Many people agree with this statement which shows how disingenuous this whole charade is. They want to present this as simply an issue of "equality". What modern man or woman could possibly be against "equality"?
Issues about the family are red herrings, so they claim. Well that might be the Ref that these people want but according to the Ref Commission it is not the ref that is before us. The Refcom site and brochure puts Article 41 right up front as the central issue. Article 41 is all about the family.
But here is a bizarre and sinister twist. In the Refcom.ie site the whole of Article 41 is reproduced. But, to my shock, when I got the brochure in the post this morning it only produces what it calls an Extract. In fact the Extract gives 3 of the 4 original clauses, so it is not in the interests of brevity, that some of the original Article is redacted. The clause that is redacted is the very one I cited above about the role of the woman and the mother. Why this very selective redaction?
Undoubtedly this very dishonest ref will be passed, but the Refcom have surely left the door open for a robust challenge to its impartiality.
But the issue on the family
is a red herring because there hasn't been an argument put forward that stands up to any scrutiny to say why a same sex couple cannot and should not be considered a family. Why they cannot and should not be parents. Why they cannot and should not have their union recognised and protected by the state.
There most certainly are anti-feminists and misogynists in the mix but there are some real issues at the centre of it and you do many men a disservice with such sweeping generalisations. The irony is that the same sort of sweeping generalisations and characterisations were used 40 years ago to dismiss feminists and feminism.
We're getting miles off topic, but I strongly disagree with you. There are issues for men that need to be campaigned for and, as an umarried father, I am personally impacted by such lack of rights. But the problem is who is delivering the message. Take John Waters, he is absolutely right about fathers. 100%. But, he uses this as a stick to be against same sex marriage. Similarly there is a very pervasive and demonstrable anti-feminist stance among the Men's Rights Groups. So even though they may have valid points on where men are impacted, their policies are impacted by saying feminism has gone too far and that it is feminists that are now holding back men. Believing in equality doesn't mean I have to align myself with a group or sympathise with them, even if they have a point, when their policies are abhorent. That would make me George Galloway.
That's the best strategy for the Yes campaign; stick to the Equality mantra; no profit in recognising that we will be changing the Article 41 on 'The Family' or that such might have any ramifications.
Given the tsunami of support for the proposal from the political classes, state agencies, media, unions, business (not their business) and various sports and entertainment people, allied with the pillorying and negative characterisation of naysayers (as bigots, homophobes, religious zealots, etc.), it's little wonder that intending No voters have largely shied away from open discussion. In reality, the only danger to the Yes campaign is the Yes campaign . . Nice 1 and Lisbon 1 show that the polls can be wide of the mark.
This is the same as the negative characterisation of naysayers. You imply there is something else or someother motive to the Yes campaign other than Equality. If there is, what is it? Have you listened to anything the people directly impacted by this referrendum have said? The ones who have to ask us for our permission to be considered equal citizens? What other agenda is there than Equality?
There is a pervasive theme in the No campaign inferring that the Yes side are being disingenuous by stating it is about equality but without actually explainig what other agenda we might have or why we may be lying that it is about equality.
The isuse of ramifications on family has been openly discussed, constitutional lawyers haven't found any, so what are they? Shying away from discussions is one thing, but even those who are not shying away are not putting forward any tangible examples of ramifications, at least none that aren't easily refuted by simple research.
Even if you believe that the union of a man and woman (conditional on them being able to naturally have children) is special, or that man and women is the only unit to raise children (so long single parents, back to the mother and baby homes) then it is still about equality because you are saying that homesexual couples are not equal to that standard. So it is, by each and every definition about equality, just whether you feel a group of people are equal or not, but it is still equality.
Unless you have some other agenda that might be behind the Yes campaign.