Marriage equality referendum - "rights" to kids etc.

[Sol28]

The worry is that the people who are more than likely to Accept the ammendment are the very same people who wont vote. Those who oppose the referendum will turn up in greater numbers proportionally speaking.

Its not all an age thing - but the younger voters are more likely to vote Yes - and with the referendum in May - many university students will be in Exam mode and may not make it home to vote.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The worry is that the people who are more than likely to Accept the ammendment are the very same people who wont vote. Those who oppose the referendum will turn up in greater numbers proportionally speaking.

Its not all an age thing - but the younger voters are more likely to vote Yes - and with the referendum in May - many university students will be in Exam mode and may not make it home to vote.

PaddyPower goes 9 to 1 on a Yes, 9 to 2 against a No. For the uninitiated that means Paddy reckons the chances of a Yes are 83% (after allowing for his margin). Based on opinion polls I would have thought it would be much higher, so you might be right Sol28; come the date, things could change.

For the record Paddy is going 4/6 under 62.5% Yes vote and Evens over 62.5%. That means Paddy thinks the result will come in around 60%.

I find Paddy to be much more reliable on these matters than the official pundits; when there is money at stake, biases and prejudices tend to go out the window.

 

[michaelm]

I find Paddy to be much more reliable on these matters than the official pundits; when there is money at stake, biases and prejudices tend to go out the window.

Me too, although a No has shortened in the odds (was 11/2) and the first Nice referendum was 11/2 for a No, so the bookies don't always get it right. I guess one reason they are running the gimmicky referendum on reducing the age floor for presidential election candidates to 21 (from 35) on the same day is to try to attract the younger voters who will also vote yes to same-sex marriage.

 

[Betsy Og]

I guess one reason they are running the gimmicky referendum on reducing the age floor for presidential election candidates to 21 (from 35) on the same day is to try to attract the younger voters who will also vote yes to same-sex marriage.

Could well be. But I suppose there's also big cost involved in running these things so you'd never be better off have 5 or 6 questions on the same day and get it all done.

 

[michaelm]

For sure there are savings to be made by running concurrent referendums but at what cost? changing the constitution is not a trivial matter. The second referendum is entirely unnecessary but I guess they want to pretend that the constitutional convention wasn't pointless. If they wanted to tinker with the presidency they should have upped the minimum age to 60 and made it one term only.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Me too, although a No has shortened in the odds (was 11/2) and the first Nice referendum was 11/2 for a No, so the bookies don't always get it right. I guess one reason they are running the gimmicky referendum on reducing the age floor for presidential election candidates to 21 (from 35) on the same day is to try to attract the younger voters who will also vote yes to same-sex marriage.

Yes there is the odd exception, but some recent classics are 1/6 Obama at the time of the last election and 1/6 a No in the Scottish Ref - in both cases the media were blaring "too close to call". Here's another one - you would think by all the hysteria that UKIP are on the verge of a Syriza style shock - the betting markets reckon they will get less than 5 of the 600 or so Westminster seats, still might hold the balance of course.

I accept your take on young people's attitudes but it is not totally clear that because they would support the second ref as well that that would increase their share of the vote. As an extreme imagine the second ref was that people under 35 need not pay income tax. That would sure get them out in their droves, but it would also get everybody else out

 

[NovaFlare77]

And no inequality. I hope that they can continue to act in the best interest of each child unencumbered by the passing of this referendum, despite my concerns that the provision isn't as benign as is being suggested and that it will have unintended(?) consequences.

The Adoption Act obliges adoption services and the Adoption Authority to make decisions with the child's best interests and welfare as the paramount considerations. That will continue to be the case no matter which way the referendum goes.

The only difference marriage makes to the adoption process is that married couples can apply jointly, and if deemed suitable, they take joint custody of the child. They still have to be assessed, vetted, interviewed and checked, and that's an intensive process that can take months. Invasive was how one journalist described it. If an applicant isn't deemed suitable, they can't adopt, regardless of their marital status. Marriage doesn't bring any greater "right to adopt", and there have been dozens of cases of unmarried people adopting.

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, the adoption laws are being changed so that all couples, be they married, civil partners, or cohabiting, can apply jointly, and if deemed suitable, take joint custody. This was something recommended by the Children's Ombudsman back in 2009 when giving her advice on the current Adoption Act. It's also something that benefits the child, because it means every child adopted by a couple will now have a legally recognised relationship with both adoptive parents, no matter the parents marital status.

But even if the adoption laws weren't being changed, the only benefit marriage would bring to married same sex couples is the ability to apply jointly. After that, they're subject to the same checks and balances as everyone else.

 

[Leper]

Nice 'n' Easy debate there lads. I got lost somewhere along the way with what are the issues and the real issues in this referendum. There will be much of the same hammered out on our airwaves in the coming months. The print media will be to the fore also. The problem is what is the truth. And the truth never got in the way of any referendum/election in Ireland before and perhaps not in this referendum either.

The Way I See It:- Homosexual Marriage is the union of two people of the same sex. (Hetrosexual) Marriage is the union of two people of different sex. Sexual acts in either marriage are not much different in either other than one could produce offspring.

Miriam O'Callaghan said:- The Leo Varadkar Interview in which he "came out" was "probably the most important interview of my life." No offence to Miriam, but why was it the most important interview. I can think of much more important interviews. I listened to Dónal Óg Cusack on television recently in which he said "What is it to you, what I do in my bedroom?" I believe this is the nub of the whole issue i.e. it is none of our business what sexual orientation anybody is.

The Problem:- Us (over 60's) were brought up to despise homosexual acts. Believe me, some of the words used to describe homosexuals would put the word "queer" in the halfpenny place. Then it became legal to be homosexual and suddenly we all had to flick the switch and say "We were wrong" and one thing we Irish are famous for is that we were never wrong.

The Solution:- Live and let live. I have no doubt that future social history buffs will look back on all this like we look back on the corked bottle of Smithwicks (nothin' like the aul bottle!).

With Paddy Power odds of 1/9 the referendum is going to be carried. It is going to happen, get over it! The day after the referendum we will all continue to do what we usually do. For a minute, let's say the referendum will not be carried; will it mean a whole lot of actual difference?

Last Wednesday my calendar informed me "You have grown up - when you learned to laugh at yourself." Perhaps it is time for all of us to laugh at ourselves.

 

[Gerry Canning]

I cannot see how any sane person would ever not want equality.
I cannot see how any heterosexual or homosexual should not be treated equally.

However I have a bit of an issue over word Marriage.
In Constitution Marriage did not need to be legally defined as it was clearly understood to mean man&woman.

To now (change) what up to now means heterosexual marriage does that not in fairness change what generations construe as marriage and in a real way change it?

I am not a language expert but changing the normally understood meaning of a word will mean unforeseen challenges and they won,t all be positive.


Please , I am not trying to create a row but consider the way Government play with verbiage.
1. Using the word Equality is emotive, who does not want equality ? It hints that a contrary view to their Referendum means the contrarian is (backward)
2. On this Water Refund of 100 euro. They put in the word (Conservation)
Does that mean protesters are not in favour of conservation ie (backward)

Changing the understood meaning of any word is fraught with unintended consequences

 

[michaelm]

The Adoption Act obliges adoption services and the Adoption Authority to make decisions with the child's best interests and welfare as the paramount considerations.

This constitutional amendment will mean that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage and therefore the gender of the would-be parents will be excluded as a consideration; the Adoption Authority will not be at liberty to favour a mother & father situation over father x2 or mother x2 set-ups.

 

[dereko1969]

This constitutional amendment will mean that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage and therefore the gender of the would-be parents will be excluded as a consideration; the Adoption Authority will not be at liberty to favour a mother & father situation over father x2 or mother x2 set-ups.

Again you are deliberately mixing up two separate topics. The Adoption Act will mean that, notwithstanding any constitutional amendment to marriage, that prospective parents, heterosexual, homosexual, married or unmarried will be treated equally. The child's best interest is taken as the paramount value.
The Adoption Act has nothing to do with the Marriage Equality referendum, just because you keep stating it, doesn't mean it's so. This is the typical Iona Institute playbook, confuse the electorate, create fear by mis-informing the public.

 

[michaelm]

I'm not deliberately mixing up or trying to confuse anything. We have a different view on the implications of the proposed amendment. I have no doubt that your view is genuinely held and it's not my problem if you think my view is disingenuous. I fully agree that the child's best interest is (and will continue to be) taken as the paramount value however it seems glaringly obvious that post this referendum there can be no differentiation between heterosexual and homosexual marriage when weighing the child's best interest.

 

[dereko1969]

I'm not deliberately mixing up or trying to confuse anything. We have a different view on the implications of the proposed amendment. I have no doubt that your view is genuinely held and it's not my problem if you think my view is disingenuous. I fully agree that the child's best interest is (and will continue to be) taken as the paramount value however it seems glaringly obvious that post this referendum there can be no differentiation between heterosexual and homosexual marriage when weighing the child's best interest.

Yes, but that will be the case following the passing of the Adoption Act, whether or not the Marriage Equality referendum is passed or not.
Why do you think there should be a differentiation between hetero and homo marriage in weighing up the child's best interest when you've already said that that interest is paramount?

 

[michaelm]

Why do you think there should be a differentiation between hetero and homo marriage in weighing up the child's best interest when you've already said that that interest is paramount?

The proposed amendment will place constitutional handcuffs on the Adoption Authority to the effect that they will be unable to favour a mother & father situation over same-sex situation when considering best interest. This, allied with my view that civil partnership is a non-gender specific equivalent of the gendered institution of marriage, makes it a No from me.

 

[Gerry Canning]

AAM is the first place I have seen a reasoned discourse on the Marriage Referendum.
From the threads ,
1. Adoption criteria remain very strict.
2. If carried, any solid couple can be considered as adoptees.

Means all couples are (graded) on what is best for the child.
I do not read opposition to the above.

I am taken with michaelm,s comment that marriage; by its understood nature is man & woman.
From my view I think to change the understood meaning of anything (marriage) is not fair to those who are already married ie man&woman.
Could the wording on the Referendum not have been changed to facilitate this?
I am very uncomfortable when something is to be changed under the blackmail verbiage of (equality.)

Could it again be our (leaders) jumped onto a Populist Bandwagon?
If so ,
from wishing to extend rights to couples, they may succeed in (de-righting) previous marriages?
And I am sure the Gay community are in no way in favour of discrimination. They understand discrimination.

Just raising it and would appreciate other views.

I think the 2nd referendum is a sop , smells of our (leaders) giving a little nod to constitutional change,(twits).
Again would appreciate other views.

 

[Sol28]

Obviously I am in favour of equal marriage.

However - defining the word marriage as only applying to Men and Women creates the segregation. If we start defining marriage as only Men and Women - what word can we use for same sex marriage. I am only totally against the phrase 'gay marriage', as again it creates segregation.

How will me marrying my (future) boyfriend be unfair to you, who is married to your wife. Can you explain how your relationship will change? Legally, morally or personally?

I watched the film Selma recently (out on general release on the 6th Feb). Its about the Selma riots, Martin Luther King and racial equality in the states. Watching the film it is abhorrent how a group of people born a certain way were treated so differently. We find it ludicrous that it was even an option to discriminate legally and morally - let alone only 50 years ago. Hopefully this referendum is passed - and that the next generations will look back at how ludicrous the current situation is for homosexual people.

 

[Sol28]

And I dont even want to comment on how ludicrous it is that I need to ask all of you for your permission to be treated equally.

Watch this video - Think its pretty self explanatory.

 

[dereko1969]

The proposed amendment will place constitutional handcuffs on the Adoption Authority to the effect that they will be unable to favour a mother & father situation over same-sex situation when considering best interest. This, allied with my view that civil partnership is a non-gender specific equivalent of the gendered institution of marriage, makes it a No from me.

So basically, adoption has nothing to do with this, you'd be voting no anyway, so why not just state that at the outset? Also, again you're mis-interpreting the legislation. The Adoption Act will change what the Adoption Authority can do, not the referendum.

AAM is the first place I have seen a reasoned discourse on the Marriage Referendum.
From the threads ,
1. Adoption criteria remain very strict.
2. If carried, any solid couple can be considered as adoptees.

Means all couples are (graded) on what is best for the child.
I do not read opposition to the above.

I am taken with michaelm,s comment that marriage; by its understood nature is man & woman.
From my view I think to change the understood meaning of anything (marriage) is not fair to those who are already married ie man&woman.
Could the wording on the Referendum not have been changed to facilitate this?
I am very uncomfortable when something is to be changed under the blackmail verbiage of (equality.)

Could it again be our (leaders) jumped onto a Populist Bandwagon?
If so ,
from wishing to extend rights to couples, they may succeed in (de-righting) previous marriages?
And I am sure the Gay community are in no way in favour of discrimination. They understand discrimination.

Just raising it and would appreciate other views.

I think the 2nd referendum is a sop , smells of our (leaders) giving a little nod to constitutional change,(twits).
Again would appreciate other views.

How does it change or diminish what those already married have? Did legislation forbidding marriage between the races being ended change the marriages of those who married within their own races beforehand? Equality isn't blackmail.

 

[Sol28]

This, allied with my view that civil partnership is a non-gender specific equivalent of the gendered institution of marriage, makes it a No from me.

Thats the issue - Civil Partnership is not the same as marriage - theres over a 100 different points of difference between both. When civil partnership was introduced it was a step forward - however - it actually enshrined discrimination. No mixed same couple can enter a civil partnership. No same sex couple can enter a marriage. It discriminates both ways.

 

[Gerry Canning]

Thats the issue - Civil Partnership is not the same as marriage - theres over a 100 different points of difference between both. When civil partnership was introduced it was a step forward - however - it actually enshrined discrimination. No mixed same couple can enter a civil partnership. No same sex couple can enter a marriage. It discriminates both ways.

Sol 28.
A mixed couple not being permitted to go for civil partnership could be construed as discriminatory only if some mixed couple objected.
My problem is I understand marriage to have always meant man&woman.

Maybe you have hit the solution,

In future all couples can only enter Civil Partnership.
I am uncomfortable in using words like discriminatory because society evolved with clear meanings to things.
These clear meanings may well now be shown as discriminatory but you just can,t back date a societal norm? can you ?
I would also have concerns that people will keep revising, I think in general leave the pasts flaws with the past.
Let us find new clarity in the way we understand things.

Let us find a new word for all loving couples and legislate accordingly.
(I know I am an optimist)