Marriage equality referendum - "rights" to kids etc.


I think a point of view where you are able to explain your point is always welcome!

ETA, I think the vote will be a lot closer than that on the day.
 
terrysgirl33 said:
I think a point of view where you are able to explain your point is always welcome!

ETA, I think the vote will be a lot closer than that on the day.
Click to expand...

Terrysgirl33 is right, the result will be much closer than what is predicted

I watched the Claire Byrne debate last night and the NO camp won hands down.

1. Before the YES people jump on their feet in protest let me explain.

2. Before I explain please note I will be voting YES.

Mr Coveney allowed himself to be interrupted continuously on his microphone time. Although he is a good speaker, he appeared to be out of his depth. It should be noted that he is too much of a gentleman to interrupt the interrupters. The NO lawyer in the audience had him twisted in knots and he failed to answer some questions that were asked. He was not left away with this either and looked bereft of cogent ideas from time to time. Many of the NO people in the audience had their homework done and played as a team. They were clear and had carte-blanche to play on any issue.

The "expert" on adoption looked like he was forced onto the programme and spent more time informing people that he was totally neutral than at anything else. But, he made his points well.

The subject of surrogacy was allowed onto the debate and although the debate was of equality only the surrogacy issue remained prominent. Equality played little in the programme. Let's be clear, Equality is what this Referendum is all about.

There is also the point that with Civil Partnership, there were no problems with issues of Social Welfare, Inheritance rights etc. Some members of the public thought these were the only issues for the referendum.

The NO side hammered away of the increasing number of people who had intended voting for change and had changed their minds. If nothing else this would make neutrals think to say the least. But, this was another loss for the YES contingent.

Ireland is ready for Gay Marriage. But, Ireland is not yet ready for public same sex affection. My homosexual friends inform me that Ireland should 'get-over-it' - Ireland will get over it, but it will take some time. Ireland cannot transform from non gay public affection to open gay affection overnight. Gay Community, please come to terms with this although I agreeyou are entitled to show public affection, but Ireland is not fully ready for this yet. I know I am setting myself up for a firing squad to be waiting for me, but at this moment Ireland is not ready for such openness especially in rural areas.

The Referendum will pass. There are some trying times for the YES side immediately ahead. The NO campaign is just about getting started and public opinions will ebb and flow. The public is getting more interested in the whole subject and many who would have stayed away from the polls will vote. So, it's time for cool heads and prevention of own goals.
 
Last edited:
The Canvass:- I've had people from both sides visit. A gay female couple called three weeks ago, were very nervous but represented their side well. If anybody had any hang-up over gay couples these two ladies blasted that out of the water. They informed me it was their first door-to-door campaign of any description. They were nervous to bits and had laid their souls bare at each door. I shoved on the kettle and they informed me that they would look on the like of Airtricity agents, ticket sellers, etc in a different light.

A guy from the YES side called last night. He was well versed, confident and careful of what he said. I think he feared Gay Marriage more than his possible future inability to pay his mortgage and survive the recession. This guy would have been a good foot-soldier in McQuaid's time.
 
Leper said:
The NO lawyer in the audience had him twisted in knots and he failed to answer some questions that were asked.
Click to expand...
Is that the same lawyer who claimed a Yes vote would mean a constitutional right to children for married couples? I stopped listening to him after that ridiculous claim! Personally I didn't hear one logical rational argument from the No side on the debate. I'm not really interested in who interrupted who or who shouted loudest, in terms of presenting coherent factual points on the question to hand, I thought the Yes side were much more persuasive.

I'm guessing that was someone from the NO side there Leper!
 
Unfortunately the electorate rarely votes based on fact.
 

Thanks for that Ceist - Senior moment for Leper - Must remember to tick the right box in the referendum!

Would like to agree with you, but appearance is everything. The NO side turned up, played as a team, confused where they could not win. The YES side while 100% truthful batted as individuals and made almost fatal mistakes.



I have no doubt the Referendum will be carried, but the distance between the two is closing fast.
 
I wish that entertainers, footballers, actors who just because of their fame and with no arguments given, would stay out of the limelight regarding the Equality Referendum. Their input is useless - this is a serious referendum and we can do without the glamour seekers.
 

To be honest I disagree with you - Some people are definitely only there for the spotlight - but having the captain of the soccer team say its ok to be gay, from a sport that's notorious for homophobia, having the GPA - representatives of the GAA players, a community thats considered to be rural - and rural is perceived to be less modern and very 'macho', state that its ok to be gay will support a lot of folk who trouble with their sexuality. Even having wee Daniel O'Donnell support the vote will make some of his fans at least think about how they are voting.

Growing up through the 70s and 80s there was no positive affirmations of homosexuality. The closest we got was John Inman in 'Are you being served', a character who never once said he was gay, it was just joked at, and who did a lot of damage to peoples coming out process. Nowadays young people are getting the message that gay people are in every walk of life, we are everywhere, and we are just as normal as everyone else.

This time period is over populated with talk about homosexuality - but if not now - then when? I understand that people are probably getting sick of the discussions - I know I am. So lets just vote Yes - and we will never have to discuss this again !
 
I don't think that the money that the YES brigade accepted was wrong.

This is our constitution. Yet, they accept money from abroad to influence public openion.
 
I think the silent "No" will come out in force to vote on Friday. I particularly find it irksome to be pushed with Yes propaganda at every juncture and between radio and television, even calling to my door yesterday afternoon.
De-facing of "No" posters in the Coolmine area really got up my nose as I did not come across de-facing of yes posters. I do believe there is serious money behind the "Yes" campaign, I hope it is well spent because it will be well spent by Friday.
 
It's a referendum, you didn't have to open your door. Given the time-keeping on the Radio and TV ensuring exact even times for both camps I think you're stretching things.
Why are you voting no?
I'm voting yes because I believe in equality, I believe that we shouldn't have second-class citizens who are given a (in the view of the no campaign who opposed civil partnership when it was introduced but think it's just dandy now) separate but equal status that can be taken away by an act of the oireachtas at any time in the future.
 
As I have said before this is a truly silly referendum which should never have been put to the people. The No campaign are absolutely right that this is potentially about fundamentally changing the meaning of marriage and the family in our society - a point which the refcom disingenuously played down.

However, it has been turned into an "equality" referendum. Miriam O'Callaghan hit the spot for me when she pointed out last night that if the Yes vote wins the No supporters will shrug their shoulders and move on. However, if the No vote wins it will be perceived by a minority in our society as a terrible kick in the stomach and as a definite statement of second class citizenship to them. That is not what the No threesome on last night's programme were arguing. But it is what the Yes side want to portray and it is unfortunately how many people see it.

For that reason I sorta want Yes to win but probably will not vote.
 
All of the No posters about children are disingenuous, to say the least. The idea that vindicating the rights of one group will disadvantage another is nonsense. If additional rights for children are required, such as the right to know who their biological parents are, then legislate for it or even have another referendum but don't deny equality to adults on the grounds of a nebulous or spurious fear that children will somehow be disadvantaged.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
The No campaign are absolutely right that this is potentially about fundamentally changing the meaning of marriage and the family in our society - a point which the refcom disingenuously played down.
Click to expand...
I've heard that said many times but I don't see anything to support it. The divorce referendum was a fundamental change. I don't see how this is.
 
Purple said:
I've heard that said many times but I don't see anything to support it. The divorce referendum was a fundamental change. I don't see how this is.
Click to expand...
Purple I said "potentially". The refcom deliberately left one sub-clause of Article 41 out of its brochure. This clause refers to the special role of the "mother" in the home and of the state's duty to prevent "her" from being forced by economic circumstances of not carrying out that role. If the wording of the ref was extended to include "nothing in this amendment shall act to minimise the role of the mother in society as expressed elsewhere in this constitution" then I would buy it but of course some (possibly a minority) on the Yes side would be dead against this - they want to roll back all traditional constraints and have a free for all.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
As I have said before this is a truly silly referendum which should never have been put to the people.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more correct. It's an abdication of responsibility by the government (and preceeding governments). There is nothing stopping them just producing legislation on this apart from a lack of courage, this way, if passed, their votes wouldn't be on record, parties wouldn't have to force the whip, wouldn't face losing TDs, etc.

Duke of Marmalade said:
The No campaign are absolutely right that this is potentially about fundamentally changing the meaning of marriage and the family in our society - a point which the refcom disingenuously played down.
Click to expand...

This I disagree with and don't believe it to have been played down. Article 41.2.1 amd 2.2 have been played down by the courts, and applied to fathers...or at least described by Justice Murray as:


There is a separate recommendation for the wording of that clause which is likely to be another referendum at some point.

I do not believe that there is anything nefarious in the omission by the commission in their brochure. The brochure is available online for those who don't have it handy and it is clear that they have quoted the clauses directly impacted by this referendum, that being those that directly quote family or marriage. The two referencing the mother do not.

In addition, the vote will have absolutely no impact on this section as motherhood isn't dependent on marriage. If there is a yes vote, then heterosexual and homosexual mothers will be protected by the state and have a special place and heterosexual and homosexual men will not be. That is how it is, that is how it will be until that clause is changed. It therefore isn't a sinisister coverup or misleading, it's just that that wording has no relevance on what is being voted for, it is sexist for sure, but it is not related to marriage and is not related to what is defined as a family (homosexual mothers have the same protection, rights and recognition as their heterosexual counterparts, the difference is if they were to marry, their partners wouldn't).

Add to that we don't have any "heterosexual mothers social welfare" legislation and we have equality legislation which entitles and men to be stay at home dads and receive the same benefits, to be carers and receive the same allowances and protection, the already negligable impact is reduces further.

Refcom hasn't played anything down with regards to the family. It discusses openly the factual impact of the vote on marriage and family, it excluded in its brochure clauses that wouldn't be impacted either way. I will admit, that it would have been better to include the whole lot as on the website, but I don't believe there to be any hidden agenda by its omission.
 

Agent47 - There is money behind both sides of this refererendum - there always is - Who is funding the Iona Institute - Breda O'Briend had to admit on the Last Word on Today FM ono Monday that she did not know. Who's funding the Catholic church - who are advocating a No. This is a non issue.

I am a gay man - I had No leaflets pushed through my door today. They denigrate me as a person. How does a Yes campaigner asking for your vote denigrate you.

And as for defacing the posters - That has happened on both sides - and the Yes Equality groups have condemned this practice. However - I know Yes canvassers and badge wearers berated and attacked for whom they are. Physical attacks as well as Verbal.

Both sides have extremists - Including this No voter who wrote a horrific bigoted and racist letter to Una Mullally, the Irish Times journalist, a woman in her early 30s who has just been diagnosed with stage three cancer. Telling her its a punishment for her stance - and while shes ugly - least she is not black.
 
Last edited:
Latrade

Okay, you seem better informed than I. I am not normally prone to conspiracy theories so I will give refcom the benefit of the doubt i.e. they made a mistake in producing the abridged version of Article 41 in the brochure; besides I have heard nobody else argue my point so I must have the wrong end of the stick.

Separately, you talk of "homosexual mothers". I am not trolling here, does this in your book include males? I saw a newspaper photo recently captioned "Martina Navratilova and her wife Julia Lemigova". If it was captioned the other way round would it read "Julia and her husband Martina"? Serious question, I don't really understand how far this has gone. If gender determines the title "wife" fair enough, Martina and Julia are wives of each other. But if one is the husband, well goodness me this is a family blog, please don't tell me how it is decided which is husband and wife.
 

Well I'd agree that it seems odd that it is omitted from the brochure and not the website, but I'd err towards this being due to the lack of reference to marriage and family.

As to mothers, I specifically refer to gender as the constitution uses "her" in reference to mothers. How gay couples refer to each other or assign roles is up to themselves. I know males who are both husbands and were both grooms, females who are both wives and were both brides and plenty others who just say partner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register