Marriage Equality Referendum

[domhnallj]

Never thought if it that way but I suppose if the referendum is for change then yeah abstaining is kind of a no whether it's meant that way or not.

Not necessarily as if you abstain from a referendum and the turnout is significantly low then it could lead to a re-run or adjustment to the question being asked. It can be in certain cases that people are generally for change but find that a question/amendment proposed is poorly worded and potentially open to legal challenge. You could say that it's not the right question so you wouldn't be voting no by abstaining you'd more or less be asking the political class to provide you with a better question, better debate and better constructed legislation to flow from any amendment.

*ps I'm not arguing this in this instance more just general discourse around referendums.

Thats fair enough. I'll add an option to abstain.

Edit - and apparently that means all previous votes have been lost

I haven't got a vote, where's my button?

[Peg Leg]

I haven't got a vote, where's my button?

It's in Ireland, you have to come home if you want to use it

[Avenger]

I haven't got a vote, where's my button?

Don't know why that is.

[offshorerules]

I always vote whenever I can but I am seriously tempted not to on this occasion. If I do vote I will vote yes but I am sick to death of political debates getting polarised in this country and in this campaign the Yes vote has been as guilty as the No's in my opinion.

I agree entirely with the sentiment but does it apply here? I despise the fact that if Party X proposes a change then Party Y will automatically shoot them down just to score political points, but in this case all the parties are aligned and I haven't seen any of that kind of attempted point scoring from the yes side. The vast majority of stuff from the yes side has been about promoting equality/love and arguing against the red herrings from the no side. I don't think they've come up with anything too outlandish for selfish political reasons. The no side are a little different in that their arguments are quite extreme, but I will say that that is borne out of deeply held beliefs rather than just point scoring or self promotion.

I really would encourage people to vote because the result will have a massive impact on people's lives and how society progresses, and that is a really powerful thing.

P.s apologies for saying "point scoring" far too often.

I'm not referring to the political parties when I refer to 'political debate' to clarify. In fairness to them they have been balanced and have conducted themselves well (even Sinn Fein) in this debate. The idiots on the no side are clearly identifiable. No who I am referring to are those on the yes side that refuse to listen to any concerns or any other argument other than what they want to suggest is how everyone should think. The girl on the late late show making faces behind one of the speakers back and was captured on camera is a good example of what I am talking about. Why we can't have a reasoned discussion about the potential consequences of a yes vote on one topic or another that is not just about equality is beyond me. I'm just sick of that. Rant over.

[offshorerules]

There is also the option of spoiling your ballot paper. That way you get counted but don't affect the result other than it is in effect a no vote as is not voting.

[OTT]

I'm not referring to the political parties when I refer to 'political debate' to clarify. In fairness to them they have been balanced and have conducted themselves well (even Sinn Fein) in this debate. The idiots on the no side are clearly identifiable. No who I am referring to are those on the yes side that refuse to listen to any concerns or any other argument other than what they want to suggest is how everyone should think. The girl on the late late show making faces behind one of the speakers back and was captured on camera is a good example of what I am talking about. Why we can't have a reasoned discussion about the potential consequences of a yes vote on one topic or another that is not just about equality is beyond me. I'm just sick of that. Rant over.

I 100% agree with this sentiment, I read a piece on Facebook which was by a guy who was voting No and he wanted to tell his friends why. It was detailed and very passionate, full of holes imo and borderline ridiculous but it was his page his status update and his opinion and people could try and reason with him if that was their wish. Anyway what resulted was a load of people abusing him for his beliefs, calling him a creepo, saying he was a loser back in school anyway, sad b$&%@#d etc etc the best one was 'I always thought you were gay anyway'. It was absolutely pathetic. These champions for the yes vote were doing more damage then the one narrow minded person (imo) who was voting No.

But at the end of the day I still have to get down and give a Yes vote, it is to important for all of us (imo) to let people derail it.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

That girl on the late late seemed like an attention seeking idiot alright and it annoyed me too. I suppose there have also been plenty of no posters torn down which is also wrong and could understand why that would irk people.

I don't get your point about not being able to have a debate about topics other than equality though tbh. Surrogacy and adoption are the two main arguments against it from the no side and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the referendum so they are rightly shouted down for it. The best example was last week when the head of the adoption board stated very clearly that the adoption process would not change if the result is a yes and when asked his thoughts Ronan Mullen said "I'm not reassured". That is utterly disgraceful and I see no value in continuing to debate adoption when you're dealing with a character like that. The same goes for not acknowledging what the referendum commissioner says about surrogacy.

I can think of three "legitimate" concerns the no side have put forward. The first is that civil partnership is good enough already. There have been countless testimonies from civil partners saying its not and plenty of articles/documents stating the numerous legal and constitutional differences between the two so to my mind there has actually been debate on that. Secondly there have been concerns about priests being forced to marry gay couples, it's been clarified that they won't. Lastly there are concerns about children being taught about "non traditional families" against their parents' wishes. I think that's an utterly bizarre argument to make given that they will exist regardless of the referendum result and because there's nothing wrong with them anyway, but I don't think that has been debated. It's certainly a very minor issue though, the lack of noise about it from the no side illustrates that.

Honestly though I don't see why anyone still going on about surrogacy and adoption in light of what's been said about it by neutral bodies like the adoption board and referendum commission should be given the time of day. I think it's bizarre that RTE has to regulate the time it gives to both sides but neither they nor the referendum commission can do anything to stop either side debating issues unrelated to the referendum. It's scurrilous behaviour from the no side that should not be encouraged.

[IanD]

I can think of three "legitimate" concerns the no side have put forward. The first is that civil partnership is good enough already. There have been countless testimonies from civil partners saying its not and plenty of articles/documents stating the numerous legal and constitutional differences between the two so to my mind there has actually been debate on that.

This point is absolutely smashed out of the park when you read the back of the of your voting card. A marriage certificate is considered ''Evidence of Identity'' but there is no mention about civil partnership.

This was pointed out on The Journal and the answer from the No Side was to change Civil Partnerships. This to me proves that they are not good enough if you have to change them.



In my opinion this is and example of complete discrimination and is proof that things that need to change and why I will be voting Yes.

[IanD]

A Hedge on the way to the Polling Station in Goatstown.

[offshorerules]

That girl on the late late seemed like an attention seeking idiot alright and it annoyed me too. I suppose there have also been plenty of no posters torn down which is also wrong and could understand why that would irk people.

I don't get your point about not being able to have a debate about topics other than equality though tbh. Surrogacy and adoption are the two main arguments against it from the no side and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the referendum so they are rightly shouted down for it. The best example was last week when the head of the adoption board stated very clearly that the adoption process would not change if the result is a yes and when asked his thoughts Ronan Mullen said "I'm not reassured". That is utterly disgraceful and I see no value in continuing to debate adoption when you're dealing with a character like that. The same goes for not acknowledging what the referendum commissioner says about surrogacy.

I can think of three "legitimate" concerns the no side have put forward. The first is that civil partnership is good enough already. There have been countless testimonies from civil partners saying its not and plenty of articles/documents stating the numerous legal and constitutional differences between the two so to my mind there has actually been debate on that. Secondly there have been concerns about priests being forced to marry gay couples, it's been clarified that they won't. Lastly there are concerns about children being taught about "non traditional families" against their parents' wishes. I think that's an utterly bizarre argument to make given that they will exist regardless of the referendum result and because there's nothing wrong with them anyway, but I don't think that has been debated. It's certainly a very minor issue though, the lack of noise about it from the no side illustrates that.

Honestly though I don't see why anyone still going on about surrogacy and adoption in light of what's been said about it by neutral bodies like the adoption board and referendum commission should be given the time of day. I think it's bizarre that RTE has to regulate the time it gives to both sides but neither they nor the referendum commission can do anything to stop either side debating issues unrelated to the referendum. It's scurrilous behaviour from the no side that should not be encouraged.

This is my point exactly, why are they rightly shouted down? If you agree with them you wouldn't think they are rightly shouted down. Nobody should be shouted down in a reasoned debate irrespective of how ridiculous they are being. You don't have to like it but it is what it is. We have more referenda coming in the next two years or so and I dread the spurious bullshit that will come out during those but I bet you nobody will be called a racist or a bigot during those campaigns if they are voting no to the latest European agreement (which will ratify the European Patent Court, generally a good thing I think) but I 'm equally sure they will struggle to get approval. Say you're voting no in this referendum and instantly you're homophobic. It's ridiculous. So I don't disagree with anything you've said but you are being reasonable, it's those that are polarising the debate that I find abhorrent.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I thought it was pretty clear, it's because the no side won't listen to the very clear information from neutral parties saying that surrogacy and adoption have nothing to do with the referendum. They are not part of the referendum and so should not be discussed. How can anyone reasonably debate a subject like adoption such as in the example above when Ronan Mullen says he's not reassured by the words of the adoption board? That's not a case of yes voters having a difference of opinion, it's a fact that puts the argument to bed completely...and yet they carry on with it. It's scandalous.

[Dave Cahill]

This is my point exactly, why are they rightly shouted down? If you agree with them you wouldn't think they are rightly shouted down. Nobody should be shouted down in a reasoned debate irrespective of how ridiculous they are being. You don't have to like it but it is what it is. We have more referenda coming in the next two years or so and I dread the spurious bullshit that will come out during those but I bet you nobody will be called a racist or a bigot during those campaigns if they are voting no to the latest European agreement (which will ratify the European Patent Court, generally a good thing I think) but I 'm equally sure they will struggle to get approval. Say you're voting no in this referendum and instantly you're homophobic. It's ridiculous. So I don't disagree with anything you've said but you are being reasonable, it's those that are polarising the debate that I find abhorrent.

The reasonableness of the persons manner is completely irrelevant - the point itself is the thing, and if - as you say - its ridiculous, then why does it deserve the courtesy of respect? Surely if we shouted down these ridiculous points a lot sooner then they wouldn't gain such traction.

[offshorerules]

The banking regulator also said quite clearly that there was no chance of there being a liquidity problem for the Irish Banks. Should be good enough for me so, I'll remember that when I'm paying my taxes. Glad we didn't question him.

[offshorerules]

This is my point exactly, why are they rightly shouted down? If you agree with them you wouldn't think they are rightly shouted down. Nobody should be shouted down in a reasoned debate irrespective of how ridiculous they are being. You don't have to like it but it is what it is. We have more referenda coming in the next two years or so and I dread the spurious bullshit that will come out during those but I bet you nobody will be called a racist or a bigot during those campaigns if they are voting no to the latest European agreement (which will ratify the European Patent Court, generally a good thing I think) but I 'm equally sure they will struggle to get approval. Say you're voting no in this referendum and instantly you're homophobic. It's ridiculous. So I don't disagree with anything you've said but you are being reasonable, it's those that are polarising the debate that I find abhorrent.

The reasonableness of the persons manner is completely irrelevant - the point itself is the thing, and if - as you say - its ridiculous, then why does it deserve the courtesy of respect? Surely if we shouted down these ridiculous points a lot sooner then they wouldn't gain such traction.

Who says they're gaining traction?

[Avenger]

why are they rightly shouted down?

Shouted down is the wrong term.

But I watched that debate too where the head of the adoption board stated that the adoption process wouldn't be changed by a yes vote and Ronan Mullen immediately stated that he wasn't reassured and that he did not trust a government expert.
So there we were in the middle of the debate and the representative for the no campaign basically announced that he was ignoring an independent opinion as it did not suit his agenda. Why would we pay any more attention to that person after that? I fully agree with LRIP that this was disgraceful and see no point in continuing to debate with such a person.

[offshorerules]

why are they rightly shouted down?

Shouted down is the wrong term.

But I watched that debate too where the head of the adoption board stated that the adoption process wouldn't be changed by a yes vote and Ronan Mullen immediately stated that he wasn't reassured and that he did not trust a government expert.
So there we were in the middle of the debate and the representative for the no campaign basically announced that he was ignoring an independent opinion as it did not suit his agenda. Why would we pay any more attention to that person after that? I fully agree with LRIP that this was disgraceful and see no point in continuing to debate with such a person.

And again I don't disagree with you but those voting No are as entitled to their opinion as the those voting yes. To shut them up is censorship at its worst. And tell me do you believe any other Government 'expert'. I don't, not one of them.

This is the first comment on the corresponding thread on that fine site called Munsterfans.

Marriage Equality Referendum



So the marriage equality referendum is almost certainly going to be held at the beginning of May. Call me cynical but I think it was an horrifically sneaky move to hold it while all the university students have their exams and may not be able to get home to vote. Students for whom there was a voter registration drive that resulted in multiple thousands signing up to vote.

I'll be voting in favour of marriage equality. I think you're either evil or ignorant if you don't.


The poster was called Buseph and is aredently in favour of a yes vote. But to frame a debate in terms of agree with me or you're ignorant or evil is just as ridiculous as Ronan Mullen.

[Avenger]

And tell me do you believe any other Government 'expert'. I don't, not one of them.

It was Mullen that referred to him as a government expert. No one else. Before his interview he was simply introduced (I think but could be wrong) as the head of the agency that handles adoptions. It was a very interesting piece. I for one was surprised by how few infant adoptions there are in Ireland every year. I had a fair idea it wouldn't be a high number but was surprised by how small it was.

The poster was called Buseph and is aredently in favour of a yes vote. But to frame a debate in terms of agree with me or you're ignorant or evil is just as ridiculous as Ronan Mullen.

No argument here. Completely agree with you there. But Buseph's medium is a message board and Ronan Mullen was on RTE with a far higher viewership. Also I doubt that Buseph would sway too many folk that are confused and not sure which way to go but Mullen is attempting to muddy the water and confuse as many people as possible.

[Dave Cahill]

but those voting No are as entitled to their opinion as the those voting yes.

Its not an opinion though if its incorrect in fact. Its delusion.

[Oldschool]

Voting yes, although I can't wait for this all to be over

You're only supposed to vote once.

[offshorerules]

but those voting No are as entitled to their opinion as the those voting yes.

Its not an opinion though if its incorrect in fact. Its delusion.

In your opinion. To a lot of people God is fact, personally I think it a delusion and that is my opinion. Might be right, might be wrong but I guess I will find out eventually. Until then it remains my opinion and I feel entitled to express it.