2015 Referendum on legalisation of Same-Sex marriage (1 Viewer)

[rettucs]

I hope I've phrased the thread title appropriately/correctly (if not, please feel free to amend).

I thought we needed a thread for this, though there will hardly be that much to discuss seeing as all fair-minded people will think this a no-brainer.

What made me want to start a thread was this letter in the Irish Times today;

Plan for same-sex marriage in 2015 - Letters | The Irish Times - Mon, Nov 18, 2013

Sir, – We have been informed that there is to be a referendum to allow marriage equality in 2015. This will only affect civil marriage as defined in this Republic. Can I suggest that you stop including theological discussions ( Maolsheachlann O Ceallaigh, November 14th and others) in this debate.

I do not expect to find sports reporting in the business pages, so I would expect that you should at least set the tone for church/State separation and afford theological debates their own space away from debates on our Constitution. – Yours, etc,

well said that man. The nail was hit squarely on the head here. Take out the religious bullshit from this debate and there is no debate. It comes down to basic human rights.

 

[Scientician 0.8]

/thread

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

On a pedantic point- I don't think marriage is a human right as such, if I have a right to marry it suggests that someone is obliged to marry me. Access to marriage would be a human right. But I'm getting into minutia here.
Regarding theological contributions- given that, for better or worse, the church has dominated and defined marriage for so long I would think it feels entitled to it's say on the matter.
Finally, I thought the referendum was 2014?

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

El poste double.

 

[Unicron]

On a pedantic point- I don't think marriage is a human right as such

Perhaps not, but not being discriminated against is*.

Regarding theological contributions- given that, for better or worse, the church has dominated and defined marriage for so long I would think it feels entitled to it's say on the matter.

I'll be voting yes, but my personal favoured state of affairs would be to remove marriage from the statute books, redefine everything as a civil union and then if a couple (fuckit, throw those who want a polyamourous life in there too) of whatever combination of genders want to get married and can find a church that will do it for them then god bless.

And that, for the homophobes who will be trotting the phrase out in the next 18 months, is a real assault on "traditional marriage."

* I actually don't think there's such a thing as a fundamental human right. They're societal constructs.

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

Your man from the Iona institute seems to be the only person opposed to it who is ever on tv/radio to argue that side.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Your man from the Iona institute seems to be the only person opposed to it who is ever on tv/radio to argue that side.

I'm sure a few bishops will get some letters printed.

 

[rettucs]

Finally, I thought the referendum was 2014?

I'm not fully sure. I doubt any firm date has been fixed yet. I was going by yer man mentioning 2015 in his letter.

 

[rettucs]

On a pedantic point- I don't think marriage is a human right as such

article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

Perhaps not, but not being discriminated against is*.

* I actually don't think there's such a thing as a fundamental human right. They're societal constructs.

Hence my qualifying that access to marriage should be the right, not the actual act of marriage.

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

That appears to limit marriage to a union between a male and female.
Anyway, well meaning as it is, every principle in it is currently violated somewhere.

 

[Squiggle]

I'm not actually sure I understand this referendum.

Does civil partnership not confer the same rights as a civil marriage does? Is this just to change the name? If it is I'd be just as happy for the civil thing to be called "Registration of long term partnership" or some other such better description.

Civil "marriage" ceremonies are completely secular, no religious references, iconography, music, prayers etc are permitted. I imagine that the civil partnership ceremony is the same. Civil registration of a partnership/marriage can be undone by means of legal divorce.

It is a legal ceremony whereby a couple notifies the State of their relationship to avail of certain legal rights usually only afforded to blood relatives, and ensure that the romantic partner takes precedence over blood relatives in terms of next of kin, important for medical decisions and inheritance among other things.

 

[Unicron]

I'm not actually sure I understand this referendum.

Does civil partnership not confer the same rights as a civil marriage does? Is this just to change the name? If it is I'd be just as happy for the civil thing to be called "Registration of long term partnership" or some other such better description.

I'm not sure if that's the case or not, but even if it were it's all a bit "separate but equal" which leaves something of a nasty taste in the mouth for me.

The fact that we need a referendum for it implies that there's a discriminatory clause in the constitution, which I'd sooner be rid of.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Marriage v Civil Partnership FAQs » About Marriage » Get Informed » Marriage Equality - Working for Equal Marriage Rights for Lesbians and Gay Men in Ireland

We’ve identified over 160 statutory differences between civil partnership and civil marriage

guess not. Plus yeah, "separate but equal", that ended well.

 

[Squiggle]

Ah, thanks Lili. So not the same then.

Our constitution has more than a few problems - I think we need to start over.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Ah, thanks Lili. So not the same then.

Our constitution has more than a few problems - I think we need to start over.

I kind of love the idea of a new constitution being written every 25 years or so, obviously with the old one in mind but with updated terminology and things.

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

Finally, I thought the referendum was 2014?

I'm not fully sure. I doubt any firm date has been fixed yet. I was going by yer man mentioning 2015 in his letter.

I heard/read something to the effect that labour want to put the referendum off as long as possible so that they can legislate out of existence the current restrictions around adoption and children. Since the issue of children is likely to be the real point of controversy the referendum on marriage is more likely to go smoothly if the childcare part of it is already dealt with (or so I took the message to be).

 

[Squiggle]

We had an Estonian visitor in the office lately, from our equivalent agency in Estonia. Now the whole office wants to move there. They started from scratch when they got back their independence, everything is efficient, streamlined, connected, computerised. When an Act becomes outdated they replace it instead of patching and "amending" it until it is impossible to understand.

 

[Unicron]

I heard/read something to the effect that labour want to put the referendum off as long as possible so that they can legislate out of existence the current restrictions around adoption and children. Since the issue of children is likely to be the real point of controversy the referendum on marriage is more likely to go smoothly if the childcare part of it is already dealt with (or so I took the message to be).

I've got a long-term bee in my bonnet about that one, a restriction on gay adoption is an anti-child policy.

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

Single gay people can adopt, and gay couples can foster - it's all a bit inconsistent