The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[bring sam home to mayo]

I don't think people in the public eye should mention which way they would vote, but that is my personal opinion and I can say that because I don't have a vote in this or any referendum or election!! I would go with what I think is right in my heart regardless of outside influences. If anyone wants to question my feelings and beliefs, I'm a heterosexual male, Catholic have three children never been married because I believe that when I make that promise I not only make it to the person stood next to me but to God as well so why can't everyone have that chance to be happy. We all deserve love both to give and receive!!!!

[foxcommander]

Government must be delighted that this sideshow is diverting attention away from the real issues and their mismanagement of the country.

No better way to distract than pit 2 sides against each other.

[whitey]

Any opinion polls recently or due? Would have thought YES would have been 80-20 at least a few weeks ago but can see it being a little bit more twitchy as it gets closer....silent NO vote might be larger than anticipated.

I know some people are getting fed up with having the viewpoint of the Yes campaign rammed down their throats at every turn (no pun intended). 

Anyone who dare express a dissenting viewpoint is shouted down or ridiculed.

There are lots of older people who are silently planning to vote no and are saying nothing publicly, but they're all speaking privately with like minded folks.

Anyone who thinks this is a foregone conclusion is only codding themselves. Referenda typically have had very low turnout and no one can take this for granted

When were you last in Ireland?

August 2014

And when did you speak to the above people?

There are such things as telephones and I heard just this past weekend (from 3 separate individuals) that there is much more support for the No vote than meets the eye. 


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/silent-no-fears-of-shock-defeat-in-marriage-referendum-grow-31211350.html

[armaghniac]

The point is of course that these legalities could easily be added to civil partnerships if they is case for them or civil partnership itself could be added to the constitution. But this is not so much about getting things for homosexuals as taking things from everyone else.

For the billionth time, exactly how is marriage equality "taking things from everyone else?"

My point was that the campaigners preferred to interfere with an existing institution, one that they didn't want to avail of, rather than simply make a case for further legal changes in civil partnership. It isn't rocket science.

Can I appeal to you to do some reading up on the topic and open your mind. The world will not cave in if gay people are allowed to marry. Children will not be impacted. Society can only improve as a whole from this.

The world will not "cave in", but damage does not have to catastrophic to be real. What could I read, there is no place in the world where this has gone on for more than decade, how can that period of time show anything useful?  How can children fail to be impacted by a redefinition of marriage, this "no impact" is one of big lies of this campaign? Even on the most optimistic scenario society is unlikely to improve much from this, but the scope for damage is much greater.

[Eamonnca1]

The point is of course that these legalities could easily be added to civil partnerships if they is case for them or civil partnership itself could be added to the constitution. But this is not so much about getting things for homosexuals as taking things from everyone else.

For the billionth time, exactly how is marriage equality "taking things from everyone else?"

My point was that the campaigners preferred to interfere with an existing institution, one that they didn't want to avail of, rather than simply make a case for further legal changes in civil partnership. It isn't rocket science.

"Interfere?" How does a gay wedding "interfere" with anyone else's marriage?

[easytiger95]

The point is of course that these legalities could easily be added to civil partnerships if they is case for them or civil partnership itself could be added to the constitution. But this is not so much about getting things for homosexuals as taking things from everyone else.

For the billionth time, exactly how is marriage equality "taking things from everyone else?"

My point was that the campaigners preferred to interfere with an existing institution, one that they didn't want to avail of, rather than simply make a case for further legal changes in civil partnership. It isn't rocket science.

Can I appeal to you to do some reading up on the topic and open your mind. The world will not cave in if gay people are allowed to marry. Children will not be impacted. Society can only improve as a whole from this.

The world will not "cave in", but damage does not have to catastrophic to be real. What could I read, there is no place in the world where this has gone on for more than decade, how can that period of time show anything useful?  How can children fail to be impacted by a redefinition of marriage, this "no impact" is one of big lies of this campaign? Even on the most optimistic scenario society is unlikely to improve much from this, but the scope for damage is much greater.

I really have no idea what the words in bold mean, not that the rest of it actually makes sense. Your scare scenario would be more convincing if you could actually give one concrete example, just one, of how children will be "impacted". Yet months on and 89 pages in, still none. It's like debating with Helen Lovejoy - "won't someone think of the children!!"

[easytiger95]

The world will not "cave in", but damage does not have to catastrophic to be real. What could I read, there is no place in the world where this has gone on for more than decade, how can that period of time show anything useful?  How can children fail to be impacted by a redefinition of marriage, this "no impact" is one of big lies of this campaign? Even on the most optimistic scenario society is unlikely to improve much from this, but the scope for damage is much greater.

No campaigners, how can you be expected to be taken seriously if this is an example of your reasoned debate. Sentence by sentence this is as dumb a paragraph as has been written on this board. I'm really not trying to get at Armagniac here, but just parse it. It has no logic, whatsoever. Let me translate.

"Ok, the effects may not be visible, but that doesn't mean they are not there. Everyone knows there is no empirical evidence to make any judgment on, so I will assume when that evidence is gathered it will show that there will be a harmful impact on children, though I can't say what that will be. The Yes campaign are using a big lie by saying there will be no impact, as no one knows what the impact will be, except me, and i know it will be bad, though I can't say whether it will be much of an improvement from the current situation, though it probably will be worse."

Good Jaysis.

[macdanger2]

Just looking at this from perspective of practicing Christians who make up a significant percentage of the population
- a proportion of these, including clergy and members of religious orders have no problem voting YES to same-sex marriage
- a proportion will vote NO as they do have genuine problems of conscience.

There is no "right" way to vote on this issue - each person should vote according to their conscience and we all obviously have a duty to be as fully informed as possible and not let any personal prejudice affect our decision.

One of the reasons that many practicing Christians will vote NO is as follows :
Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church, sodomy as practiced by many same-sex partners is a sin in the eyes of the Church so some Christians will see marriage being tainted by opening it up to same-sex couples.
People holding this viewpoint will be castigated as homophobic but this does not necessarily follow. Whether you want to take my word or not I can assure you that I neither judge nor condemn any person because they are gay.

I appreciate this viewpoint will be lambasted by some, derided by others and I will be amused by the reaction of some trolls on here.

Of course a large segment of the population are not practicing Christians and I am not for a minute denying the validity of their input to this debate.

I recognise and agree with many of the strong arguments for a YES vote but we all have our beliefs, ideals and values and in my case I'm on the NO side. Equality is a word that is bandied about a lot - let's have tolerance too.

I see what you mean TBW and it's a fair point of view if you consider this question to be one of conscience.

If however, you consider it to be a question of equality, then you can see where the intolerance stems from.

For me, it's the latter - I don't consider it to be a question of conscience because it's simply extending a state (not religious) ceremony to same-sex couples. It neither extends nor changes any rights in relation to children whatsoever. If the issue was something like abortion or surrogacy, I could definitely see how it would be a matter of conscience but this is simply a matter of right and wrong IMO.

The proposed changes is to that

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

In a hypothetical world (or within the last century in some countries), if the wording were

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

- would this be a matter of conscience? For some, no doubt it might be but from my point of view, it certainly wouldn't.

Armaghniac raised the point about why Civil Partnerships couldn't be extended to include the same rights as marriage (couldn't find a link to exactly what the 21 specific changes are AZ) and while this would technically make it the same as marriage, we would still be creating a distinct division between homosexual and heterosexual couples which obviously carries with it the implication that they're not equal. For me, they should be 100% equal.

[AZOffaly]

It's a bit of a bizarre referendum to be honest. I think the Yes side are doing a very poor job in articulating what we are voting *FOR*. 'Vote YES for Equality' is a very pat slogan, and of course it makes you naturally inclined towards yes. Who could possibly vote against equality. But what exactly is inequitable?

Apparently there are 21 differences between civil partnership and marriage, but I can't understand why those differences are not in our face 24/7.

I must admit that at the start of this campaign, I was under the impression that gay couples could not adopt a child as a 'couple' and therefore there were legal issues in the event of death or abandonment. That in itself would have made me vote Yes.

But now that that loophole, and a lot of others related to inheritance, legal standing, tax entitlements etc have been resolved, I find myself wondering what exactly is the difference between my marriage, and the civil partnership of the lesbian couple in our estate. If it's simply semantics, then I'm not sure that's reason to change the constitution. If there are tangible, real areas of difference, and apparently there are these 21, then tell us what they are, so that nobody can have any doubts.

The NO campaign have deliberately fought a campaign based on misinformation about the child. As it stands today a Child can be legally adopted by a gay couple, and that couple have the same rights and role as a hetero couple in the child's life. In the event of separation or death, the child will be treated just the same as any other child in similar circumstances in Ireland. Therefore all this 'He needs a Mom and a Dad' is as irrelevant as it is emotive.

But surely the Yes side can come out and say

'This has nothing to do with the Child of a gay partnership, as this legislation is already passed and there. However it is about
1. Gay partners do not have the right to ......
2. Married couples can do this ......


etc etc. I don't understand why it is not everywhere.

[AZOffaly]

OK, so that's one difference. What are the other 20?

I'm not sure why this has to be so difficult. And I have done a bit of searching, but the best I can find is vague references to differences in the definition of family versus partnership. What does that mean tangibly, or is it a matter of semantics?

[AZOffaly]

Thanks for that ML. This is useful, assuming it's still in date.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/separation_and_divorce/family_home.html

[rosnarun]

SO the argument seems to be . we have already introduced the bits that you really would have ocjected to and are leaving you to vote  on an administrsative issue in which you will be protrayed a a hateful fundementalist religious mental facist if you vote NO.
this is basixly the same logic they have made for every euroean referendum since Maastrict, ie all the big issues have been solved and this is just to make you feel included in the process and people bought this for years.

This is one referendum where a No Vote is a waste of time as even if defeated it will be brought back again  and again untill people get it right,
its making us look bad infront of the neighbours

[AZOffaly]

So far we seem to have 2 differences.

1 - A civil partnership has the same rights of adoption as a married couple, but they have to wait 3 years.
2 - The home is only the family home if married, otherwise a shared home. All same rights EXCEPT a child doesn't have the RIGHT to stay in a shared home until they are 18. In a family home, all children have the right to stay there in the event of a separation until the youngest is 18 or 23.

Any others? And are those above still correct?

[armaghniac]

The world will not "cave in", but damage does not have to catastrophic to be real. What could I read, there is no place in the world where this has gone on for more than decade, how can that period of time show anything useful?  How can children fail to be impacted by a redefinition of marriage, this "no impact" is one of big lies of this campaign? Even on the most optimistic scenario society is unlikely to improve much from this, but the scope for damage is much greater.

No campaigners, how can you be expected to be taken seriously if this is an example of your reasoned debate. Sentence by sentence this is as dumb a paragraph as has been written on this board. I'm really not trying to get at Armagniac here, but just parse it. It has no logic, whatsoever. Let me translate.

"Ok, the effects may not be visible, but that doesn't mean they are not there. Everyone knows there is no empirical evidence to make any judgment on, so I will assume when that evidence is gathered it will show that there will be a harmful impact on children, though I can't say what that will be. The Yes campaign are using a big lie by saying there will be no impact, as no one knows what the impact will be, except me, and i know it will be bad, though I can't say whether it will be much of an improvement from the current situation, though it probably will be worse."

Good Jaysis.

My sentence, written close to bed time, was not the clearest I have ever written but it is a bit harsh to claim that it was a "as dumb a paragraph as has been written on this board".

But the rewording is clearer and in this the logic is also clearer, even if you choose to ignore it.

This is a change in the constitution, the fundamental legal basis of the State. The constitution should not changed trivially but only after a thorough investigation of all of the issues. So if you believe there is no evidence then you cannot proceed.

This is proposing a change in a legal concept of marriage, which underpins a great deal of other law. I do think it is a lie to say that a change of this magnitude causes no impact. There was an excellent post from Wobbler in the Brolly thread about the interlocking nature of rule changes in Gaelic football and the legal structure of family is an even more complex matter, yet anyone who suggests this is characterised as distracting the issue. One could say (to borrow Wobbler's phrase) that there is a galling, myopic and even dangerous failure among people who have ideas to "improve" the constitution, to recognise that every change brings unexpected outcomes. But there is probably a more mature discussion about Brolly's proposals than the general tone of the public debate on this referendum.

I've put forward a coherent and logical proposition that society supports marriage, and has so many laws etc relating to it, because it is in society's interest to bring men and women together in stable relationships to nurture (thanks Hardy) children. Passing this referendum on the basis that marriage has nothing to do with children greatly damages this and greatly damages marriage itself, as it then becomes about adults and the State has no real business having a lot of rules and regulations about adult relationships.

Of course the mother and father poster is simplistic, but the tone of the debate was set by misleading simplicities from the Yes campaign. The issue of adoption is not the simple one, but whether any setting of adoption priorities to favour children being placed with different sex couples will be possible in the future. There are complex issues down the line about surrogacy and the like. But to my mind the damage done here is that State will feel that it cannot promote marriage of men and women and consequently future generations of children will have a reduced probability of being brought up in situation where their live with their parents. The likelihood is that there will be more children brought in less optimal situations and that there will be less children generally.

Thanks for that ML. This is useful, assuming it's still in date.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/separation_and_divorce/family_home.html

This is fine as far as it goes. But if two adults live in a house they should be allowed make any arrangement they want about it, this is not a reason to change the constitution.

[AZOffaly]

Not sure what you're saying there armaghniac? I think what I'm saying is that they already have the same rights, by and large, apart from the right of the children of the partnership to stay in the house until the youngest reached 18.

All I'm trying to do is document in one list the actual discrepancies between civil partnerships and marriage. At least in that way we'll know what we are actually voting for or against.

Your reasons for voting either way might not change, but at least if we have an accurate list, it might crystalise the issue for some people.