Marriage Equality Referendum - how will you vote?

[osarusan]

In the Mariage Equality Referendum on May 22nd, will you vote? How will you vote?

Polls consistently give the Yes side 70-80% of the vote, but I expect it to be closer on the day.

EDIT: Private poll, by the way.

[Cuyahoga]

I will vote. And I will vote Yes. I agree I think it will be closer than people think perhaps 60/40 in favour. paddy Power bookies have ' Yes' at 1/12 which seems very short but a No vote does seem unlikely.

[BonnieShels]

I honestly can't see anything but a complete white wash for YES.

Sure, the No vote (like a FF and Tory vote) will rise in the booths, but I still can't see it even being close.

As it should be.

[Mr A]

Was talking to my Mum at the weekend and she said she was shocked by some of the stuff she had heard said about the referendum. There is an undercurrent of hatred there towards the gay community that usually only speaks its mind when they think they're in safe company. Usually but not exclusively in the older generation.

And those people will vote. But I think that younger people will be more energised than usual for this vote and will also turn out. I believe Yes will win, but the No vote will be depressingly large.

[nigel-harps1954]

Expecting it to be a much closer result than people are expecting. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a No vote win out by a very small margin, which would be incredibly embarrassing for this country.

Some of the arguments coming from the No side are an embarrassment in itself.

[GypsyBlackCat]

Expecting it to be a much closer result than people are expecting. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a No vote win out by a very small margin, which would be incredibly embarrassing for this country.

Some of the arguments coming from the No side are an embarrassment in itself.
Some of the behavior from both sides is very childish. I'm stead fast in the 'Yes' camp but I have to admit that I've seen some bluff from the yesser. But your right about the 'No' camp. They are making up so ridiculous stories.:eek:

[IsMiseSean]

I'll be voting Yes. I expect it to be closer than the polls suggest. I reckon 55-60% in favour.
There is a big No vote out there unfortunately and I expect the Church to roll them out over the coming weekend. Interesting to hear what sort of sermons are said on Sunday throughout the country. Not that I'll be attending or anything.... :rolleyes:

[SkStu]

A Yes vote would be fabulous!

[DannyInvincible]

I'd be voting 'yes' if I had the privilege.

As Dara Ó Briain said on Twitter a while back: "The best thing about campaigning for a "No" vote in the #MarRef is, even if you lose, it will make no difference to your life whatsoever. (https://twitter.com/daraobriain/status/591222885152325632)"

[Eminence Grise]

Completely and utterly in favour of same sex marriage. I think it will be carried, but underestimating the no vote is perilous - they'll be out in force, while much of the yes vote is well-intentioned but not as die-hard about voting.

[osarusan]

I will be voting yes.

[Charlie Darwin]

I'm finding this one impossible to call but I'm voting yes and would be heartbroken if it wasn't carried. Evidence from most Irish referendums in recent times (aided by the fact we often vote twice on the same issue) shows people often find they haven't been informed as much as they felt they needed, so I sincerely hope on this occasion there's nothing left behind as there won't be a second referendum this time.

[gastric]

Jeez, remember the vote on abortion in the late 80s/early 90s. As a student then, I worked in a nursing home and one of the pro life supporter's was a nurse who wheeled patients down one by one and told them how to vote. This included people who were senile and those who had strokes and couldn't communicate at all. She was a lovely person and adamant she was doing God's work. At the time it seemed acceptable, now I would react in horror to such a deed. Bring on a yes vote by the way!

[bennocelt]

Jeez, remember the vote on abortion in the late 80s/early 90s. As a student then, I worked in a nursing home and one of the pro life supporter's was a nurse who wheeled patients down one by one and told them how to vote. This included people who were senile and those who had strokes and couldn't communicate at all. She was a lovely person and adamant she was doing God's work. At the time it seemed acceptable, now I would react in horror to such a deed. Bring on a yes vote by the way!

A little like what a certain FFer used to do here in the midlands, had a mini bus rounding them up for the vote.

[GypsyBlackCat]

If the No vote wins, can we throw a little tantrum like George Galloway did when he lost his seat in Bradford-West?!;)

[passinginterest]

Voting yes. Agree that there's likely to be a surge from the no side compared to the polls and that it could be close. Would love to see an emphatic 80+ percent yes and a high turnout. I think a lot of the silent no's are the voices popping up on different fora saying they were going to vote yes but they feel the yes campaign is overly aggressive so they'll vote no. I don't think people like that ever truly intended to vote yes and they're appearing more and more.

[Real ale Madrid]

Voting Yes.

Some aspects of the No campaign have been pretty despicable so I'm not surprised that things have got a little heated on the various debates etc. If the Yes vote mobilises like it is mobilising on social media then it could be up to 90% but will probably be more in the low 60's percentage.

Have there been any opinion polls done?

[Macy]

I'm voting Yes. I'm not all that confident of it passing, and I'll be gutted for how Ireland has (or rather hasn't progressed) if it does fail.

If you're on social media a lot, you'd think the Yes side had it, but the no side don't raise their heads on social media. The Yes campaign needs to move to mobilising the vote now, I believe.

[nigel-harps1954]

I've noticed a huge amount of people saying they'll vote No just to spite the government, which I find absolutely appalling.

[culloty82]

I'll be voting Yes. I expect it to be closer than the polls suggest. I reckon 55-60% in favour.
There is a big No vote out there unfortunately and I expect the Church to roll them out over the coming weekend. Interesting to hear what sort of sermons are said on Sunday throughout the country. Not that I'll be attending or anything.... :rolleyes:

Would largely agree about the margin - I'll also be voting Yes, but outside of the Dublin constituencies and most of Leinster, the only others I can see in the Yes tally would be Cork North and South Central, Limerick City and Galway West.

[tetsujin1979]

Friend of mine is running this site tracking mentions of the referendum: http://prettynegative.com/

FWIW, I think it's going to be a lot closer than the polls suggest - there's a large number of people who always vote, and will vote no - but I think it'll pass

[Charlie Darwin]

I've noticed a huge amount of people saying they'll vote No just to spite the government, which I find absolutely appalling.
Yeah but you're from Donegal, it's pretty much the default position on everything.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Voting no.

[Spudulika]

Won't be home to vote and am glad not to be, it's embarassing from a distance to listen to or watch or read both sides. Have seen very, very little No and would have expected more. Some of the Yes side behaviour has been disgusting - the labelling of anyone who is thinking of voting no as backward, sick, anti-gay etc is a very depressing turn and makes me ashamed of some campaigners. I am for full equality on this and believe that everyone should have the right ot be miserable. However some of the hypocrisy on the Yes side is really saddening. When a couple of journos who are trying to be as visible as possible are able to say "Children are better off with their Mother", yet then loudly shout that children need parents no matter what the sex, it makes me very nervous. Likewise some of the politicians mounting the bandwaggon.

One thing I've not seen, on any TV or radio or newspaper, is our minorities - Polish, Lithuanian, Nigerian, Protestant, Muslim. They've all had very little airing and I would love to know what they're thinking. This grouping is one that will make a difference, however I still think it'll be a big yes.

On the other referendum I'd vote No. I don't know why this is on the table at all.

[GypsyBlackCat]

Won't be home to vote and am glad not to be, it's embarassing from a distance to listen to or watch or read both sides. Have seen very, very little No and would have expected more. Some of the Yes side behaviour has been disgusting - the labelling of anyone who is thinking of voting no as backward, sick, anti-gay etc is a very depressing turn and makes me ashamed of some campaigners. I am for full equality on this and believe that everyone should have the right ot be miserable. However some of the hypocrisy on the Yes side is really saddening. When a couple of journos who are trying to be as visible as possible are able to say "Children are better off with their Mother", yet then loudly shout that children need parents no matter what the sex, it makes me very nervous. Likewise some of the politicians mounting the bandwaggon.

One thing I've not seen, on any TV or radio or newspaper, is our minorities - Polish, Lithuanian, Nigerian, Protestant, Muslim. They've all had very little airing and I would love to know what they're thinking. This grouping is one that will make a difference, however I still think it'll be a big yes.

On the other referendum I'd vote No. I don't know why this is on the table at all.

I agree 100% mate. I'm voting Yes because I don't see why not. We have civil partnerships so why not upgrade it to marriage. I sure people have their views to vote No and I respect that. But the whole thing has turned into a 3rd year classroom debate!

[Spudulika]

GBC, this is exactly it. What I was disappointed most in was the attitude of genuinely intelligent people. Ger Gilroy called people who are voting no "slimy creeps" on the Irishman Abroad podcast. I was fully enjoying it until that point and then had to repeat what I'd heard. I know members of my family (quite religious) who will vote No. They're entitled to their view and why not. But this bullying/ridiculing tone being taken by even the ICCL and Mark Kelly, it's wrong. And if it were any other referendum non-Irish or Irish abroad would be ignored, and castigated for being involved. But this time, once they're for a Yes vote, they're welcomed with open arms. And all the time the country is sold short by a corrupt government. I guess we get what we deserve. The meeja blitz suits the powerbrokers like DOB perfectly!

But.....I'm still in favour of full and equal access to rights to marry.

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't think there's anything wrong with labelling no voters are backward or homophobic at all. I find the idea that somebody would vote against equal marriage rights to be completely abhorrent, and I'd hope a lot of people who do vote that way look back on it in years to come with a great deal of shame.

[Macy]

But the yes side are being accused of bullying, just for pointing that the No side are muddying the waters with things that aren't effected by the referendum. To the extent that the No side has accused officials pointing this out as being involved in a conspiracy. It's a key part of their campaign to try and accuse the yes side of silencing them.

I personally haven't heard a logical argument for voting no - most arguments are either irrelevant to the actual referendum and/or homophobic. And just because the homophobia is based on their religious beliefs, doesn't make it less homophobic.

[DannyInvincible]

I am for full equality on this and believe that everyone should have the right ot be miserable.

Miserable as in those who commit to a same-sex marriage are condemning themselves to a life of misery? Surely I'm misreading you?


However some of the hypocrisy on the Yes side is really saddening. When a couple of journos who are trying to be as visible as possible are able to say "Children are better off with their Mother", yet then loudly shout that children need parents no matter what the sex, it makes me very nervous.

Can you shed some further light on this, Spud? I'm not sure what you mean or what the hypocrisy is without context.


On the other referendum I'd vote No. I don't know why this is on the table at all.

Have been trying to follow goings-on from across the water here, but obviously not hard enough; I wasn't even aware the other was happening. Personally, I think it should be reduced. Why not? There's no inherent or necessary reason as to why someone in their mid-20s couldn't do as competent a job as president as someone in their mid-30s, is there? It's only right to reduce, surely; under-35s are supposed to be equal and participatory citizens too. Estonia's prime minister, Taavi Rõivas, is presently the youngest leader in Europe having assumed office aged 34. The country hasn't fallen apart, has it?

[nigel-harps1954]

I'd say that at least 90% of what I've heard from the No side is either religious based or plain homophobic.

I'm not sure if this image will work properly on here or will take up too much space, but I'll leave it here anyway: (Maybe some mods might be able to fix, otherwise here's a link: http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/05/1-onCEha4zx1dnu0crkEahcg.png)

http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/05/1-onCEha4zx1dnu0crkEahcg.png

[osarusan]

I don't think there's anything wrong with labelling no voters are backward or homophobic at all. I find the idea that somebody would vote against equal marriage rights to be completely abhorrent, and I'd hope a lot of people who do vote that way look back on it in years to come with a great deal of shame.
Spot on.

There is a lot of 'Oh, I'm not homophobic, I just don't like the idea of two gay people getting married.'

I think there are a lot of people who have never connected these opinions with homophobia, and are shocked to hear themselves being described like that.

I have not heard a single argument against SSM that didn't have religion or homophobia at its roots.

[passinginterest]

My old college friend wrote this piece on her Facebook page some time ago and it's now being circulated to a wider audience. I think it's a very good depiction of what a yes vote means to real families http://letsmakehistory.ie/vote-yes-family/

[Spudulika]

I don't think there's anything wrong with labelling no voters are backward or homophobic at all. I find the idea that somebody would vote against equal marriage rights to be completely abhorrent, and I'd hope a lot of people who do vote that way look back on it in years to come with a great deal of shame.

Charlie, if you take such a stance then it's nothing wrong with No voters calling names back. If we are unable to respect the rights of those who don't hold the same views as us, then we do not deserve the right to discuss such matters or be allowed to take part in a democratic society.

Macy, you can disapprove of homosexuality and not be a homophobe. I do not like UFC but I am not a UFC-phobe. I realise this is making light of the matter, but people are allowed to differ our opinions and feel able to do so. They are not demanding laws to outlaw or de-legalise anything, it is their rational human right to feel their own convictions. To denigrate this shows we are not mature enough as a nation for rational debate.

[Spudulika]

Miserable as in those who commit to a same-sex marriage are condemning themselves to a life of misery? Surely I'm misreading you?



Can you shed some further light on this, Spud? I'm not sure what you mean or what the hypocrisy is without context.



Have been trying to follow goings-on from across the water here, but obviously not hard enough; I wasn't even aware the other was happening. Personally, I think it should be reduced. Why not? There's no inherent or necessary reason as to why someone in their mid-20s couldn't do as competent a job as president as someone in their mid-30s, is there? It's only right to reduce, surely; under-35s are supposed to be equal and participatory citizens too. Estonia's prime minister, Taavi Rõivas, is presently the youngest leader in Europe having assumed office aged 34. The country hasn't fallen apart, has it?

Danny, in picking apart my post you have kind of brought home the lack of perspective being shown in this whole deflection charade. And please don't think I'm disrespecting your question, I just realise that this whole mess is just that, a mess.

The "miserable" piece is a quote/joke taken from a far funnier person than any of us on here. Again, all should have equal access to such rights as marriage, divorce, abortion, access to public facilities and the legal system, equal parenting rights and many more. Though apart from divorce, we are sadly lacking in the rest, especially parenting rights. But we're a single topic nation so what do we do?

Hypocrisy - simple. 2 prominent journalists and one Minister (I can name her as she spoke on it, Frances Fitzgerald) replied to a request on enforcing single (and married) Father's rights that - "Children are better off with their Mother". One journalist added - "Besides, it's a family matter and has no place in public". When Alan Shatter brought up this matter he was slapped down. So hypocrisy, yes, it is alive and well.

For the Presidency, I am certain there are some mid-20 people who could do a good job, however I don't believe so. In one way we should be voting to simply scrap the Presidency, not mess about with the rules. I like what the Seanad can stand for, but President? From a legal point of view the President cannot stop a law or bad government, so what's the point?

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

http://www.thejournal.ie/navan-girl-egged-no-campaign-referendum-2101821-May2015/

Shameful lack of tolerance..

[Macy]

Macy, you can disapprove of homosexuality and not be a homophobe
Is it? I would've thought that's the very definition of a homophobe!


I realise this is making light of the matter, but people are allowed to differ our opinions and feel able to do so. They are not demanding laws to outlaw or de-legalise anything, it is their rational human right to feel their own convictions. To denigrate this shows we are not mature enough as a nation for rational debate.
If people can't come up with logical, and relevant, arguments they are the ones failing the debate. Not the people pointing it out.

[culloty82]

http://www.thejournal.ie/navan-girl-egged-no-campaign-referendum-2101821-May2015/

Shameful lack of tolerance..

Until the full details come to light, who's to say it wasn't some random yob threw it? Certainly, Yes campaigners condemned the incident almost instantly.

[NeverFeltBetter]

"Yes" side can't win on the "I'm voting "No" but I'm not a homophobe" thing. If they say nothing, it's weak and a surrender and hands momentum and spotlight to "No" side (eg: that debate on Claire Byrne the other night). If they challenge, they get painted as intolerant, disrespectful, aggressive. Meanwhile, "No" campaigners are allowed to say the most outrageous, despicable things about LGBT people - some of them undeniable flat-out lies - and get nowhere near the same amount of scrutiny in regards perceived disrespect of opponents. It's maddening.

I have such little time for this "I have no problem with gay people but..." attitude. Give me a break. Of course you do. You can pretend the objections are all about adoption or surrogacy or every other imagined non-issue, but it all comes back to one thing.

As for the other referendum, I'm firmly of the belief that it is a suicide course for the remainder of the Constitutional Convention recommendations. They won't campaign for it or bother about it, and when it gets beaten out the door it'll be the perfect excuse to ignore everything else that came out of that glorified talking shop.

[Macy]

http://www.thejournal.ie/navan-girl-egged-no-campaign-referendum-2101821-May2015/

Shameful lack of tolerance..
The little scrots that egged my car last year must've know I was a yes voter. Bloody intolerant no voting thugs...

[DannyInvincible]

Macy, you can disapprove of homosexuality and not be a homophobe.

What's the difference?


They are not demanding laws to outlaw or de-legalise anything, it is their rational human right to feel their own convictions.

Same-sex marital recognition is already outlawed; they're demanding the maintenance of a status quo that denies others legal rights and recognition based upon those others' sexual orientation. They might as well be demanding laws to outlaw or illegalise something. What's the difference in effect ultimately?

It is a rational human right to have convictions, but isn't it unreasonable when such convictions trespass into the private and harmless business of others? If you're going to acknowledge a legal familial relationship between an opposite-sex couple, there's no good reason to deny a same-sex couple that exact same recognition.

I think this George Bernard Shaw line is worth repeating:


"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."


The "miserable" piece is a quote/joke taken from a far funnier person than any of us on here. Again, all should have equal access to such rights as marriage, divorce, abortion, access to public facilities and the legal system, equal parenting rights and many more.

Sorry, the joke went over my head; you were joking that marriage itself is a misery rather than seriously suggesting same-sex marriage specifically would be a source of misery for those who commit to it. I see that now and have since better informed myself. :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyeTxHr2Wd0

[Spudulika]

Is it? I would've thought that's the very definition of a homophobe!


If people can't come up with logical, and relevant, arguments they are the ones failing the debate. Not the people pointing it out.
No, it is not the very definition.

I agree, but how logical or relevant is any debate when it is largely based on emotions. And very often the attacks on the No campaign are simply - You're sick, you're backward. Not logical. When No campaigners try to argue about the legal, factual based points, the response is "You're lying, you're muddying, you're creepy." Again, not logical, but again this debate is a nonsense. The sooner it's over the sooner the government and their meeja lackeys can come up with the next distraction. Maybe they can get another married murderer, sex kill.

[Spudulika]

What's the difference?



Same-sex marital recognition is already outlawed; they're demanding the maintenance of a status quo that denies others legal rights and recognition based upon those others' sexual orientation. They might as well be demanding laws to outlaw or illegalise something. What's the difference in effect ultimately?

It is a rational human right to have convictions, but isn't it unreasonable when such convictions trespass into the private and harmless business of others? If you're going to acknowledge a legal familial relationship between an opposite-sex couple, there's no good reason to deny a same-sex couple that exact same recognition.

I think this George Bernard Shaw line is worth repeating:

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."



Sorry, the joke went over my head; you were joking that marriage itself is a misery rather than seriously suggesting same-sex marriage specifically would be a source of misery for those who commit to it. I see that now and have since better informed myself. :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyeTxHr2Wd0

Disapproving of something does not mean you have a phobia of it.

Why are you lecturing me on same-sex marriage? I couldn't give a flying fig about what 2 adults choose to do, whether it's an expression of love or a convenient way around taxes or to avoid deportation etc. It's nothing to do with me. I dislike the hypocrisy of many of the Yes campaigners, especially the lack of tolerance of other points of view. And the supposed Civil Rights defenders like Mark Kelly are only interested in defending the rights of those they agree with, and bandwaggon and sneer about those they don't. It is sad.

[dahamsta]

http://www.thejournal.ie/navan-girl-egged-no-campaign-referendum-2101821-May2015/

Shameful lack of tolerance..

To be fair, it is very hard to tolerate people that read and believe the journal.

[GypsyBlackCat]

I'd say that at least 90% of what I've heard from the No side is either religious based or plain homophobic.

I'm not sure if this image will work properly on here or will take up too much space, but I'll leave it here anyway: (Maybe some mods might be able to fix, otherwise here's a link: http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/05/1-onCEha4zx1dnu0crkEahcg.png)



Nice chart but some Christian will claim that they aren't under the law hence the New Testament.:p

I agree though. I'm a practicing Christian who has study the Bible, we all sin some how. I always get the feeling that the gay thing is the only one in which most of us don't do so it's easier to 'hate' that one and judge people on that one. If a gay person was to write down all my sins it would feel a rather large A4 refill pad.:D

[osarusan]

When No campaigners try to argue about the legal, factual based points, the response is "You're lying, you're muddying, you're creepy." Again, not logical, but again this debate is a nonsense.
Can you give some examples of the legal factual based points that No campaigners have tried to argue?

I haven't seen even one.

[DannyInvincible]

Disapproving of something does not mean you have a phobia of it.

What's the difference in effect of disapproving of something and having a phobia of it? I would have thought homophobia encompassed being disapproving of homosexuality.


Why are you lecturing me on same-sex marriage? I couldn't give a flying fig about what 2 adults choose to do, whether it's an expression of love or a convenient way around taxes or to avoid deportation etc. It's nothing to do with me. I dislike the hypocrisy of many of the Yes campaigners, especially the lack of tolerance of other points of view. And the supposed Civil Rights defenders like Mark Kelly are only interested in defending the rights of those they agree with, and bandwaggon and sneer about those they don't. It is sad.

Sorry, Spud. Didn't mean to seem like I was lecturing you. You're a thoughtful, interesting and, most importantly, honest poster; just asking some questions and making some points of my own to add to the discussion. I wasn't directing the points I was making at you as if to suggest you were hoping for the maintenance of the status quo or as if you were getting into other people's business. No, not at all. I was talking about those who will be voting 'no'.

[DannyInvincible]

Can you give some examples of the legal factual based points that No campaigners have tried to argue?

I haven't seen even one.

Answer this, 'yes' side!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xat1/v/t1.0-9/11130164_814117455304_7241047937306882812_n.jpg?oh =e66473a879d15f34f315e6250fc1a214&oe=55C5590E&__gda__=1439887846_eff090287359e2f2c78fbeb588a4191 8

[osarusan]

Ok, I'm convinced.

[Real ale Madrid]

I can't find the "M" he is talking about - in my hand.

[Charlie Darwin]

Charlie, if you take such a stance then it's nothing wrong with No voters calling names back.
Of course, they're entitled to hold opinions too. I'm a fully-grown adult and can handle people expressing negative opinions of me.


If we are unable to respect the rights of those who don't hold the same views as us, then we do not deserve the right to discuss such matters or be allowed to take part in a democratic society.
What democratic rights are being violated by me calling somebody a backward homophobe? This is the thing that wrecks my head. If you're going to go out in public and express opinions on other people's lives, pass judgement and support legislation that restricts their lives, then you damn well better grow up and accept that people are going to express opinions right back at you.


I can't find the "M" he is talking about - in my hand.
That's because you forgot to draw it on with a biro first.