Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

GCU Flexible Demeanour

seamus wrote: »

The heading of the article notwithstanding, you do note that the article does not at any stage specifically tie in "woman" with "marriage".
It does not require a woman in the family, simply declares what a woman's role is in a family.
So where there is no woman as part of the family, the sexist article in question can simply be ignored.

I think you need to look at the text of Article 41 again.

1 1° says the family is the "fundamental unit group of Society" and has fundamental rights

1 2° says that's why the State guarantees to protect the Family "as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State"

2 1° says (still in the context of the family) that "woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved"

Thus far, we should be in agreement that the text is assuming that its only families with women in them that give this support that the State wants.

3 1° then makes it plain, by saying "the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded".

To summarise, in the Constitution Family = Marriage. The State protects marriage because the family is necessary for national welfare. The work of women within the marriage/family is essential, and the public good can't be secured without it.

Now, we can earnestly hope that the Courts ignore irrelevant or incoherent stuff. And sometimes they do. But if we were to assume the Courts would always know which bits of text to ignore and what new meanings were to be read into the language already there, we'd never need to amend the Constitution at all.

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

To summarise, in the Constitution Family = Marriage. The State protects marriage because the family is necessary for national welfare. The work of women within the marriage/family is essential, and the public good can't be secured without it.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

But this section I have quoted clearly undermines this by saying they should not be forced to work but clearly implying, that if they want too, they can. Ergo, contradicting your summary that they have to be in the home for the good of the family. We have a social welfare state as it is, no one is forced to work, it is made more attractive than not through earning more money than you might on welfare (although not always true, a discussion for another time).

GCU Flexible Demeanour

CramCycle wrote: »

Ergo, contradicting your summary that they have to be in the home for the good of the family.

Ah, yeah, I've no problem that change to my summary. The Constitution just talks of them having "duties", but you're right that its just saying women shouldn't be compelled to work outside the home.

You'll appreciate, my point is less about that and more about the clear assumption in the Constitution that Family = Marriage = A thing with a woman making some contribution in the home (whether on a full or part-time basis) without which, apparently, the public good cannot be achieved.

Which is then just plain incoherent, when followed up by a statement saying "Actually, scratch that, no need for a woman at all. Or is there. Because we're leaving the old wording there, too. Because there's no need to change that because it's not in conflict, even though it is. Sure, anyway, the Courts can figure it out."

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You'll appreciate, my point is less about that and more about the clear assumption in the Constitution that Family = Marriage = A thing with a woman making some contribution in the home (whether on a full or part-time basis) without which, apparently, the public good cannot be achieved.

I appreciate that this is probably what it originally intended, times have changed and the statement is redundant in all forms of relationships.

Why wasn't it changed or removed? Several reasons, most are easy to spot, the No side to such a campaign would gain more support among the elderly.

You edit it to say carers instead of parents, opening up legal challenges to the definition of carer and the level of support the state should provide.

The practical side of me says it should all be done at once but I appreciate that the government must assess the likely hood of such a change getting past the post.

Either way, regardless of its original intention when originally conceived, the wording is simple enough that if there is no woman in the family the onus does not apply. The other parts of our constitution regarding equality take over, in that any support provided to a stay at home mother should be provided to a stay at home father.

Again, it really has no affect in the ways that you are concerned in my reading unless you truly believe that a family must have an active mother to be a family, in which case, your argument and beliefs are against current social order and legislation.

constance tench

Mark Tapley wrote: »

You highlight three words out of a post that wasn't addressed to you and demand a yes/no answer. No context. Pull your neck in .

That, is the sound of my words flying over your head.

Mark Tapley

constance tench wrote: »

That, is the sound of my words flying over your head.

You tried to manufacture a situation where you could do a bit of legal eagle showboating, as per your M.O
I will not facilitate this as it would be about fueling your superiority complex rather than the subject at hand.

constance tench

Mark Tapley wrote: »

You tried to manufacture a situation where you could do a bit of legal eagle showboating, as per your M.O
I will not facilitate this as it would be about fueling your superiority complex rather than the subject at hand.

You fail to see the dazzling irony in your comment/s,(particularly the last one) nevertheless, it's encouraging to see you conceive and accommodate my way of thinking.

Mark Tapley

constance tench wrote: »

You fail to see the dazzling irony in your comment/s,(particularly the last one) nevertheless, it's encouraging to see you conceive and accommodate my way of thinking.

Thanks Constance saves me the bother.

kikidelvin

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve nuff said.

Hotblack Desiato

That sort of idiotic, pat slogan says it all about the people who utter it and their lack of engagement with the issue and the diverse reality of life in Ireland as it is lived today.

If you believe that god made people then god also made gay people, did god make a mistake or will god enjoy watching them burn in hell? We need to know!

gravehold

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That sort of idiotic, pat slogan says it all about the people who utter it and their lack of engagement with the issue and the diverse reality of life in Ireland as it is lived today.

If you believe that god made people then god also made gay people, did god make a mistake or will god enjoy watching them burn in hell? We need to know!

It's a test, you only go to hell if you fail and give into the evil gay way.

traprunner

kikidelvin wrote: »

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve nuff said.

Shouldn't you be in the Christianity forum not the politics one?

SireOfSeth

kikidelvin wrote: »

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve nuff said.

There is soooo much wrong with that statement it's hard to know where to start. I assume you already know this...especially since you signed off with "nuff said".

We are discussing the rights to civil marriage on this thread, not religious ceremonies.

johnnyskeleton

Mod: More matter less art please

GCU Flexible Demeanour

CramCycle wrote: »

Why wasn't it changed or removed? Several reasons, most are easy to spot, the No side to such a campaign would gain more support among the elderly.

I broadly agree - they need to be able to claim that "nothing else is changed", even if all they've achieved is to make things abiguous.

CramCycle wrote: »

You edit it to say carers instead of parents, opening up legal challenges to the definition of carer and the level of support the state should provide.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that change. I'm just drawing attention to the fact that there's a recommendation out there, and a noisy lobby to push for it.

CramCycle wrote: »

Again, it really has no affect in the ways that you are concerned in my reading unless you truly believe that a family must have an active mother to be a family, in which case, your argument and beliefs are against current social order and legislation.

Hmm, I don't think you're addressing the very clear thread in Article 41, which is clear in saying that family = marriage. And, bear in mind, it's not especially about anything I'm saying. I'm only pointing out what the Constitution actually says.

If inconsistent wording was to be irrelevant, wouldn't the Courts expect us to have changed it?

K-9

Mark Tapley wrote: »

You highlight three words out of a post that wasn't addressed to you and demand a yes/no answer. No context. Pull your neck in .

constance tench wrote: »

That, is the sound of my words flying over your head.

Mark Tapley wrote: »

You tried to manufacture a situation where you could do a bit of legal eagle showboating, as per your M.O
I will not facilitate this as it would be about fueling your superiority complex rather than the subject at hand.

constance tench wrote: »

You fail to see the dazzling irony in your comment/s,(particularly the last one) nevertheless, it's encouraging to see you conceive and accommodate my way of thinking.

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Thanks Constance saves me the bother.

Mod: Now now, take the bitching to pm please.

kikidelvin wrote: »

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve nuff said.

Not enough said if you want to stay in the politics forum for much longer. Replies like that aren't anywhere near the standard expected in the forum. Thank.

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I broadly agree - they need to be able to claim that "nothing else is changed", even if all they've achieved is to make things abiguous.

I don't think it's ambiguous, in my opinion it is irrelevant for the most part but it is not ambiguous.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that change. I'm just drawing attention to the fact that there's a recommendation out there, and a noisy lobby to push for it.

But what lobby is that, most people have taken the view that it makes no difference to them. It may seem biased or prejudiced but thankfully the right to equality in other parts of the constitution mean that the same support is given to anyone in the same situation, regardless of sex.

Hmm, I don't think you're addressing the very clear thread in Article 41, which is clear in saying that family = marriage. And, bear in mind, it's not especially about anything I'm saying. I'm only pointing out what the Constitution actually says.

That not true though, being married makes a family legally but you can be a family before or without marriage. All that the article says in this regard is that the state will attempt to protect marriage (no mention of sexual orientation). The definition of a family is as such defined by the courts and changes quite frequently, there are now numerous references to one parent families and the rights of co-habitants in this regard.

If inconsistent wording was to be irrelevant, wouldn't the Courts expect us to have changed it?

You should push for it through the courts then, it still needs a referendum or the supreme court to decry what it means. Since other parts of the constitution make up for the problems with this part, it is likely it will be ignored for awhile, as it has no affect that discriminates through other parts that claim to bring equality.

SireOfSeth

CramCycle wrote: »

I don't think it's ambiguous, in my opinion it is irrelevant for the most part but it is not ambiguous.


But what lobby is that, most people have taken the view that it makes no difference to them. It may seem biased or prejudiced but thankfully the right to equality in other parts of the constitution mean that the same support is given to anyone in the same situation, regardless of sex.

That not true though, being married makes a family legally but you can be a family before or without marriage. All that the article says in this regard is that the state will attempt to protect marriage (no mention of sexual orientation). The definition of a family is as such defined by the courts and changes quite frequently, there are now numerous references to one parent families and the rights of co-habitants in this regard.


You should push for it through the courts then, it still needs a referendum or the supreme court to decry what it means. Since other parts of the constitution make up for the problems with this part, it is likely it will be ignored for awhile, as it has no affect that discriminates through other parts that claim to bring equality.

+1

GCU Flexible Demeanour

CramCycle wrote: »

But what lobby is that, most people have taken the view that it makes no difference to them. It may seem biased or prejudiced but thankfully the right to equality in other parts of the constitution mean that the same support is given to anyone in the same situation, regardless of sex.

I think there's a little confusion here.

Independently of the question of marriage, there is a "carers" lobby. A previous Constitutional review recommended putting "carers" into that Article, with a guarantee of not having to work outside the home. I'm not advocating that change. I'm merely amplifying the point (which we both seem to agree) that changing the wording is politically difficult.

CramCycle wrote: »

That not true though, being married makes a family legally but you can be a family before or without marriage. All that the article says in this regard is that the state will attempt to protect marriage (no mention of sexual orientation). The definition of a family is as such defined by the courts and changes quite frequently, there are now numerous references to one parent families and the rights of co-habitants in this regard.

Yes, but obviously what I'm talking about is the Constitutional provision. You'll appreciate, the context is one where some are saying that they need the same position as the married family provided for in the Constitution.

Maybe we should be contemplating something wider, and breaking the link in the Constitution between family and marriage. But, as you know, that's not what we're be asked to do.

CramCycle wrote: »

You should push for it through the courts then, it still needs a referendum or the supreme court to decry what it means. Since other parts of the constitution make up for the problems with this part, it is likely it will be ignored for awhile, as it has no affect that discriminates through other parts that claim to bring equality.

I'm sorry, but that reads like an acceptance there's an issue, and we should just hope it's ignored.

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think there's a little confusion here.

Independently of the question of marriage, there is a "carers" lobby. A previous Constitutional review recommended putting "carers" into that Article, with a guarantee of not having to work outside the home. I'm not advocating that change. I'm merely amplifying the point (which we both seem to agree) that changing the wording is politically difficult.

So what you are saying is, your main issue with this constitutional change is that it doesn't cover other issues or it doesn't change enough. Can't disagree with that, there are a whole raft of changes needed within the constitution but not only are some of them politically difficult to push for, there is the real fear that as fearful as people are of little changes, more people are afraid of big changes. It becomes harder to follow, harder to focus on whether you agree or not. Put out a ballot paper with 60 different boxes to tick and you are going to have one poor turnout or one confused electorate, neither of which is really a positive for democracy.

Yes, but obviously what I'm talking about is the Constitutional provision. You'll appreciate, the context is one where some are saying that they need the same position as the married family provided for in the Constitution. Maybe we should be contemplating something wider, and breaking the link in the Constitution between family and marriage. But, as you know, that's not what we're be asked to do.

And that's another referendum, not a reason to vote against this one. Politicians won't hear a no vote and then say, well they voted no, what the public want is more wide spread reform. What they will do is say, they don't want change, therefore we won't put any forward for awhile.

I'm sorry, but that reads like an acceptance there's an issue, and we should just hope it's ignored.

What I was talking about may be an issue, but it has nothing to do with this referendum. It's a change that might happen in the future or be put forward in the future but this referendum is on one change and not the one you are on about.

If you want to vote no because you believe the reforms are not wide sweeping enough, that is your choice to make. My opinion is that makes for poor policy making in future.

A step in the right direction, no matter how small, is still better than standing still.

SireOfSeth

CramCycle wrote: »

So what you are saying is, your main issue with this constitutional change is that it doesn't cover other issues or it doesn't change enough. Can't disagree with that, there are a whole raft of changes needed within the constitution but not only are some of them politically difficult to push for, there is the real fear that as fearful as people are of little changes, more people are afraid of big changes. It becomes harder to follow, harder to focus on whether you agree or not. Put out a ballot paper with 60 different boxes to tick and you are going to have one poor turnout or one confused electorate, neither of which is really a positive for democracy.

And that's another referendum, not a reason to vote against this one. Politicians won't hear a no vote and then say, well they voted no, what the public want is more wide spread reform. What they will do is say, they don't want change, therefore we won't put any forward for awhile.

What I was talking about may be an issue, but it has nothing to do with this referendum. It's a change that might happen in the future or be put forward in the future but this referendum is on one change and not the one you are on about.

If you want to vote no because you believe the reforms are not wide sweeping enough, that is your choice to make. My opinion is that makes for poor policy making in future.

A step in the right direction, no matter how small, is still better than standing still.

Very true, very true indeed.

BoatMad

kikidelvin wrote: »

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve nuff said.

a post at 4:40 am , nuff said

GCU Flexible Demeanour

CramCycle wrote: »

A step in the right direction, no matter how small, is still better than standing still.

Change involves risks. The benefits need to be substantial to justify the risks. Otherwise, standing still is the better option.

SireOfSeth

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Change involves risks. The benefits need to be substantial to justify the risks. Otherwise, standing still is the better option.

But the benefit is massive. Not only for the current gay population, but for future generations too.

traprunner

SireOfSeth wrote: »

But the benefit is massive. Not only for the current gay population, but for future generations too.

Exactly. I have no gay friends, nor relatives (as far as I know), I don't have kids either (might do some day) but I can see a huge benefit if I ever have kids and they are gay or if they have kids that are gay.....

MrWalsh

SireOfSeth wrote: »

But the benefit is massive. Not only for the current gay population, but for future generations too.

The benefit is not only that same sex marriage will be legal, but it will lead to a far more general acceptance of homosexuality within our society, and this in turn will hopefully lead to more general acceptance for people who are transgender, people who are asexual, etc..... Creating a more tolerant society can only be a good thing. We have all seen the horrific outcome of a society intolerant of differences in ISIS videos.

SireOfSeth

MrWalsh wrote: »

The benefit is not only that same sex marriage will be legal, but it will lead to a far more general acceptance of homosexuality within our society, and this in turn will hopefully lead to more general acceptance for people who are transgender, people who are asexual, etc..... Creating a more tolerant society can only be a good thing. We have all seen the horrific outcome of a society intolerant of differences in ISIS videos.

Yeah. It's hard to summarise all the benefits. Like I said: massive. I have a dream...

GCU Flexible Demeanour

SireOfSeth wrote: »

But the benefit is massive. Not only for the current gay population, but for future generations too.

I don't see it. Really, nothing of substance is yielded. There isn't really anything much in the marriage framework that meaningfully adds benefit, and a few features that just don't apply.

oscarBravo

Isn't the definition of privilege (in the current usage sense of the word) the belief that a problem doesn't exist because you yourself are unaffected by it?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

You misunderstand me. I've never suggested the Yes campaign is privileged because they don't want to entertain the possibility that they might be creating a problem for someone else.

MJohnston

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't see it. Really, nothing of substance is yielded. There isn't really anything much in the marriage framework that meaningfully adds benefit, and a few features that just don't apply.

Normalisation is a non-quantifiable benefit - undermining the idea of homosexuality being "other"

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MJohnston wrote: »

Normalisation is a non-quantifiable benefit - undermining the idea of homosexuality being "other"

Well, then I expect its a non-quantifiable loss, too.

MJohnston

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, then I expect its a non-quantifiable loss, too.

You can expect whatever you want to, but you don't get to quantify how it will affect other people.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MJohnston wrote: »

You can expect whatever you want to, but you don't get to quantify how it will affect other people.

But, sure, you've just said no-one can quantify it, so we might as well flick a coin to decide how to vote.

Heads or tails?

BoatMad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, you've just said no-one can quantify it, so we might as well flick a coin to decide how to vote.

Heads or tails?

as it affects hetrosexuals , on the face of it , yes, flip a coin. However tolerance is a virtue we should practice and the tyranny of the majority is something we should strive to avoid , so on balance , those unaffected should vote Yes.

MJohnston

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, you've just said no-one can quantify it, so we might as well flick a coin to decide how to vote.

Heads or tails?

Difference between being able to measure "how much" and measure "if". The latter is most certain, the former is the unknown.

Also "Heads or tails?" sounds like a good name for a gay nightclub.

NewDirection

MJohnston wrote: »

Normalisation is a non-quantifiable benefit - undermining the idea of homosexuality being "other"

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, then I expect its a non-quantifiable loss, too.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, you've just said no-one can quantify it, so we might as well flick a coin to decide how to vote.

Heads or tails?

A non-quantifiable benefit does not equal a non-quantifiable loss. You don't have to be able to quantify something to determine weather its a benefit or not.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MJohnston wrote: »

Difference between being able to measure "how much" and measure "if". The latter is most certain, the former is the unknown.

NewDirection wrote: »

A non-quantifiable benefit does not equal a non-quantifiable loss. You don't have to be able to quantify something to determine weather its a benefit or not.

I know I've been complaining about the lack of depth in the Yes case, but this might be a little too deep?

MJohnston wrote: »

Also "Heads or tails?" sounds like a good name for a gay nightclub.

And you said I didn't understand?

MJohnston

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I know I've been complaining about the lack of depth in the Yes case, but this might be a little too deep?

Not really, no.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MJohnston wrote: »

Not really, no.

Oh, OK then. Equal may imply quantity, so it would be meaningless to say a non-quantifiable benefit equals a non-quantifiable loss. That's different, incidently, to saying that it's not equal to a non-quantifiable loss, as that's also a meaningless statement.

However, if we say a non-quantifiable benefit is absent, that has the same meaning as saying we have a non-quantifiable loss. Because, while it's meaningless to talk about them in terms of equality, the non-quantifiable benefit and the non-quantifiable loss are the same thing.

If it's non-quantifiable benefit, it may be intangible. If it's intangible, it may simply not exist. In fact, there's no way of telling if it exists or not, a bit like unicorns.

I think the benefits of SSM can be quantified in terms of unicorns.

suzanne.

I don't know where my message went! Basically a lot of people are confused. the civil partnerships homosexual people sign are they different to the civil papers we sign in the church??Please enlighten me. I think the church needs to advertise that the civil/legal ceremony can be carried out separately , the church ceremony is religious. There will be many a no voter due to confusion. I am so confused I have no idea at the moment. OK so adoption is there already and civil partnerships with homosexual couples. So please tell me what is going to change?? genuinely, I have read the refer comm info on its website it wouldn't fill a napkin. I am genuinely confused,many more are and I feel many will abstain or vote no due to lack of knowledge .What difference will it make to a homosexual person to have this changed??? I am genuinely asking this. If you want a yes vote ....

oscarBravo

suzanne. wrote: »

the civil partnerships homosexual people sign are they different to the civil papers we sign in the church??

Yes. The former is civil partnership; the latter is civil marriage.

Think of it as "marriage", and "I can't believe it's not marriage".

CramCycle

suzanne. wrote: »

I don't know where my message went! Basically a lot of people are confused. the civil partnerships homosexual people sign are they different to the civil papers we sign in the church??Please enlighten me

A church wedding is a religious act, often, on the same day, people will also sign legal documents that means they are married in the eyes of the state. They do not have to be done on the same day, but often are. You can get married in a registry office, which means you are married in the eyes of the state, in fact there are alot of people who get married in a variety of places that the state accepts, they just need a registrar and the paperwork as well as notifying Lombard St. many months in advance. If you want the religious one, you do not need the state one, you can just fufill the requirements of that religion and partake in their ceremony. you will be married in their eyes, your eyes but not the states and you will not be entitled to any of the benefits associated with state marriage.

ceremony can be carried out separately , the church ceremony is religious.

They really shouldn't have too, it is quite clear, the state will tell you and if you ask for a religious one, they will often tell you as well.

There will be many a no voter due to confusion. I am so confused I have no idea at the moment.

There is not much that can be done if people will not listen. It has been quite clear that this vote has nothing to do with religious ceremonies in way way shape or form.

OK so adoption is there already and civil partnerships with homosexual couples. So please tell me what is going to change?? genuinely, I have read the refer comm info on its website it wouldn't fill a napkin. I am genuinely confused,many more are and I feel many will abstain or vote no due to lack of knowledge .What difference will it make to a homosexual person to have this changed??? I am genuinely asking this. If you want a yes vote ....

It will mean that same sex couples will be entitled to state marriage, they will be entitled to the same legal benefits and protections that a heterosexual couple are entitled too. Civil partnership is different for a variety of reasons, many of which have been addressed in this thread and the 100 other referendum threads on boards and various other discussion forums.

The refcom leaflet is short because there is not much to say. It is one sentence, legislation will be enacted to accept this change if it is passed. Refcom are neutral and are not allowed give a view or present one that could be seen to sway a voter, unlike the yes and no campaigns which will present a biased view.

It is up to you, and no one else to review the information provided, discard the lies and misdirection by either side and say, I understand the amendment, I think it is a good one, vote yes, I think it is a bad one, vote no, or admit that you still do not understand it and spoil your vote.

My opinion, the biggest issue with this referendum has been the tying in of unrelated issues. There is no need for this. You either believe that same sex couples have a right to marriage and all its associated benefits or you don't.

kikidelvin

BoatMad wrote: »

a post at 4:40 am , nuff said

I did not know you could tell the time. Well done.:p

suzanne.

What does a civil partnership give that a marriage doesn't in brief? genuine question.

CramCycle

suzanne. wrote: »

What does a civil partnership give that a marriage doesn't in brief? genuine question.

In brief, can't be done, protection of the family home would be one that sticks out, inheritance rights etc.

List here, I think its been updated as the list was longer, it was 168 differences before recent legal reform, it is now 160 but i have not checked the document thoroughly and it does not take into account other issues associated with the social aspect of partnership vs. marriage and how that leads to differing perceptions of people.

http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/mythbusters.html#X-201106301525050

SireOfSeth

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't see it. Really, nothing of substance is yielded. There isn't really anything much in the marriage framework that meaningfully adds benefit, and a few features that just don't apply.

You don't see it because you are happy for some couples to be treated as better than others. The quest for equal human rights for all inherently has great substance. Often people can't see this though, especially if they are the ones being treated better.

Not a NSA agent

If these issues were actually issues why isn't the whole no campaign using them?

Instead we have 1 person on boards who has discovered something that nobody else has.

SireOfSeth

suzanne. wrote: »

What does a civil partnership give that a marriage doesn't in brief? genuine question.

Really it's more like: What does a *marriage give that a civil partnership doesn't?

What I mean is that civil partnership is the lesser of the two. Also, you probably aren't finding too much info of the Ref website, as the change to Article 41 is just a one liner - that is, to give couples the right to get married regardless of their gender.

So, what it really boils down to is:
Vote Yes, if you feel that gay couples should be allowed to get married*.
Vote No, if you feel that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get married*.

*marriage in the referendum means civil marriage, it has nothing to do with the religious ceremony. So the church will not have to marry gay couples (regardless of which vote wins).

Hotblack Desiato

suzanne. wrote: »

What does a civil partnership give that a marriage doesn't in brief? genuine question.

The two biggest ones as I understand it are -

- Civil partnership does not protect children's relationship with a non-biological parent, they are strangers in law, cannot act as next-of-kin and cannot inherit without heavy taxation.

Whatever the no side say about surrogacy, adoption etc - these are largely red herrings, and the objections the No side raise to them apply to heterosexual couples just as much.

There are already children being raised by gay couples where one member was previously in a heterosexual relationship. The 'other' parent of these children is, in law, a stranger to them. There are many unmarried heterosexual couples in this situation too, bringing up children of previous relationships, but they have the option of getting married if they choose to.


- Civil partnership has no constitutional protection, a future conservative government could abolish it with a Dail vote and render all civil partnerships null and void.

Marriage is recognised by the constitution, if we vote Yes then the right of two people of any gender to marry is protected, and can't ever be withdrawn unless there is a successful referendum to reverse it.