Marriage equality referendum - "rights" to kids etc.

Ger said:
There is a saying that 'Hard cases make bad law' and I think that this is happening here. i.e. People may be voting 'Yes' out of some misplaced and emotional sense of guilt. .....Not a good reason (imo)
Click to expand...
They might be but they are probably voting yes because they want all equality under the constitution.
 
Was at mass this morning, we had extract from bishops letter, sermon and handing out of full text bishops letter on the way out the door. Depressing. Wondered what I was doing there. Refused the full letter. Apart from the 'think of the children' we had alleged media bias, removal of posters, alleged Garda support. Such a cacophony of McQuaidist horse manure - only drove home again what dearth of argument there is on the No side. After having to listen to that BY JANEY but I'm going to be certain I vote.
 

Anybody who thought the NO camp would remain mute during this campaign is well short of the mark. The YES camp is loud too. Both sides will use all at their disposal to promote their case. Referenda have always been like this and we live in a democracy. The Irish people are being presented with case for Marriage Equality. It is a simple case of Yes or No and the Irish people are not stupid, you know!
 


I like that turn of phrase... I might use it at some stage in the future...
 
Excuse my ignorance but legally what changes if the referendum passes?

I think that homosexual couples have the right to adopt after 3 years. The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 provides that civil partners and cohabiting couples who have lived together for three years will be eligible to adopt jointly. The referendum doesn’t appear to address the difficulty of the right of the non-biological parent, but it seems to me that the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 does. The rights of the non-biological parent are tricky to legislate for.

Civil partners are subject to taxation in the same way as married couples.

The inheritance laws seem to be the nearly the same, apart from the allowance for a court order which could reduce the entitlement of a civil partner to a legal right share or the share on intestacy.

I understand that legally the word marriage will be extended to include same sex couples, but legally what else changes? What extra constitutional protections are given to a homosexual couple (in a Civil Partnership) by voting ‘Yes’ in this referendum?
 

Quite a lot would change, see Sol28's post a couple of pages back:

Sol28 said:
This is factually incorrect. They are not equal institutions - apart from the consitutional protection - there are over 160 differences between the two. See HERE for more info.
Click to expand...
 

Issues of children etc. are the red herrings. I am one of a married couple without children. As such, we are a family as defined by the constitution. I personally have no issue with a same sex couple being allowed the same privilige on the basis of equality.

In fact, the fact that we don't have children flies in the face of every argument put up by IONA and the likes that marriage is for pro-creation purposes.
 
Deas said:
In fact, the fact that we don't have children flies in the face of every argument put up by IONA and the likes that marriage is for pro-creation purposes.
Click to expand...
I don't think it does. Most married couples go on to have children. Gendered marriage is open to pro-creation and childless married couples will not deliberately deny any child either a mother or a father at any point.
 
michaelm said:
I don't think it does. Most married couples go on to have children. Gendered marriage is open to pro-creation and childless married couples will not deliberately deny any child either a mother or a father at any point.
Click to expand...


Of course they do! Children are often the pawns in protracted separations with the father being denied access. Either way, this has nothing to do with allowing same sex people to marry.
 
So now this referendum, if passed, will mean that married couples will have a constitutional right to children* - honestly is there no limit to the depths some on the No side will stoop to in this campaign! We also had a state expert on adoption clearly state that this referendum will have absolutely no impact on adoption policies but of course the No side on the show last night just dismissed this and insulted the expert by claiming he's just a government sponsored Yes man! It seems a lot of people on the No side think they know better than every expert advocating a yes vote here when it comes to the potential impact of allowing same sex couples to marry.

* Quote from a lawyer in the Claire Byrne show last night.
 

Some facts we learnt from the debate last night.
  • Surrogacy is not impacted by this vote. The government still has to legislate for surrogacy.
  • Adoption practices will not change whether or not this referendum passes.
The No side are confusing the discussion with points that are not impacted by the referendum.
 
michaelm said:
Gendered marriage is open to pro-creation
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Indeed, any marriage that is not "open to pro-creation" is not a traditional marriage and my personal view is that such a marriage is intrinsically flawed. Marriage is all about the natural pro-creation of beautiful children which is a truly wonderful thing. This view was very ably set out in a speech by the Bishop of Elphin at the outset of this debate.

The undeniable fact is that heterosexual couples, where one or other is sterile, whilst fully deserving of our tolerance, even sympathy, should in no circumstances be allowed to take the vows of matrimony. It goes without saying that any post-menopausal woman, with the greatest respect for women and obviously not wishing to be ageist, is completely ruled out of entering a marriage as she simply cannot satisfy the "open to pro-creation" test. Of course, as sexual activity should properly only occur within the confines of marriage, this may prove challenging to such ladies. I understand that traditional activities such as bingo and knitting, as well as new-style social media related activity, can help pass the time. Additionally, there are also some very good evening classes to do with furthering one's understanding of pet cats. It, also, goes without saying that those whose marriages are not "open to pro-creation" are fully deserving of our love and empathy, - however and with the deepest regret, we simply cannot recognise their union as legitimate. I, myself, have known people of this persuasion and very nice people they are too.

Of perhaps even more serious concern are those heterosexual and married couples who selfishly decide that the time is not right for them to have children. Such a union is fundamentally dishonest because whilst it superficially purports to be a normal marriage, through the use of artificial means and/or interventions - which in my day would never have been allowed and again further illustrates the divergence from centuries-old practices - there is not current pro-creative intent. One must suspect, although, admittedly, I have only anecdotal evidence to support this view, that some of these people may be engaged in bedroom activity, the sole function of which is the gratification of very primitive desires. Call me old-fashioned and bigoted - but this is a step too far. The traditional and proper question from a father to son, say 6 to 9 months after the wedding of the son, of "anything stirring?" was to remind the son of his pro-creative responsibilities. It is no exaggeration to say that there is a risk that this question could now be replaced by questions along the lines I could not possibly put on paper.

Whilst writing, some other aspects of this referendum are troubling me. It is quite clear that every child deserves a mother and father, living at home with them, in perfect harmony. You know - with parents who are loving but do not spoil, generous with their time and attention but not overly so; think of the apple pie cooling down on an open window as the home-made ice-cream is taken from the freezer by smiling and enthusiastic children, etc. It is clear from all the research that this is the proper way to raise a child. I think even the most entrenched Yes voter would concede this truth. Now, where a couple gets divorced, this can no longer happen. The children suffer as dad and mam no longer live together. Thankfully, to date the incidence of divorce is very rare, unlike surrogacy which has become so frighteningly ubiquitous. I may be straying off topic (and I apologise for this because I fully acknowledge that no other poster has so done) - but wouldn't it make imminent sense to disallow divorce where couples have children? Doesn't every child have the right to a mother and father at home? Apart from the obvious evidence-based welfare of the children, there is additional merit to this proposal as it logically follows that only childless couples should be allowed to divorce - and this is completely appropriate as they, in my opinion, probably were never truly married in the first place for the multiple indisputable reasons set out earlier. It further follows, therefore, that a termination of such a childless union is best characterised as an annulment. In so doing, all divorce would be eliminated and right-thinking traditional values restored.

I think even the Yes side would concede that divorce has caused many problems not just to some vague notion of Irish society - but to its very fabric. It is undeniably for the sake of our children that the divorce laws should be repealed with immediate effect. Of course, this is nothing against divorced people - who also deserve or understanding, support and compassion. I, myself, have gone (admittedly unintentionally) into one or two bars noted for attracting the "second chance" market. What struck me was how normal everyone seemed. After initial apprehension, I got chatting to some of them and was amazed at how open they were about their marital status in spite of the undeniably harm this had caused their children. I remember meeting two women, both of whom had been beaten senseless by their husbands and both had reluctantly, after years of counselling and other interventions, left their husbands for their safety and the safety of their children. And very nice people they were too. But, we all realise, that such examples of tough cases make for really bad laws. National law is not about compassion at the individual level - it is about the greater good - and it is time we truly redefine marriage in which the "pro-creation test" is central.
 
michaelm said:
I don't think it does. Most married couples go on to have children. Gendered marriage is open to pro-creation and childless married couples will not deliberately deny any child either a mother or a father at any point.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that marriages where there is no chance of procreation should not be allowed? Menopausal or post hysterectomy women, or sterile men? I know some who have been married like this, but according to this logic they should not be married.
 
Best post so far in this debate elacsaplau and with the quality of Latrade's posts that's saying something.
 
terrysgirl33 said:
Does this mean that marriages where there is no chance of procreation should not be allowed? Menopausal or post hysterectomy women, or sterile men? I know some who have been married like this, but according to this logic they should not be married.
Click to expand...
You may be confusing logic with dramatics, perhaps deliberately. Mercifully, all this will have been put to bed in 10 days time and then we can all live happily ever after.

Does AAM ever run polls (I can't recall such) . . I'd be interested to compare the actual result on the 22nd with the current polls (76% yes) and an AAM poll, just to see how representative AAM is of wider Irish society.
 
elacsaplau said:
...it is time we truly redefine marriage in which the "pro-creation test" is central.
Click to expand...

Is the logical extension of this that all marriages should be annulled within a set time period if the procreation test criteria have not been met?

I also found it interesting to hear the Iona Institute are now suggesting that should the referendum be passed, we're going to see a glut of heterosexual people of the same gender marrying just so they can avail of the tax benefits of inheritance. To me, that suggests they're aware of an issue presently where people of the opposite gender are getting married for that very reason. Maybe they're the couples failing the procreation test? I might be cynical, but I can't see too many straight people rushing into a same sex union on the chance they'll outlive their chosen partner and make a mint through inheritance.
 

She's not confusing logic with dramatics, she's pointing out the logical end-game of the position adopted by the No campaign. Of course, the no campaign don't see the hurt caused by their campaign to those who can't procreate, who were adopted or born into a loving family as the result of surrogacy.

It's also interesting to note that the No campaign are now looking for an anti-government/austerity angle to drum up votes as their campaign of fear and lies is failing. Listen how often the referendum is posited as a Government initiative and how Government spokespersons are castigated for austerity measures in any discussions with the No campaign.
 
Last edited:
I flicked back over the thread and counted the number of different posters; 27 in total. If I discount the 7 who's voting intentions are not immediately apparent that leaves 17 firm Yes and perhaps 3 No votes. So 85% Yes is probably not that far off being representative of the likely outcome . . time for my rearguard action on this thread to end methinks, back to my spider hole.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register