ballot boxes arrive at the count centres?

As far as I am aware,it usually begins the next day for referendums.

crybaby · 22-05-2015 03:53PM

I love the way someone used the words "equality crusader" as an insult as if equality for all is some sort of horrible thing to aim for in a society.

murphm45 · 22-05-2015 03:56PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Referendum Commission website, under Court decisions on the constitutional status of marriage:

Definition of marriage

The generally accepted common law definition of marriage is the voluntary union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. This definition has been adopted by the Irish courts on a number of occasions, for example, Zappone & Anor -v- Revenue Commissioners & Ors:
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/597645521f07ac9a80256ef30048ca52/a4fe4e30eef23925802572790040d30c?OpenDocument
It has since been reflected in legislation.

Thanks, I know here is well know for sarcasm but I do appreciate it, and out wasn't my attempt to mislead anyone so sorry if I did.

Oh and just to clarify a mistake on an earlier post. I wrote "not reading" when I meant "more reading", perils of posting from my phone (I don't want to use the edit ability because the post was quoted a few times)

Vivisectus · 22-05-2015 03:57PM

crybaby wrote: »

I love the way someone used the words "equality crusader" as an insult as if equality for all is some sort of horrible thing to aim for in a society.

Shhhhhh! Don't give the game away. I don't think they realize they are actually admitting they are on the wrong side, but that it just pisses them poff to be reminded of it.

SireOfSeth · 22-05-2015 03:58PM

murphm45 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity have people actually read the constitution (or the specific boy that relates to this issue)? If you have you'll see there's no definition of marriage there. This equality people are talking about could be very easily arrived legislatively. The only reason I say this is because based on some of the comments I've read and seen I suspect many people don't fully understand (that may not be the best word) the change and are jumping to one side or the other for the wrong reason (e.g. Coming home to voter yes just so they show how liberal Ireland is, or no because God says so)

Still not sure how I'll vote yet but just wanted to throw my 2c worth onto the thread.

The definition of the family (man + woman w/ or w/o kids) is in legislation, not marriage. However, Article 41, 3.1 states...
"The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack."

And while it "could be very easily arrived legislatively", it could also be very easily removed too! Best to have it in the constitution. Vote YES.

CaveCanem · 22-05-2015 03:58PM

crybaby wrote: »

I love the way someone used the words "equality crusader" as an insult as if equality for all is some sort of horrible thing to aim for in a society.

It's more to do with the incredibly egotistical phenomenon of slacktavism:

" Slacktivism can be defined as the act of showing support for a cause but only truly being beneficial to the egos of people participating in this so-called activism. The acts tend to require minimal personal effort from the slacktivist. The underlying assumption being promoted by the term is that these low-cost efforts substitute for more substantive actions rather than supplementing them, although this assumption has not been borne out by research."

From Wikipedia (I can't post links).

murphm45 · 22-05-2015 04:00PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Has already been covered dude!

The Supreme Court ruled that although the constitution makes no reference to gender, it can be inferred that a heterosexual union was implied because there was no concept of homosexual marriage at the time it was written. They advised the government that a referendum is required because any attempt to legislate for it without constitutional protection would be liable to challenge and likely be struck down as a result

One of the perils of not reading all the posts I suppose. Anyway thanks (that goes for everyone who responded too).

I really hope whatever the outcome people fully understand what they're voting for (which clearly I still don't).

Anita Blow · 22-05-2015 04:01PM

I'd agree if people were just liking things on facebook and then that's the extent of their participation, but it isn't the case really in this referendum. People are going out to vote (which definitely requires more than "minimal personal effort") and then posting about it when they get home, because it's been hammered home to all of us to make sure we encourage everyone else to vote.

Sort of a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't situation. Anyone taking part in the democratic process should be encouraged not berated.

Anita Blow · 22-05-2015 04:02PM

murphm45 wrote: »

One of the perils of not reading all the posts I suppose. Anyway thanks (that goes for everyone who responded too).

I really hope whatever the outcome people fully understand what they're voting for (which clearly I still don't).

Haha don't be silly man it's grand. Refcom website is your best bet for info if you need any ahead of voting (if you intend to)

SireOfSeth · 22-05-2015 04:04PM

murphm45 wrote: »

One of the perils of not reading all the posts I suppose. Anyway thanks (that goes for everyone who responded too).

I really hope whatever the outcome people fully understand what they're voting for (which clearly I still don't).

Anita Blow wrote: »

Haha don't be silly man it's grand. Refcom website is your best bet for info if you need any ahead of voting (if you intend to)

The news section of Ref Com website is good too, has some extra info on it...
http://refcom2015.ie/news/

wakka12 · 22-05-2015 04:10PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Its as funny as those preaching equality before going and discriminating!

Either you're trolling or just ignorant, for your sake I hope its the former.

denhaagenite · 22-05-2015 04:10PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

I'd agree if people were just liking things on facebook and then that's the extent of their participation, but it isn't the case really in this referendum. People are going out to vote (which definitely requires more than "minimal personal effort") and then posting about it when they get home, because it's been hammered home to all of us to make sure we encourage everyone else to vote.

Sort of a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't situation. Anyone taking part in the democratic process should be encouraged not berated.

Ah look, they're hardly chaining themselves to railings. They're just doing their civic duty, which is really a responsibility of all citizens.

traprunner · 22-05-2015 04:12PM

murphm45 wrote: »

One of the perils of not reading all the posts I suppose. Anyway thanks (that goes for everyone who responded too).

I really hope whatever the outcome people fully understand what they're voting for (which clearly I still don't).

The Referendum Commissioners are neutral on the issue so for an unbiased view theirs is the one to take.

www.refcom2015.ie

Spanish Eyes · 22-05-2015 04:13PM

When the result shows a Yes result about teatime tomorrow there will be one hell of a party around the country. And the Eurovision Song Contest is on aswell!

The date for the referendum was obviously chosen very carefully there!

Should be great craic altogether.

Anita Blow · 22-05-2015 04:14PM

denhaagenite wrote: »

Ah look, they're hardly chaining themselves to railings. They're just doing their civic duty, which is really a responsibility of all citizens.

Completely agree, but in a country where our last referendum registered a turnout of 33% and incredibly low participation from young people, anything which encourages participation in the democratic process should be encouraged.

CaveCanem · 22-05-2015 04:15PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

I'd agree if people were just liking things on facebook and then that's the extent of their participation, but it isn't the case really in this referendum. People are going out to vote (which definitely requires more than "minimal personal effort") and then posting about it when they get home, because it's been hammered home to all of us to make sure we encourage everyone else to vote.

Sort of a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't situation. Anyone taking part in the democratic process should be encouraged not berated.

Still though, going out to vote is pretty much the minimum standard for participating in a democracy, its not a heroic act just a standard duty.

IMO, I would exclude people who took the time to go out and canvass for what they believe in of course.

Zubeneschamali · 22-05-2015 04:20PM

CaveCanem wrote: »

Still though, going out to vote is pretty much the minimum standard for participating in a democracy, its not a heroic act just a standard duty.

Well, yes, but people regularly post a picture of a Cappuccino they bought, or a pigeon they saw in the street.

Voting really is a bit more heroic than that.

MagicIRL · 22-05-2015 04:21PM

People will literally moan about anything.

Lighten the **** up the lot of ye. It's Facebook. Be happy people are generating interest in such an important referendum.

mylefttesticle · 22-05-2015 04:22PM

I went in and got my ballot slips and walked the short walk to where you make an X. I probably took four times longer to tick that X than anyone else there and it was not that my decision had to be weighed up again as my decision was never in doubt. But I did want to think about what this meant and not just to me as a heterosexual father of one.
But to those now and long gone, those older people who went through so much misery and despair having to hide who they were and essentially having to hide their love and their feelings. I am not an emotional man in general but today I was as I thought about the massive difference this would make to people and not just Gay people but to a broader range of people who hopefully after today can live in a society that does not chastise them but accepts and affords them the same rights as the rest of us have and values us all equally.

I thought about the sons and daughters disowned for no better reason than that they felt attracted to the ‘’wrong’’ gender and I thought about the weak parents who disowned them and how they must have suffered hugely too and all because society deemed something wrong and they lacked the strength, love and conviction to see past it.

I thought about the huge loss through suicide that has been inflicted on so many people who felt ostracized from society who felt unaccepted and found solace and peace only in death and how spiteful that is and how much of a loss that is to us, have we missed out on someone who could have made a huge difference to the world? Probably, how sad.

I thought about the future and how exciting It could be if equality prevails and how it opens us up as a society to be better, to be freer and to be more creative in our thinking and more collective in our society were nothing is hidden but openly discussed and debated.
I thought about my son, the person I adore and love more than anything and I cried because hopefully he won’t have to see all the ugliness that this referendum has brought, the lies, the spite, the fear mongering, the institutions sprouting disturbing imagery and the intolerance to tolerance and acceptance. Hopefully when he sees two parents regardless of genders involved it won’t pose any questions to him because this will be seen as ‘’Normal’’.

I left that hall a bit freer and bit more open.

Tasden · 22-05-2015 04:24PM

CaveCanem wrote: »

Still though, going out to vote is pretty much the minimum standard for participating in a democracy, its not a heroic act just a standard duty.

IMO, I would exclude people who took the time to go out and canvass for what they believe in of course.

And yet there are plenty who don't do it.

People aren't claiming to be out changing the world, they are just proud to have had a part to play, no matter how small, in something so important. I don't see why that's a bad thing.

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

Comments