Marriage Equality Referendum - how will you vote?

[Charlie Darwin]

One "legit" objection was the article to be changed, calling the bluff on the doubters by moving it from 41 to 40, would that count as compromise? In the correct term yes, it also would have shown up those who solely objected to this one point. The result would be the same (in law) but not affecting "family", which was the burning issue.

Well clearly that would make no sense as, for the entire life of the constitution, marriage has been covered solely by article 41. Not to mention the rather obvious point that article 40 deals solely with personal rights, of which marriage is quite clearly not one.

[Spudulika]

Well clearly that would make no sense as, for the entire life of the constitution, marriage has been covered solely by article 41. Not to mention the rather obvious point that article 40 deals solely with personal rights, of which marriage is quite clearly not one.

Charlie, anything can be done with the constitution, as has been proved time and again, I mentioned this as a direct way to "meet in the middle" and to a) call the bluff or b) bring the waverers onside. And it could be inserted, legally, into 40. However Ireland (as most countries) has sunk into absolutism. Absolute victory at all costs, which only ever results in absolute defeat.

Next up, this:
http://www.jillianvanturnhout.ie/gen...bruary-2015-2/

Worth a read for sure.

[DannyInvincible]

Charlie, anything can be done with the constitution, as has been proved time and again, I mentioned this as a direct way to "meet in the middle" and to a) call the bluff or b) bring the waverers onside.

What's the bluff exactly? Is it an indication of a bluff that gay people would absolutely prefer to have their unions recognised as proper marriage (like the rest of society, with all the symbolism of equality that that entails) rather than as civil partnerships (which presently don't confer identical rights in law, although I appreciate that could be changed)? I think it a reasonable expectation and to suggest it is a bluff - as if gay people are really only interested in getting one over on "the other side" - is rather demeaning.

It's not as if the conservative bloc are genuinely sympathetic to civil partnership recognition anyway, is it? They only started raising that as being something for which they would settle at the last minute in a desperate bid to convince people not to vote 'yes'. Why should gay people, as equal citizens, settle for apartheid-esque "equal but different"?

[Dodge]

What's the bluff exactly?

Pretty much everything he's posted on this subject

[dahamsta]

Everything is bullying these days. If I pick my nose I'm bullying someone.

[Spudulika]

What's the bluff exactly? Is it an indication of a bluff that gay people would absolutely prefer to have their unions recognised as proper marriage (like the rest of society, with all the symbolism of equality that that entails) rather than as civil partnerships (which presently don't confer identical rights in law, although I appreciate that could be changed)? I think it a reasonable expectation and to suggest it is a bluff - as if gay people are really only interested in getting one over on "the other side" - is rather demeaning.

It's not as if the conservative bloc are genuinely sympathetic to civil partnership recognition anyway, is it? They only started raising that as being something for which they would settle at the last minute in a desperate bid to convince people not to vote 'yes'. Why should gay people, as equal citizens, settle for apartheid-esque "equal but different"?

Either it is my english or your reading of my english Danny that's letting you down or your continued need to educate others, which is okay in any case. The bluff would be called on those who objected on such selective grounds in a reasoned manner, and made it quite well, so that they had nothing further to object to. So it is a bluff against the No side - as I was answering the question of bringing it to middle ground. In a way there would be those from the Yes campaign or the bandwaggoners/barstoolers who would be as happy with a. 40 or 41, and there would be a hard core bunch who would refuse (from the Yes side). However, to bring a moderate opposition away from the margins and into acceptance fully - a simple move of article (as such) would facilitate that. At least those who were claiming they would vote No because of this, which seemed to be sizeable, would have been positive.

We will not know how much (now) are sympathetic, and it was not raised at the last minute, it was there all along. However it was drowned out by the loudmouths from both sides. In saying that, we were never going to be asked to compromise as it was never an issue. The FG/Lab regime keep us bickering for long enough until they had the Aer Lingus deal done, the DOB show off the stage and whatever other surprises are waiting for us. It's not like they respect the people of the country no matter what their sexual orientation is:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/polit...ngus-1.2228482

Dodge, explain? Or are you just bluffing?

[Charlie Darwin]

Charlie, anything can be done with the constitution, as has been proved time and again, I mentioned this as a direct way to "meet in the middle" and to a) call the bluff or b) bring the waverers onside. And it could be inserted, legally, into 40. However Ireland (as most countries) has sunk into absolutism. Absolute victory at all costs, which only ever results in absolute defeat.

Next up, this:
http://www.jillianvanturnhout.ie/gen...bruary-2015-2/

Worth a read for sure.

Meet in the middle of what?

[Wolfman]

Compromise?

[Mr A]

The bluff would be called on those who objected on such selective grounds in a reasoned manner, and made it quite well, so that they had nothing further to object to. So it is a bluff against the No side - as I was answering the question of bringing it to middle ground.

John Waters?

[jinxy lilywhite]

Either it is my english or your reading of my english Danny that's letting you down or your continued need to educate others, which is okay in any case. The bluff would be called on those who objected on such selective grounds in a reasoned manner, and made it quite well, so that they had nothing further to object to. So it is a bluff against the No side - as I was answering the question of bringing it to middle ground. In a way there would be those from the Yes campaign or the bandwaggoners/barstoolers who would be as happy with a. 40 or 41, and there would be a hard core bunch who would refuse (from the Yes side). However, to bring a moderate opposition away from the margins and into acceptance fully - a simple move of article (as such) would facilitate that. At least those who were claiming they would vote No because of this, which seemed to be sizeable, would have been positive.

We will not know how much (now) are sympathetic, and it was not raised at the last minute, it was there all along. However it was drowned out by the loudmouths from both sides. In saying that, we were never going to be asked to compromise as it was never an issue. The FG/Lab regime keep us bickering for long enough until they had the Aer Lingus deal done, the DOB show off the stage and whatever other surprises are waiting for us. It's not like they respect the people of the country no matter what their sexual orientation is:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/polit...ngus-1.2228482

Dodge, explain? Or are you just bluffing?

Ah Spud I don't know if you were in Ireland over the course of the debate but to me the major factor that swung the vote was the no sides alienation of fringe sections of Irish society. Single parent's, childless families, unnatural relationships, quite frankly the more they spoke the more idiotic they sounded. Their best chance of a no vote really would of been for them to be quiet especially Ronan Mullen, the IONA institute and is it David Quinn.

There was no real debate because the no side kept on issues that were not covered by the referendum.

I disagree that it has divided the nation. I believe that it brings us closer together.

It puts the far right again and the old guard in their place. Once again like the day after contraception was legalized, homosexuality decriminalised, divorce introduced that Ireland did not fall apart.

Adoption policies won't be changed, surrogacy will probably have to go a referendum because Ireland have no laws on it and AFAIK a case has yet to hit the courts.

[Eminence Grise]

Disappointing that not even the collective weight of the Termonbarry Alberts and Termonbarry Alberts Supporters Club was enough to prevent Roscommon voting no.

Sure all those lads are Brazilians. Not a vote among them.

[DannyInvincible]

Either it is my english or your reading of my english Danny that's letting you down or your continued need to educate others, which is okay in any case. The bluff would be called on those who objected on such selective grounds in a reasoned manner, and made it quite well, so that they had nothing further to object to. So it is a bluff against the No side - as I was answering the question of bringing it to middle ground. In a way there would be those from the Yes campaign or the bandwaggoners/barstoolers who would be as happy with a. 40 or 41, and there would be a hard core bunch who would refuse (from the Yes side). However, to bring a moderate opposition away from the margins and into acceptance fully - a simple move of article (as such) would facilitate that. At least those who were claiming they would vote No because of this, which seemed to be sizeable, would have been positive.

Sorry, I'm struggling to make full sense of what you're saying. How would you simply have switched the article for amendment when they cover entirely separate matters and how would it have amounted to a compromise? Those on the 'no' side would still have objected to the constitutional re-defining of marriage, whether it was dealt with in 41 or 40, whilst those on the 'yes' side would still reasonably have demanded equal recognition as marriage-eligible equals (not as merely civil partnership-eligible "differents"). The symbolism of it alone is a massive deal; as was demonstrated by how the whole thing captured the national (and international) imagination. Who was arguing that the articles should simply have been switched and on what grounds? I just don't get it. How would that even have worked?

[Spudulika]

Sorry, I'm struggling to make full sense of what you're saying. How would you simply have switched the article for amendment when they cover entirely separate matters and how would it have amounted to a compromise? Those on the 'no' side would still have objected to the constitutional re-defining of marriage, whether it was dealt with in 41 or 40, whilst those on the 'yes' side would still reasonably have demanded equal recognition as marriage-eligible equals (not as merely civil partnership-eligible "differents"). The symbolism of it alone is a massive deal; as was demonstrated by how the whole thing captured the national (and international) imagination. Who was arguing that the articles should simply have been switched and on what grounds? I just don't get it. How would that even have worked?

Danny you took me up incorrectly in relation to the article (moving from 40-41) and read it as an affront or attack on the Yes. It was to call out the No side and separate the reasonable from the nuts. The same could be taken/said for the Yes side, but that is not important. From immediate memory I can say Pat Walsh as one (to mention the switch), also I heard the former FF TD (schoolteacher who came out late in life, cannot remember his name) bring it up, though only to answer a question that it was possible.

I think you're overstating it a little to say it captured the "international" imagination. And to capture the national side - flavour of the week/month always does that! DOB today, Jeack Grealish tomorrow, FIFA yesterday.

[Spudulika]

Ah Spud I don't know if you were in Ireland over the course of the debate but to me the major factor that swung the vote was the no sides alienation of fringe sections of Irish society. Single parent's, childless families, unnatural relationships, quite frankly the more they spoke the more idiotic they sounded. Their best chance of a no vote really would of been for them to be quiet especially Ronan Mullen, the IONA institute and is it David Quinn.

There was no real debate because the no side kept on issues that were not covered by the referendum.

I disagree that it has divided the nation. I believe that it brings us closer together.

It puts the far right again and the old guard in their place. Once again like the day after contraception was legalized, homosexuality decriminalised, divorce introduced that Ireland did not fall apart.

Adoption policies won't be changed, surrogacy will probably have to go a referendum because Ireland have no laws on it and AFAIK a case has yet to hit the courts.

Jinxy I've been away but followed it closely. I know the feeling willbe different at home and I agree 100% that the debate was non-existent, and as you say, for the fact that almost all issues raised were not immediately relevant. I could see the growth of the loons on either side and the noise they were making just removed any chance to make sense of it all. I don't know about defeating the old guard - Mr O'Brien did well out of it! But the Ionians......I just don't get them! Some of them are normal, others are mental!

I understand what you mean about the nation not being divided, I guess for me it was seeing the government play the shell game with everything. Like good old Billo with the Panel - "I read this morning that Roy Keane said Eamon made a move on him one night."

[DannyInvincible]

Danny you took me up incorrectly in relation to the article (moving from 40-41) and read it as an affront or attack on the Yes. It was to call out the No side and separate the reasonable from the nuts. The same could be taken/said for the Yes side, but that is not important. From immediate memory I can say Pat Walsh as one (to mention the switch), also I heard the former FF TD (schoolteacher who came out late in life, cannot remember his name) bring it up, though only to answer a question that it was possible.

Sorry, aye, I completely misread you. Have had a read back through. So, I get that you thought switching articles might expose deceit on the 'no' side, but in what way exactly? Do you mean in the sense that marriage would remain dealt with by article 41 whereas same-sex couples would be catered for with the same rights (except in name) by article 40, so it would therefore nullify the 'no' side's argument against a constitutional re-definition of marriage, seeing as no re-definition would be required by an inclusion into article 40? It wouldn't remove children from their disingenuous arguments though. If they were "concerned" about some imagined impact to children's welfare as a result of extending marital rights, why would they change their dubious line of reasoning if identical rights/recognition were/was to be afforded to same-sex unions by virtue of article 40 except under the name of civil partnership?

I think it's very clear why that wouldn't be a starter for the 'yes' side. The campaign was specifically for the extension of equal marital rights (and that only) for obvious reasons. It was not, nor could it ever have been, about conferring further civil partnership rights and constitutionally-protecting those types of unions.

I think you're overstating it a little to say it captured the "international" imagination.

Maybe a little. Although I didn't have to stream RTÉ online to watch Saturday's events unfold live. It was trending on social media around Europe and beyond then too. Even leapfrogged liberal Germany has since found itself in a state of cultural discomfort and having to reformulate its lowly opinion of Ireland the perceived peripheral backwater that progress forgot; politicians there were promptly demanding parity: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world...ndum-1.2226873

I enjoyed a distinct sense of schadenfreude reading that.

[osarusan]

I think it's very clear why that wouldn't be a starter for the 'yes' side. The campaign was specifically for the extension of equal marital rights (and that only) for obvious reasons. It was not, nor could it ever have been, about conferring further civil partnership rights and constitutionally-protecting those types of unions.

Civil marriage is what makes a family, under the constitution, whether there are children involved or not. Where two people are not married, even if they have children, they are not considered a family. They live in a 'shared' home, rather than a 'family' home.

The main reason for the referendum was to allow people in same-sex relationships to become a family, and give those families made up of same sex couples the same constitutional protection for their family.

So article 41 is clearly the place for it.

[dahamsta]

Enough!

Dodge, you know the rules -- attack the post, not the poster.

Spudulika, stop with the fake shock, your opinions are obviously not popular here and you know it, which makes you a troll. Knock it on the head. Try facts, and evidence.

That goes for everyone else too.

[BonnieShels]

The question is... Who's the "four"?

[NeverFeltBetter]

Legal challenges to the result, which included a claim that non-voters were "No" voters due to their lack of assent, were rejected by the High Court today. Really out there stuff altogether, even loudest "No" voices wanted nothing to do with it.