Marriage Equality Referendum

[Vamos los azules]

I do wonder if the no vote will end up being a lot higher than people expect because no-one who wants to vote that way is going to announce it to the world, they'll just sneak quietly into the polling booth and mark that box and then go about their business.

I may be wrong and the very strong yes that I see reflected in my social group is actually representative, but I would never doubt the Irish population's ability to say one thing to your face and then do something completely different in private.

[TerenureJim]

To be entirely honest I think both sides in the referendum have been dreadful. The reasoned arguments on both side have been shouted down by elements from within their own campaigns whether that's over zealous religious/Iona types or the "if you don't vote yes you're a homophobe" on the other. The lack of respect and decency shown by people on both sides of the debate has left a very poor taste in my mouth for all of them. This should have been a hugely positive and rationally debated topic instead it has turned into something I'll be glad to see that back of and if I'm honest I hope once today is over that a lot of people on both sides wont' be allowed near any type of media outlet again.

[fourthirtythree]

To be entirely honest I think both sides in the referendum have been dreadful. The reasoned arguments on both side have been shouted down by elements from within their own campaigns whether that's over zealous religious/Iona types or the "if you don't vote yes you're a homophobe" on the other. The lack of respect and decency shown by people on both sides of the debate has left a very poor taste in my mouth for all of them. This should have been a hugely positive and rationally debated topic instead it has turned into something I'll be glad to see that back of and if I'm honest I hope once today is over that a lot of people on both sides wont' be allowed near any type of media outlet again.

What reasoned argument to vote no was made? You must have heard somebody that I didn't because the usual cast of naysayers had only disinformation and confusion to sow. This handwashing equivocation really annoys me: the official no campaign was deliberately disingenuous and divisive by design from the get go: it's what they do. They are trolls. They have nothing positive to offer.

The yes side largely campaigned positively and on the facts. You may have had a problem with the odd individual and non-official, non campaigners, but the official campaigns were all respectful and positive. The no side did neither of these but rather raised issues that were not related in an effort to obscure the actual question being posed. This is civil marriage, not a religious ceremony, it has nothing to do with religion other than the idea that the state should be separate from any and all churches. It has nothing to do with whether a child gets to have a mother (whatever that means), it has nothing to do with adoption, nor surrogacy. It's simply affording the legal rights of marriage to same sex couples rather than the civil partnership fudge. It doesn't cost, it makes people happy, it hurts nobody apart from those who get offended by other people not being discriminated against.

And if you believe in equality as a concept you should also vote to lower the presidential candidate age. Not that anybody at all gives a f%~k about it.

[domhnallj]

To be entirely honest I think both sides in the referendum have been dreadful. The reasoned arguments on both side have been shouted down by elements from within their own campaigns whether that's over zealous religious/Iona types or the "if you don't vote yes you're a homophobe" on the other. The lack of respect and decency shown by people on both sides of the debate has left a very poor taste in my mouth for all of them. This should have been a hugely positive and rationally debated topic instead it has turned into something I'll be glad to see that back of and if I'm honest I hope once today is over that a lot of people on both sides wont' be allowed near any type of media outlet again.

And just like that your argument is supported.

[ChrisUppy]

To be entirely honest I think both sides in the referendum have been dreadful. The reasoned arguments on both side have been shouted down by elements from within their own campaigns whether that's over zealous religious/Iona types or the "if you don't vote yes you're a homophobe" on the other. The lack of respect and decency shown by people on both sides of the debate has left a very poor taste in my mouth for all of them. This should have been a hugely positive and rationally debated topic instead it has turned into something I'll be glad to see that back of and if I'm honest I hope once today is over that a lot of people on both sides wont' be allowed near any type of media outlet again.

What reasoned argument to vote no was made? You must have heard somebody that I didn't because the usual cast of naysayers had only disinformation and confusion to sow. This handwashing equivocation really annoys me: the official no campaign was deliberately disingenuous and divisive by design from the get go: it's what they do. They are trolls. They have nothing positive to offer.

The yes side largely campaigned positively and on the facts. You may have had a problem with the odd individual and non-official, non campaigners, but the official campaigns were all respectful and positive. The no side did neither of these but rather raised issues that were not related in an effort to obscure the actual question being posed. This is civil marriage, not a religious ceremony, it has nothing to do with religion other than the idea that the state should be separate from any and all churches. It has nothing to do with whether a child gets to have a mother (whatever that means), it has nothing to do with adoption, nor surrogacy. It's simply affording the legal rights of marriage to same sex couples rather than the civil partnership fudge. It doesn't cost, it makes people happy, it hurts nobody apart from those who get offended by other people not being discriminated against.

And if you believe in equality as a concept you should also vote to lower the presidential candidate age. Not that anybody at all gives a f%~k about it.

Agree with you 433. Felt the yes campaign stayed positive and didn't resort to the fear mongering and guerrilla tactics used against them.

As for accusing people of being homophobic; when someone is questioned about why they are voting no and cannot provide an answer without the use of red herrings and sophistry (THINK OF THE CHILDREN) then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are in fact only interested in denying people rights based on their sexuality. Which is homophobic

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Agree entirely with 433 and ChrisUppy. There has been plenty of debate but to my mind the no side are just very precious about their arguments being torn apart. I have no problem with a no voter having doubts or questions about surrogacy and adoption, but I have a problem with them not acknowledging that they are wrong on those points when it is clarified by the referendum commission and the adoption board that they have no part of this debate. If you can't accept that then what debate is to be had?

[jezzer]

I voted yes.

But, unlike most on here, I don't believe that the grounds for a no vote are entirely baseless by any means. My grasp of the Constitution is shaky, but I think there's enough in its fairly unique contextualisation of the family that a yes vote could spawn in the future more challenging and complex questions. It's perfectly true that a yes vote doesn't automatically change anything, but the path is open for wider changes to be sought by interest groups or individuals on the basis of the changed "constitutional identity" that is afforded by a yes vote.

I'm OK with that, on balance. Not everybody is.

I'm not OK with being just as bigoted towards those who are no voters as certain no voters are towards gay people.

[fourthirtythree]

You'll have to explain them because I genuinely don't see it. I think challenging and complex questions are afoot anyway and I don't see this as having much impact. Unlike the entirely foreseen ramifications of the abortion amendment which we are still nowhere near getting fixed.

The amendment won't make it more difficult to discriminate against gay people than it already will be.

But then I believe the sensible option is simply to remove a bunch of offensive cr@p from the constitution including all its references to god. Make it shorter. Use fewer words. Let is breathe and grow with the times through interpretation.

[olaf the fat]

What some of the Yes supporters dot get is that not everybody knows what way they are going to vote. I questioned what the change was to the constitution, was it necessary, what really could change - I weighed this up and think its not really necessary to change the lines in the constitution, I do think there will be cases in family law after it - but thats a mess already, gay or straight wont change that.

But the big thing that outweighs all of the negatives is that its absolutely none of my business who somebody else wants to marry or what sexual orientation anybody is - thats why I will vote yes this evening - not because the cool kids said I should or being called be a bigot for thinking.

Quite a few people will be unsure and have their ideas formed or changed by exploration of the issues at stake. Dismissing those who want to know what they are voting on, and the direct and indirect consequence of their vote, is just as stupid and pighead as the Iona faithful. We were told by The Church, The Government and the Banks to shut up and follow before, look how that worked out.

An Iona Nazi and a Yes Nazi have more in common than they like.

Btw. But dont forget David Norris, he lead the way in the presidential election

[ChrisUppy]

"challenging and complex questions" are a part of life and are virtually an everyday occurrence worldwide. As such, it is an incredibly tenuous justification for denying a group of humans equal rights for fear that there may be some "challenging and complex questions" down the line.

I appreciate that you obviously agree with this Jezzer, as you voted yes yourself.

Many people use this excuse as a mask to hide their homophobia though. Look at the politicians and organisations who opposed civil partnership (which they now champion) when it was being introduced. There was no fear of messing with the constitution in that instance

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Many people use this excuse as a mask to hide their homophobia though.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here but this is definitely true. None of my friends think that way but I definitely get that sense when talking to older relatives and friends have said the same about their parents etc.

I actually find it bizarre that Iona haven't pushed the religious element of it more. The article in the Times yesterday is the first time I've heard it. It's only natural that they would use their religious views to shape their opinions and I find it highly suspicious that they have, by and large, parked that for the campaign and gone with other arguments.

[ChrisUppy]

Many people use this excuse as a mask to hide their homophobia though.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here but this is definitely true. None of my friends think that way but I definitely get that sense when talking to older relatives and friends have said the same about their parents etc.

I actually find it bizarre that Iona haven't pushed the religious element of it more. The article in the Times yesterday is the first time I've heard it. It's only natural that they would use their religious views to shape their opinions and I find it highly suspicious that they have, by and large, parked that for the campaign and gone with other arguments.

They won't mention religion because they know that the people who buy into that angle will already be voting no, and to many people the catholic church is toxic. They know that they won't change anybody's mind by bringing that up and they may even damage their own 'credibility'

[olaf the fat]

"challenging and complex questions" are a part of life and are virtually an everyday occurrence worldwide. As such, it is an incredibly tenuous justification for denying a group of humans equal rights for fear that there may be some "challenging and complex questions" down the line.

I appreciate that you obviously agree with this Jezzer, as you voted yes yourself.

Many people use this excuse as a mask to hide their homophobia though. Look at the politicians and organisations who opposed civil partnership (which they now champion) when it was being introduced. There was no fear of messing with the constitution in that instance

Thats the whole point that is missed! Jezzer for example, understands there maybe challenging and complex questions, without denying anybody their rights or being homophobic - it is possible to question something before reaching an opinion. Others cant without being differentopinionphobic.

Regarding Iona and the religious element, most people that go to mass realise that they themselves are better informed that the Bishops and can think for themselves. Disagreement is no longer a sin in the Church

[jezzer]

You'll have to explain them because I genuinely don't see it. I think challenging and complex questions are afoot anyway and I don't see this as having much impact. Unlike the entirely foreseen ramifications of the abortion amendment which we are still nowhere near getting fixed.

The amendment won't make it more difficult to discriminate against gay people than it already will be.

But then I believe the sensible option is simply to remove a bunch of offensive cr@p from the constitution including all its references to god. Make it shorter. Use fewer words. Let is breathe and grow with the times through interpretation.

I think the right to beget children (which isn't an explicit right in the constitution for a family and has already been rejected in a test case involving two convicted criminals wish to have conjugal rights, but is sufficiently clear an intended entitlement to consititutional families as to have special meaning) will be tested in court by same sex couples within a very short time after the yes vote, maybe even before the surrogacy legislation comes in, so as to get first-mover advantage.

It won't be open-and-shut that the new status as "family" of a same-sex couple under constitutional protection will afford a gay couple the same reproductive assistance rights as hetero couples or single people. But legally, ethically and politically the momentum will be in favour of the couple taking the case.

There isn't legislation covering surrogacy or adoption on this point, so it's not clear what form the cause would take, but it makes sense that a same-sex couple looking for the same entitlements as a hetero couple to be a parent will try to establish that right in law, on behalf of themselves and other gay couples.

Voting yes doesn't change the constitution with respect to surrogacy, adoption etc, so the independent experts who all weighed in are correct. But I haven't heard any independent expert or yes campaigner acknowledge that the "right" to beget children of an Irish constitutional family is likely to be tested in the case of a gay couple post-referendum.

I don't think, therefore, that a no vote is a vote ipso facto for homophobia , even if a lot of no votes are rooted in homophobia (or at least a fear of the unknown).

[LeRouxIsPHat]

What exactly is the worry about a gay couple taking a case like that?

[Oldschool]

What exactly is the worry about a gay couple taking a case like that?

Far more likely in the short term.
A gay couple will call up to their local pp and ask him to marry them.

[Avenger]

What exactly is the worry about a gay couple taking a case like that?

Far more likely in the short term.
A gay couple will call up to their local pp and ask him to marry them.

No they won't.

[Avenger]

What exactly is the worry about a gay couple taking a case like that?

I'd love to hear the answer to this myself.

[fourthirtythree]

1
I think the right to beget children (which isn't an explicit right in the constitution for a family and has already been rejected in a test case involving two convicted criminals wish to have conjugal rights, but is sufficiently clear an intended entitlement to consititutional families as to have special meaning) will be tested in court by same sex couples within a very short time after the yes vote, maybe even before the surrogacy legislation comes in, so as to get first-mover advantage.

2
It won't be open-and-shut that the new status as "family" of a same-sex couple under constitutional protection will afford a gay couple the same reproductive assistance rights as hetero couples or single people. But legally, ethically and politically the momentum will be in favour of the couple taking the case.

3
There isn't legislation covering surrogacy or adoption on this point, so it's not clear what form the cause would take, but it makes sense that a same-sex couple looking for the same entitlements as a hetero couple to be a parent will try to establish that right in law, on behalf of themselves and other gay couples.

4
Voting yes doesn't change the constitution with respect to surrogacy, adoption etc, so the independent experts who all weighed in are correct. But I haven't heard any independent expert or yes campaigner acknowledge that the "right" to beget children of an Irish constitutional family is likely to be tested in the case of a gay couple post-referendum.

5
I don't think, therefore, that a no vote is a vote ipso facto for homophobia , even if a lot of no votes are rooted in homophobia (or at least a fear of the unknown).

Excuse me, on an ipad so typing not that great.

1 not a constitutional right, and not only that it has been litigated and established as such. Equality will be in any surrogacy legislation anyway. I don't see anything here.

2 what reproductive assistance rights? I have no idea what you are referring to.

3 any legislation will not refer to marriage in the first place. It will also have equality in it. And there is adoption legislation and gay couples have equal rights already. There is no issue here.

4 neither have I. The right doesn't exist so good luck to them. I suspect that a heterosexual couple would try this first, just because there are more of them. Good luck. But there is no issue here relating to this referendum.

5 I'm not gay, I don't perceive myself as being homophobic - I have lots of lezzer friends that I talk rugby with (by pure coincidence!) - but if we are being honest I have done and said homophobic things in my life. As a kid some things were normal to say. They denigrated gay people. That means I acted in a homophobic way. That's what homophobia is. Not whether in your heart and soul you think that you hate the gays or not. In the current environment disagreeing with marriage equality is considered by very many people to be homophobic, just like using gay, or Nancy, or puff, or quee-arrrr as an insult when you were younger is now perceived as homophobia. We can now look back on our childhoods and say to ourselves that we did and said sh!t which is no longer tolerable. This referendum is like that.

I have issues with it, I don't believe it should have been a referendum rather it should have been legislated for and all the references to god taken out of the constitution. And they shouldn't have stuff about women staying at home unless they want to fund it either (and men should be recognised as fathers if women are as mothers). But I have not heard substantive, truthful argument against it.

[blockhead]

Well said 433. Back in my early teens the word queer, faggot, steamer(remember that one) was something you had to avoid being branded with at all costs. "Gay" still meant cheerful btw. White socks= queer, sit next to any other lad on the bus = queer, stand next to any one in the toilets= queer, cry? just forget about it. I was a rocker and all the "new romantics" were definitly queer! Although, come to think of it, they had more success with the ladies than we had. It was a gauntlet that we had to traverse back then, what must it have been like for the actual gay kids? No wonder we had so many priests back then.