Marriage equality referendum - "rights" to kids etc.

[Gerry Canning]

I hear you loud and clear and I apologise if I am a tad condescending , not intended.
I would have been more afraid of being deliberately hurtful to anyone.

So it is illegal for Gays to marry. Then let us kill off marriage and instate a proper Civil Union.
Up to now Marriage (for better or worse) is gender based, people who have married until now accept that.
This Gender Basis has nought to do with belief , it is a statement of accepted fact that since the State was set up Marriage is accepted as Gender based.The vote is do we wish to change that.
The more I think about it this Referendum was ill-conceived on a doubtful equality basis.
Had it been phrased in such a way as a New Beginning of Relationships with full equality for couples and that Marriage as a gender based institution died in the fullness of time ,it would have been better.

I still do not see it as a vote on equality.
I do not see it as a vote on family, or who cares for who.

For what it is worth , I expect Yes to carry vote.

 

[Purple]

If interracial marriages were banned and we were looking to lift that ban would it be legitimate to oppose that ban on the basis that one is not racist but considers marriage to be a union between people of the same race?
In years to come this referendum will be seen in the same light.

 

[Sunny]

Of course this is about equality. Marriage as an 'institution' doesn't belong to hetrosexual people. It doesn't belong to people of any one faith or religion. The concept of marriage belongs to everybody. This is about the State actively discriminating against one part of society. The various religious order are free to continue with how they see fit but they have no right to try and enforce their beliefs on the rest of society. I have read some rubbish about the impact on children during this debate and it is simply pathetic. Every day, there are children been being born to young teenage mothers, there are children been born into houses with alcoholic or drug addict mothers and fathers. There are children been physically and sexually abused by their mothers and fathers. There are children that are been beaten, molested, raped, starved and made suffer by their so called loved ones. Many hetrosexual married couples have proven themselves to be pathetic, cruel, evil, sadistic parents and yet we think that by allowing same sex people marry, we are opening the floodgates of misery for children of Ireland and the end of the family unit.

This debate is not about children. It is about the right of same sex couples to marry like their brothers, sisters and friends. That's all. Any attempt to go past this is an attempt to scaremonger.

 

[Latrade]

So it is illegal for Gays to marry. Then let us kill off marriage and instate a proper Civil Union.

Why when the problem is essentially solved by a simple change of definition? That route would require a much bigger change in the constitution and would have a much bigger impact on married people. This way the only impact is to provide equal rights to a group currently denied them.

Up to now Marriage (for better or worse) is gender based, people who have married until now accept that.
This Gender Basis has nought to do with belief , it is a statement of accepted fact that since the State was set up Marriage is accepted as Gender based.The vote is do we wish to change that.

The state set up many things in the constitution based upon what it felt best or thought at the time. Many have been changed in light of perceived wrongs, biases, administrative details, etc. We've accepted many things in the constitution and society has developed to mean we no longer feel they were just or right, in many of those changes we weren't directly impacted by the need for change. That's an argument from a privaledged position. Married couples have accepted that marriage is gender because they are the only ones allowed to marry, there hasn't been an opportunity to think of it in any other way.

The issue on belief is whether marriage should continue to be gender-based, not that it is currently gender based, but whether there are any demonstrable negative impacts from removing the gender bias. If not and the individual still wishes to vote no, then it is a matter of their belief and nothing more.

I still do not see how you cannot see that this anything but an equality issue.

 

[Gerry Canning]

Why when the problem is essentially solved by a simple change of definition? That route would require a much bigger change in the constitution and would have a much bigger impact on married people. This way the only impact is to provide equal rights to a group currently denied them.



The state set up many things in the constitution based upon what it felt best or thought at the time. Many have been changed in light of perceived wrongs, biases, administrative details, etc. We've accepted many things in the constitution and society has developed to mean we no longer feel they were just or right, in many of those changes we weren't directly impacted by the need for change. That's an argument from a privaledged position. Married couples have accepted that marriage is gender because they are the only ones allowed to marry, there hasn't been an opportunity to think of it in any other way.

The issue on belief is whether marriage should continue to be gender-based, not that it is currently gender based, but whether there are any demonstrable negative impacts from removing the gender bias. If not and the individual still wishes to vote no, then it is a matter of their belief and nothing more.

I still do not see how you cannot see that this anything but an equality issue.

.........................................................................................................
Sorry folks.
Must be me but I just cannot get my head around this being an equality issue.
Is this Referendum not solely a wish to ensure all loving couples get the same rights ?

So confine Marriage as was understood up to now as Man & Woman , that is what was contracted.

Let us give a time clarity and close off the accepted definition of Marriage,and have all future Unions as Full Civil Partnerships encompassing rights that up to now were largely encompassed in Marriage?
Would that not sort out the No camp and give equal future rights to Yes camp?

 

[Purple]

.........................................................................................................
Sorry folks.
Must be me but I just cannot get my head around this being an equality issue.
Is this Referendum not solely a wish to ensure all loving couples get the same rights ?

So confine Marriage as was understood up to now as Man & Woman , that is what was contracted.

Let us give a time clarity and close off the accepted definition of Marriage,and have all future Unions as Full Civil Partnerships encompassing rights that up to now were largely encompassed in Marriage?
Would that not sort out the No camp and give equal future rights to Yes camp?

Why would we do that, other than to differentiate between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage under the law? Kind of like "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"?

It sounds a bit like this.

 

[Firefly]

What would happen currently if a man and women got married (even had kids), but one of them later had a sex-change...would they still be "married"?

 

[Latrade]

.........................................................................................................
Sorry folks.
Must be me but I just cannot get my head around this being an equality issue.
Is this Referendum not solely a wish to ensure all loving couples get the same rights ?

So confine Marriage as was understood up to now as Man & Woman , that is what was contracted.

Let us give a time clarity and close off the accepted definition of Marriage,and have all future Unions as Full Civil Partnerships encompassing rights that up to now were largely encompassed in Marriage?
Would that not sort out the No camp and give equal future rights to Yes camp?

Yes it is to provide the same rights, hence equality.

It doesn't effect the existing contract. Those married as of today are still free to remain married, love each other and remain heterosexual. They will not be forced to alter their existing contract. It will just mean others can avail of the same recognition by the state.

Therefore, why should it be called anything else than marriage?

It requires constitutional change as marriage is protected by the constitution, so whether they the new system is called civil partnership or any other name, it would still require constitutional change so that it has the same protection and status as marriage. We'd be back right back at the start.

And it's an uncomfortable proposition as it is a "separate but equal" view. It is still saying there is something special about traditional marriage that a gay marriage couldn't achieve. It is also, alas, the same argument used in support of segregated schools in the states that was found to be unconstitutional. Equality means equality.

I've no idea if the no camp would be happy with a civil union, given the opposition to civil partnership five years ago I'd suspect that no matter what it was called there would be a large opposition.

But why put it on the long finger? why go through even greater constitutional upheaval? This is the simplest and fairest way to ensure equality and ensures it with no impact on anyone.

 

[Purple]

And it's an uncomfortable proposition as it is a "separate but equal" view. It is still saying there is something special about traditional marriage that a gay marriage couldn't achieve. It is also, alas, the same argument used in support of segregated schools in the states that was found to be unconstitutional. Equality means equality.

Indeed!

It sounds a bit like this.

 

[Latrade]

What would happen currently if a man and women got married (even had kids), but one of them later had a sex-change...would they still be "married"?

Yes because the state does not recognise the change of a person's gender, and so official records would still record their birth gender.

 

[Purple]

Yes because the state does not recognise the change of a person's gender, and so official records would still record their birth gender.

Another thing that should be changed.

 

[Purple]

I like this one

 

[Leo]

Interesting piece here on the evolution of marriage in Ireland, and how the term and what it entails has changed with the times. Very clear the accepted and legal meanings have evolved significantly over time.

 

[Gerry Canning]

Leo.

Maybe No voters are not into evolution!

 

[Sol28]

I am fuming with a poster I spotted earlier - the No side clouding the referendum with obvious lies. The Yes vote will make no change to any surrogacy laws - nor will a no vote.

Dirty Tactics have started!

(Sorry - Dont know how to make this pic any smaller)

 

[terrysgirl33]

Interesting piece here on the evolution of marriage in Ireland, and how the term and what it entails has changed with the times. Very clear the accepted and legal meanings have evolved significantly over time.

It only deals with changes from middle to late medieval times, but it is very interesting, and sounds rather alien now!

 

[Leper]

I am fuming with a poster I spotted earlier - the No side clouding the referendum with obvious lies. The Yes vote will make no change to any surrogacy laws - nor will a no vote.

Dirty Tactics have started!

We've never had a referendum or election which was without Dirty Tactics. The forthcoming referendum and any future election will not be fought by people waving fingernails across a table. I bet before long both sides will be pulling out every stop (clean and dirty) to try and convince people one way or the other.

Like I said in an earlier post on this thread there the only danger to the Yes vote is overkill. Some of the trades unions have jumped in on the Yes side although they would have members on the No side too. I'm sure some of the trades union membership will not be impressed on a union that was complicit in inflicting a 14% (at least) drop in wages over the past few years is championing something not in line with the thinking of some of its membership. Lots of other organisations have jumped on the Yes bandwagon too.

In the meantime an elderly homosexual friend of mine waits and waits on how the future of homosexuality is going to be treated in Ireland. I should point out that he always practised his homosexuality. He was cast out by his family; only receives an invitation to attend the family home on Christmas Day and while relationships were discussed by other family members, his were not. He was driven into depression and confused beyond comprehension. His chances of promotion in work were nil and for a quiet life he just laid low. He still visits his family (at Christmas) and every illness is discussed except the illness inside of his mind (depression). He is in his seventies now, retired, beaten down and can't believe that the people who castigated him are now hopping on bandwagons, clapping each other on the back and nobody is apologising or even expressing regret at his suffering.

Dirty Tricks are just another nail in this man's coffin by people who should know better.

 

[Purple]

In the meantime an elderly homosexual friend of mine waits and waits on how the future of homosexuality is going to be treated in Ireland. I should point out that he always practised his homosexuality. He was cast out by his family; only receives an invitation to attend the family home on Christmas Day and while relationships were discussed by other family members, his were not. He was driven into depression and confused beyond comprehension. His chances of promotion in work were nil and for a quiet life he just laid low. He still visits his family (at Christmas) and every illness is discussed except the illness inside of his mind (depression). He is in his seventies now, retired, beaten down and can't believe that the people who castigated him are now hopping on bandwagons, clapping each other on the back and nobody is apologising or even expressing regret at his suffering.

That's very well put, extremely sad and, unfortunately, extremely common.

 

[Gerry Canning]

Those who castigated/hurt that 70 year old have realised that they were wrong and at least nowadays the vast bulk of that old homophobia has gone.
It is always hard to apologise for past mistakes ,people have a habit of following the (norm) of the time and since they weren,t in that mans shoes in bygonedays, and since most people are heterosexual , they could not back, in fairly recent past ,have seen the hurt.

 

[Sol28]

Those who castigated/hurt that 70 year old have realised that they were wrong and at least nowadays the vast bulk of that old homophobia has gone.

I totally agree with you. Unfortunately you cant retrospectively go back and fix his life. What we can do is ensure no one has to suffer the same again. Hopefully he can get some joy from seeing that the world is improving - and that rights are opening up to him (despite how late in his life they are).