That's Australia for you
Make Irish racists look pale by comparison, also they are paler because of the lack of sunlight here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's Australia for you
they said they're going to defer any comment or stance on whether they'll comply with the civil side of marriage once the legislation is finally framed. At that point I hope they come out (sic) and tell people won't kow-tow to their antiquated bullshit, to jog on.Well the very pillars of their faith demand they be intolerant, homophobic, misogynists. This can't change just because social mores have moved on. If a person doesn't agree with their stance they should leave that church and find one that suits.
It's all been downhill since they started saying Mass in the vernacular.
the same thing happened in Donegal before the referendum. Some priest was preaching about voting No, gave out shite about Eamonn McGee (Donegal player who publically backed the Yes campaign), and loads walked out in protest.
Referendum challenger says objection not an ‘anti-gay’ issue
State argues applicants have no grounds on which leave to bring a petition can be granted
The Government recently announced it will fast-track legislation to allow for same-sex marriage by early autumn. Photograph: Cyril Byrne/The Irish Times
Mary Carolan
Fri, Jun 5, 2015, 13:33
- Topics:
- News
- Crime & Law
- Courts
- Frances Fitzgerald
- Gerry Walshe
- Joanna Jordan
- Mary Carolan
- Maurice J Lyons
First published: Fri, Jun 5, 2015, 12:02
A man seeking leave to challenge the same sex marriage referendum result has told the High Court this “is not an anti-gay issue” but about a failure to adhere to fair procedures in the referendum process.
Gerry Walshe, Lisdeen, Co Clare, said he believed monies for Yes posters of the Fine Gael and Labour government parties had come from the central fund.
It was “obvious” monies were used to promote a Yes vote in breach of the McKenna principles prohibiting the use of public monies to advocate for one side in a referendum, he argued.
He also argued the State had failed to deliver the proposed amendment bill to post offices around the country prior to the May 22nd referendum.
When Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said there was no obligation to deliver the bill to post offices, Mr Walshe said he was not aware of that and had been unable to access the internet to research that point as there were difficulties with internet access in Co Clare.
Mr Walshe, an electrician, and Maurice J Lyons, a gardener, with an address in Callan, Co Kilkenny, are both seeking leave of the court to bring separate petitions challenging the Yes vote in last month’s referendum.
Under the 1994 Referendum Act 1994, a person seeking leave to bring a petition is required to show grounds supporting claims the referendum was materially affected by some interference, act or conduct in breach of the 1994 Act.
The State, represented by Richard Humphreys SC, is opposing the applications and has argued the applicants have established no grounds on which leave to bring a petition can be granted. Brian Murray SC is representing the Referendum Commission.
The court heard the State is concerned to have the challenges speedily decided on grounds including that there may be same sex couples who are anxious to get married soon because one of them is seriously ill.
In his arguments today, Mr Walshe said the respondents failed to act impartially in the referendum process and had denied the Irish people an impartial referendum. He had noted that in Co Clare there were seven to ten times more Yes posters than No posters, he added.
He also argued that certain identification features on polling cards should have been removed.
The judge will hear arguments from Mr Lyons concerning his separate application later this afternoon.
Both men had earlier sought to have their applications adjourned to a later date to allow them consider the submissions and affidavits from the State. The judge refused the adjournment on grounds including both men had been given time to read the documents and because the matter was urgent.
Both Mr Walshe and Mr Lyons opposed applications by the State and Referendum Commission for costs against them on grounds they brought their applications on behalf of the people and the national interest.
The judge ruled there were no exceptional circumstances in this case which would allow costs not be awarded against the applicants. He added he might have come to a different conclusion had a significant point been raised.
Now that's bigotry. And murder.
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade nowWe use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.