The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[Maguire01]

Guys this is a complete red herring, and I apologise for my part in steering the trawler this way. To use another nautical metaphor this ship has already sailed....

From the Irish Times Q and A on the referendum -

If I vote Yes, am I voting to allow same-sex couples adopt children?
Up until recently, only a married couple or a single person (regardless of sexuality) could adopt a child. Some children in Ireland have been and are being raised by same-sex couples, though in such cases only one of the two individuals, in the eyes of the law, was the child's parent. In recent weeks, however, the Oireachtas passed the Children and Family Relationships Bill. This major reform of family law allows civil partners and cohabiting couples who have lived together for three years to adopt. That will remain the case irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.


Same sex couple are already allowed to adopt by law. The only difference the referendum will make is that they will be married if and when they do so. Anyone continuing to argue this line either a. genuinely has a problem with a child being reared by gays but is ignorant of the referendum's wording and purpose or b. is fighting the last battle in a cynical attempt to win the next one. Hello emotive posters when they damn well know Aughrim is already lost on that score.

Yep, i've made this point already. Those on the No side using the argument about children are either ignorant or disingenuous. If i'm not mistaken, the Children & Families Bill was passed ahead of the referendum precisely so that the two issues would not be confused. It hasn't worked (and it suits some people that it hasn't).

The marriage referendum is about marriage and nothing more.

[heganboy]

So would you prefer to have been raised by two mammies only or two daddies only?

really Tony? this is where you're at?

Can I ask what relevance this has to the thread? Would you rather have been raised by Tyrone Protestant Rangers and Arsenal fans? And as for asking this

How are children brought up in an abnormal situation going to grow up to be normal,which is the basic right of every child?

would you saying being brought up in the "Troubles" was normal? was that an affront to your basic human rights?

What child ever has a say in where they are "placed" ? were you consulted in the womb?
how did that go?
"So unnamed fetus who may or may not survive to term- you're heading for a white catholic mother and father and other kids in Portadown in a time of civil unrest- are you ok with that? Any special requests?"

[J70]

Guys this is a complete red herring, and I apologise for my part in steering the trawler this way. To use another nautical metaphor this ship has already sailed....

From the Irish Times Q and A on the referendum -

If I vote Yes, am I voting to allow same-sex couples adopt children?
Up until recently, only a married couple or a single person (regardless of sexuality) could adopt a child. Some children in Ireland have been and are being raised by same-sex couples, though in such cases only one of the two individuals, in the eyes of the law, was the child's parent. In recent weeks, however, the Oireachtas passed the Children and Family Relationships Bill. This major reform of family law allows civil partners and cohabiting couples who have lived together for three years to adopt. That will remain the case irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.


Same sex couple are already allowed to adopt by law. The only difference the referendum will make is that they will be married if and when they do so. Anyone continuing to argue this line either a. genuinely has a problem with a child being reared by gays but is ignorant of the referendum's wording and purpose or b. is fighting the last battle in a cynical attempt to win the next one. Hello emotive posters when they damn well know Aughrim is already lost on that score.

I did not know that legislation had been passed. Thanks.  And you're right.

[muppet]

But the children placed in gay relationships for their upbringing have no say in where they're placed.That is unfair and a potential source of resentment in later life.

How are children brought up in an abnormal situation going to grow up to be normal,which is the basic right of every child?

This is similar with children of rapists, pedophiles and serial kilers, to name a few. But our prejudices don't prevent them from having children. Indeed, even if they are serving a sentence we allow conjugal visits.

We don't choose our parents, and we have no right to.

This is a ridiculously spurious argument, as usual.

[T Fearon]

So would you prefer to be reared by two mummies or two daddies?

[muppet]

So would you prefer to be reared by two mummies or two daddies?

No problem with either.

You have no problem with serial killers and rapists having children?

[AZOffaly]

I didn't know that either. Thanks guys. So what rights are still lacking for gay couples that allowing them to marry will rectify? The website I used earlier on in the referendum debate, posted here earlier on, was obviously out of date with regard to that law.

[LCohen]

tony describes describes a child being raised by a same sex couple as a bizzare proposition. Yet when asked for evidence that it cannot work he falls silent. I never thought there was any link between faith and decency but i understood that spiritualists would make that claim. Tony's willingness to deal in ignorance and hatred and not to have the decency to address the argument and come up with some evidence (or to admit that his arguments are baseless in fact) shows that spiritualists have given up on even the appearance of decency.

Tony has no evidence that a same sex couples cannot raise a child successfully.

The basic tenet of decency that would stop a reasonable person spreading a message of hatred when the know they have no evidence to support same is missing in Tony (and his conditioning).

The fact that Tony resorts to silly games like what would a child call their parents - Daddy 1 and Daddy 2? serves only to illustrate the entire absence of any substance to his stance.

His bullying references are the ramblings of a diseased and somewhat limited mind. Basic intelligence wouldbe enough to conclude that if child A bullying child B gives rise to the parenting of a child being questioned that the focus must fall on child A, not child B. If Tony is in possession of basic intelligence it has become addled by, inter alia some religious fog.

Tony seems to fail to understand that adopted children might resent the parents they ended up for any number of reasons. I would feel that if I had been landed with a shortish straw if I had been adopted by 2 spiritualists. If Tony agrees with his own argument then he would take that as evidence enough to stop people of faith being legally allowed to adopt.

Tony repeats time and time again that homosexuality is not normal. Where does it come from then?

Tony has failed to make a single valid point in this entire debate (and all related debates). I only humour him because it would be a great tragedy if even one person were you read his repugnant ramblings and antediluvian moralising and not see it for the f#ckwittery that it is.

[easytiger95]

Here's the entire article AZ - I found it quite helpful - there are 21 legal differences civil partnership and marriage, some of them fairly fundamental.

What are we voting on?

On Friday, May 22nd, voters will be asked whether the Constitution should be changed so as to extend civil marriage rights to same-sex couples. The proposed amendment to Article 41 is the insertion of the line: "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex." The Irish version, which takes precedence, reads: "Féadfaidh beirt, gan beann ar a ngnéas, conradh pósta a dhéanamh de réir dlí." If the proposal is passed, a marriage between two people of the same sex will have the same status under the Constitution as a marriage between a man and a woman. Married couples of the opposite sex or the same sex would be recognised as a family and be entitled to the Constitutional protection for families.

Why are we voting on this now?

Before the 2011 election, the Labour Party said it favoured a referendum on same-sex marriage. Fine Gael was non committal. When the two parties formed a coalition, their compromise was to send the issue to the Constitutional Convention, a deliberative forum compromising 33 politicians and 66 members of the public. The convention's overwhelming support for the idea (79 per cent were in favour) gave momentum to advocates, who were pushing for a referendum. In November 2013, the cabinet formally agreed to put the question to the people and Taoiseach Enda Kenny made his first public declaration of support for the campaign.

Where do the political parties stand?

Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin are all calling for a Yes vote. Beyond Leinster House, the key force on the side of reform is Yes Equality, an umbrella group incorporating the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, Marriage Equality and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. It plans to co-ordinate with LGBT Noise, a grassroots organisation that specialises in street demonstrations. The Yes side also has the support of the trade union movement.

So who is against the proposal?

The most prominent opponents to date have been the Iona Institute, a religious think-tank, and Independent Senator Rónán Mullen. The organisational focal point for the No side is expected to be Mothers and Fathers Matter, a group set up to challenge parts of the Children and Family Relationships Bill, which was recently passed by the Oireachtas. By far the most influential voice on the No side, however, will be the Catholic Church. A bishops' pastoral letter, The Meaning of Marriage, has been circulated to 1,360 parishes nationwide, and the church's ability to reach and mobilise people will be vital to the No side's chances. A lot depends on how actively the hierarchy decides to make its case.

If we vote Yes, will there be legal consequences for religious marriage ceremonies?

No. The proposal is to extend civil marriage rights. Any church retains its right to marry whoever it wishes. The Marriage Bill 2015, which will be enacted in the event that the referendum is passed, explicitly states that priests or any other solemnisers will not be obliged to perform same-sex marriages. However, the Catholic hierarchy has recently suggested that if the referendum is passed, the church could itself opt no longer to perform the civil aspects of weddings. At present, the signing of the Marriage Registration Form, a document required by the State in order to recognise a marriage, is normally done after a wedding Mass. If the church decides not to allow this in future, on the basis that the State's view of marriage differs so fundamentally from its own, couples would have to go elsewhere to have their union legally recognised by the State.

We already have civil partnerships. What's different about civil marriage?

Civil partnership was introduced in Ireland in 2010 to give same-sex couples similar legal protection to married couples. More than 1,000 same-sex couples have availed of it. They enjoy extensive rights that are similar or identical to those of married couples in areas such as property, tax, social welfare, maintenance, immigration and pensions.
Some of the differences between partnership and marriage have been eliminated by the Children and Family Relationships Bill, notably those relating to adoption and guardianship. But Dr Fergus Ryan, lecturer in law at NUI Maynooth, identifies 21 differences that remain. For example, civil partners do not enjoy the protection the Constitution gives to the family. Nor are they entitled to a judicial separation and it's not clear whether next of kin rules apply to civil partners. The most obvious difference is the name. Same-sex couples who formalise their union must go through a different process to opposite-sex couples; the State is saying that it regards them differently. Supporters of the referendum proposal say this is a chance to show generosity of spirit and secure equality for same-sex couples. Opponents say there's nothing wrong with treating two types of union differently.

Will civil partnership still exist if the referendum is passed?

There will be no new civil partnerships after the Marriage Act comes into effect. Existing civil partners will retain that status and the rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities associated with it unless they choose to marry. Whether they marry is up to them. If they do, their civil partnership will be dissolved.

Are we voting to change the definition of marriage?

The Constitution does not define marriage. Nor does it specify who is entitled to marry and who is not. So a Yes vote would not change the Constitutional status of marriage. In the absence of a constitutional definition, the Referendum Commission explains, 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.

If I vote Yes, am I voting to allow same-sex couples adopt children?

Up until recently, only a married couple or a single person (regardless of sexuality) could adopt a child. Some children in Ireland have been and are being raised by same-sex couples, though in such cases only one of the two individuals, in the eyes of the law, was the child's parent. In recent weeks, however, the Oireachtas passed the Children and Family Relationships Bill. This major reform of family law allows civil partners and cohabiting couples who have lived together for three years to adopt. That will remain the case irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.

Have other countries introduced same-sex marriage?

If the referendum passes, Ireland will become the first country in the world to approve a national referendum expressly guaranteeing same-sex marriage in its constitution. A number of other countries have introduced it via the courts or by parliamentary vote. At present, 17 countries (including France, Argentina, Denmark, Norway and Spain), as well as a number of US states, allow same-sex couples to marry.

What do the opinion polls suggest?

All polls to date have put the Yes side ahead. An Ipsos MRBI survey for The Irish Times last month found that, when undecided voters were excluded, support for a Yes vote stood at 74 per cent, while support for the No side was at 26 per cent. Urban voters, women and young people are most likely to vote for change.
The Yes side has been more active and organised so far. A huge registration drive among young people will help push up turnout among one of its key demographics, while its recent tone and strategy suggest it is tacking towards the middle-ground where the referendum will be won or lost. If the political parties actively campaign, their ground operations will be important to the Yes side.

So it's a done deal?

Far from it. That same Ipsos MRBI poll showed the Yes vote was declining: support for same-sex marriage was down six points since the previous poll in December. The No side was up by six points. And that's before the campaign proper has kicked into life. The Yes campaign has set the pace, but the No side also has reasons to be confident. Ireland's is a conservative electorate, and one that has shown itself slow to change the Constitution. It's quite possible that some people are reluctant to admit their reservations to pollsters. In relatively secular France in 2013, a campaign against the government's plan to introduce same-sex marriage and adoption by gay couples by way of parliamentary vote led to some of the biggest conservative protests in decades. Moreover, recent Irish history offers cautionary lessons. In 2012, polls at one stage showed 80 per cent in favour of the children's referendum. But despite a poorly funded No campaign whose most prominent faces were a former MEP and a newspaper columnist, the Yes vote on polling day was only 58 per cent. Finally, the age group where support for same-sex marriage is strongest (18-24 year olds) is also the one that tends to be least inclined to vote. The result is unpredictable.

If the proposal were rejected, what would happen?

Nothing. The Constitution would remain unchanged and civil marriage would be open only to opposite-sex couples. The issue would fade from the political agenda in the short-term. There's an outside possibility that a government could test the view, held by some lawyers, that a constitutional amendment is not necessary to allow same-sex marriage. It's more likely that another referendum would be held in a few years' time.

[T Fearon]

Why do same sex couples want children? If they did really,wouldn't they opt for a conventional relationship which would produce them without any undue controversy?

Could the answer be they simply want to surf the current tide of gay supremacy and further annoy religiously minded people (who have no wish other than to save their souls) by making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage by crassly seeking to redefine it. It is laughable too the number of theophobes who "support" gay marriage but wouldn't be seen dead in a gay bar or would recoil in horror should anyone even joke that they may be gay.

Civil partnerships for gay couples are more than sufficient.

[J70]

Left handedness isn't "normal" in the same sense as homosexuality isn't i.e. a small minority of the population fall under the category.  Indeed, it used to be beaten out of kids years ago. An aunt of mine was beaten into writing right handed by some fine Mayo nuns! The word "sinister" has the same Latin root.

Yet, here we are half a century later and no one even bats an eyelid at us ciotoigs.

[Gabriel_Hurl]

Keep digging Tone

[Maguire01]

Why do same sex couples want children? If they did really,wouldn't they opt for a conventional relationship which would produce them without any undue controversy?

Could the answer be they simply want to surf the current tide of gay supremacy and further annoy religiously minded people (who have no wish other than to save their souls) by making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage by crassly seeking to redefine it. It is laughable too the number of theophobes who "support" gay marriage but wouldn't be seen dead in a gay bar or would recoil in horror should anyone even joke that they may be gay.

Civil partnerships for gay couples are more than sufficient.

This has no impact on the sacrament of marriage. It's about civil marriage. If you haven't even grasped the basics at this stage...

[J70]

Why do same sex couples want children? If they did really,wouldn't they opt for a conventional relationship which would produce them without any undue controversy?

Could the answer be they simply want to surf the current tide of gay supremacy and further annoy religiously minded people (who have no wish other than to save their souls) by making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage by crassly seeking to redefine it. It is laughable too the number of theophobes who "support" gay marriage but wouldn't be seen dead in a gay bar or would recoil in horror should anyone even joke that they may be gay.

Civil partnerships for gay couples are more than sufficient.

So it's all about you and your fellow religious travellers, even though it will have zero impact on you in reality? I'm sure gay people will be happy that your real motivation is saving their souls though!

Seriously though, this smacks of Paisleyite not - an - inch unionism. Any gain by gay people is automatically interpreted as a loss for religious people, even though gay people are merely seeking equality. Your "supremacy" comment is laughable.

As for kids and "opting" for a relationship,  did you "opt" for yours? Did you choose to be attracted to a woman or was it instinctual? Or is your point that you would prefer that they went back in the closet and lived lives in denial in heterosexual relationships?

Regarding your "theophobes" and gay bars comment, so what? I wouldn't usually go to mass either, as that scene doesn't interest me. And while I would deny being English if so questioned, that doesn't mean I don't like the English or wish harm upon them or think they shouldn't have rights the rest of us have.

[T Fearon]

Marriage is rooted in religious belief,even the term has religious inferences.