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

gravehold

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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the constitution, if we vote Yes then the right of two people of any gender to marry is protected, and can't ever be withdrawn unless there is a successful referendum to reverse it.

Doesn't that mean the no side is right and voting no can protect kids even if they have to wait for a conservative goverment to fix the issue. But if the yes side wins it's to late and it can't be fixed by a Conservative goverment sometime in the future.

So I guess if someone really didn't want gays to be given kids they should vote no then lobby the next government to abolish the children's and families act.

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

Doesn't that mean the no side is right and voting no can protect kids even if they have to wait for a conservative goverment to fix the issue. But if the yes side wins it's to late and it can't be fixed by a Conservative goverment sometime in the future.

So I guess if someone really didn't want gays to be given kids they should vote no then lobby the next government to abolish the children's and families act.

Are you against same sex couples having kids?

Hotblack Desiato

gravehold wrote: »

Doesn't that mean the no side is right and voting no can protect kids even if they have to wait for a conservative goverment to fix the issue. But if the yes side wins it's to late and it can't be fixed by a Conservative goverment sometime in the future.

So I guess if someone really didn't want gays to be given kids they should vote no then lobby the next government to abolish the children's and families act.

Try reading it again, I wasn't talking about anyone being 'given' kids.

If a man enters into a relationship with a single mother, is he being 'given' kids?

How many adoptions do you reckon there are a year in Ireland? It's already almost impossible for heterosexual couples to adopt, even from abroad.

Surrogacy isn't regulated in Irish law at all, and any objections to it apply just as much to single people or heterosexual couples.

Are you just trying to get a rise or something?

Voting No doesn't protect any kids, it won't change adoption or surrogacy at all, gay people are already able to do these things on an equal basis.

What it WILL do is deny the possibility of legal protection to the kids already being raised by homosexual couples. That's not protecting kids, it's the opposite.

gravehold

traprunner wrote: »

Are you against same sex couples having kids?

No and they already can biologically as a couple. But yes side has said voting yes won't effect adoption and stuff but if yes comes in it will be locked, but if no wins then while now they can adopt as a couple it can easly be changed to they can't next government.

If someone does have an issues with gays adopting voting no is the best plan then get a government to change the act so they can't adopt. If yes side wins the next government won't be able to fix the adoption problem for them

Ave Sodalis

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I think you're just trying to get a rise tbh.

He does that. He misreads what you type and then makes up some sort of argument about it based on his misinterpretation. He calls it playing devil's advocate.

gravehold

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Try reading it again, I wasn't talking about anyone being 'given' kids.

If a man enters into a relationship with a single mother, is he being 'given' kids?

How many adoptions do you reckon there are a year in Ireland? It's already almost impossible for heterosexual couples to adopt, even from abroad.

Surrogacy isn't regulated in Irish law at all, and any objections to it apply just as much to single people or heterosexual couples.

Are you just trying to get a rise or something?

Voting No doesn't protect any kids, it won't change adoption or surrogacy at all, gay people are already able to do these things on an equal basis.

What it WILL do is deny the possibility of legal protection to the kids already being raised by homosexual couples. That's not protecting kids, it's the opposite.

At the moment the children and family act allows gay CP couple to adpot the same as married couples, if yes wins then gays are married and straight couple cannot get preference, if no wins they yes the gay cp couple are still equal for but in the future a new goverment can make it to the way it was before.

If someone has a problem with gay adoption a no vote is the best way for it to be able so married couples get preference again and the conservative goverment can make cp lesser in the childrens and families act

gravehold

sup_dude wrote: »

He does that. He misreads what you type and then makes up some sort of argument about it based on his misinterpretation. He calls it playing devil's advocate.

Childrens and families act and CP is not constitutionally protected so can be changed with the next government, people against gay adoption should vote no that way it doesn't get locked into the constitution and can easily be removed next government.

If you are against gay adoption vote NO so it can be fixed by the next government.

Also I told you before it's your right to misgender me, I don't care.

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

Childrens and families act and CP is not constitutionally protected so can be changed with the next government, people against gay adoption should vote no that way it doesn't get locked into the constitution and can easily be removed next government.

If you are against gay adoption vote NO so it can be fixed by the next government.

Also I told you before it's your right to misgender me, I don't care.

And what if the next government don't "fix" it?

Sorry, she. Everyone is a default he unless proven otherwise, it's just easier than trying to guess when you don't have any possible way of knowing.

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

So I guess if someone really didn't want gays to be given kids they should vote no then lobby the next government to abolish the children's and families act.

gravehold wrote: »

If someone does have an issues with gays adopting voting no is the best plan then get a government to change the act so they can't adopt. If yes side wins the next government won't be able to fix the adoption problem for them

gravehold wrote: »

If someone has a problem with gay adoption a no vote is the best way for it to be able so married couples get preference again and the conservative goverment can make cp lesser in the childrens and families act

gravehold wrote: »

If you are against gay adoption vote NO so it can be fixed by the next government.

Why do you have to keep repeating the above?

Youre against gay people adopting. We get it.

ForstalDave

gravehold wrote: »

Childrens and families act and CP is not constitutionally protected so can be changed with the next government, people against gay adoption should vote no that way it doesn't get locked into the constitution and can easily be removed next government.

If you are against gay adoption vote NO so it can be fixed by the next government.

Also I told you before it's your right to misgender me, I don't care.

The constitution does not have any effect on adoption, adoption is not mentioned and will not be mentioned after this vote so a government could bar gay adoption with or without a NO vote as constitutionally it is not a guaranteed before or after this vote.

gravehold

ForstalDave wrote: »

The constitution does not have any effect on adoption, adoption is not mentioned and will not be mentioned after this vote so a government could bar gay adoption with or without a NO vote as constitutionally it is not a guaranteed before or after this vote.

No but married couples get protection of family unit in the constitution so after a yes vote the gay couples will have that protection.

If no wins while it's still here at the moment it's not constitutionally protected so can be removed easily. If you are against it voting NO gives you a better chance for it to be corrected in the future.

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

No but married couples get protection of family unit in the constitution so after a yes vote the gay couples will have that protection.

If no wins while it's still here at the moment it's not constitutionally protected so can be removed easily. If you are against it voting NO gives you a better chance for it to be corrected in the future.

I dont think you understand the proposed change to the Constitution for this referendum.

Its nothing to do with adoption.

gravehold

MrWalsh wrote: »

I dont think you understand the proposed change to the Constitution for this referendum.

Its nothing to do with adoption.

But makes gay couple married constitutionally so cannot be discriminated against. If they don't get the constitional protection of marriage a conservative government could then in the future put things back to the way they where a few years ago and stop gay adoption again.

But with the protection that won't be possible.

Basically if you are against don't make it constitional as then it can't easily be reverted

GCU Flexible Demeanour

suzanne. wrote: »

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

I didn't find the "160 differences" list that meaningful in getting an answer to the same question.

I'd recommend this post:

http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html

It's an unbiased and short description of key differences, written by a law lecturer in Maynooth University.

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

But makes gay couple married constitutionally so cannot be discriminated against. If they don't get the constitional protection of marriage a conservative government could then in the future put things back to the way they where a few years ago and stop gay adoption again.

But with the protection that won't be possible.

Basically if you are against don't make it constitional as then it can't easily be reverted

You are confusing two separate issues.

There was never discrimination towards married people wrt adoption. Married couples and single people could always apply to adopt children. Gay couples could not apply as married couples because we currently do not have same sex marriage. But a gay person could apply singly just the same as a married couple. The Children and Family Relationships Act changed this so that gay couples could apply as a couple.

So now married couples, civil partnered couples and single people can all still apply and no one is given precedence over anyone else.

If SSM passes then gay people will be able to apply as married couples as civil partnership will be gone.

All your waffle that a no vote means things could change in the future is ridiculous. It would require the government to outlaw civil partnerships and to ban single gay people from adopting before there would be any discrimination against gay people adopting. Unless we suddenly decide to adopt Sharia law neither of the above are going to happen.

gravehold

MrWalsh wrote: »

You are confusing two separate issues.

There was never discrimination towards married people wrt adoption. Married couples and single people could always apply to adopt children. Gay couples could not apply as married couples because we currently do not have same sex marriage. But a gay person could apply singly just the same as a married couple. The Children and Family Relationships Act changed this so that gay couples could apply as a couple.

So now married couples, civil partnered couples and single people can all still apply and no one is given precedence over anyone else.

If SSM passes then gay people will be able to apply as married couples as civil partnership will be gone.

All your waffle that a no vote means things could change in the future is ridiculous. It would require the government to outlaw civil partnerships and to ban single gay people from adopting before there would be any discrimination against gay people adopting. Unless we suddenly decide to adopt Sharia law neither of the above are going to happen.

aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html

You are so wrong married couple get preference, childrens and families act just make cp the same so gay couples can adopt the same as a married couple. If you vote no the next goverment can revert that easily. But if yes then the gay couple are constitutionally protected married couple.

If you are against it voting no will mean things can be set back the way it was a few years ago easily but if they get constitution protection as a married couple it's to late


The point is the government could revert cp or the children's and families act so if you are against gay adoption that will be at least possible to stop in the future if you vote no

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html

You are so wrong married couple get preference, childrens and families act just make cp the same so gay couples can adopt the same as a married couple. If you vote no the next goverment can revert that easily. But if yes then the gay couple are constitutionally protected married couple.

If you are against it voting no will mean things can be set back the way it was a few years ago easily but if they get constitution protection as a married couple it's to late


The point is the government could revert cp or the children's and families act so if you are against gay adoption that will be at least possible to stop in the future if you vote no

Again, your link only covers domestic adoptions.

gravehold

MrWalsh wrote: »

Again, your link only covers domestic adoptions.

aai.gov.ie/index.php/intercountry-adoption/faq-intercountry-adoption.html

This is worded that married couple get preference even so the next goverment can make that so. Also most people are concerned about domestic adoption.

SireOfSeth

gravehold wrote: »

aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html

You are so wrong married couple get preference, childrens and families act just make cp the same so gay couples can adopt the same as a married couple. If you vote no the next goverment can revert that easily. But if yes then the gay couple are constitutionally protected married couple.

If you are against it voting no will mean things can be set back the way it was a few years ago easily but if they get constitution protection as a married couple it's to late


The point is the government could revert cp or the children's and families act so if you are against gay adoption that will be at least possible to stop in the future if you vote no

Other than bigots, who on earth would be against gay adoption? (Regardless of whether that's gays adopting children or straights adopting gay children - or any other mix.)

ForstalDave

gravehold wrote: »

aai.gov.ie/index.php/intercountry-adoption/faq-intercountry-adoption.html

This is worded that married couple get preference even so the next goverment can make that so. Also most people are concerned about domestic adoption.

There are more children needing adoption than there are people willing to adopt, which is better a gay couple adopthing or a child being reared by the state?

CramCycle

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

- 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.

That is one of the big ones in my eyes.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I didn't find the "160 differences" list that meaningful in getting an answer to the same question.

I'd recommend this post:

http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html

It's an unbiased and short description of key differences, written by a law lecturer in Maynooth University.

That's a nice article, I do realise that some of the 160 are negligible issues that may never arise but the article you have is a nice and clear overview in laymans terms.

traprunner

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I didn't find the "160 differences" list that meaningful in getting an answer to the same question.

I'd recommend this post:

http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html

It's an unbiased and short description of key differences, written by a law lecturer in Maynooth University.

So you agree that we should allow SSM to get rid of these unfair differences.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

traprunner wrote: »

So you agree that we should allow SSM to get rid of these unfair differences.

Why the need to demand that everyone has the same view? I'm just trying to link some people to a useful source of information, because there's really very little stuff out there that gives the answers people need to make a decision.

I just think that article is a good basis for someone to make up their own mind on the matter. By a law lecturer who is a Yes voter, but has the confidence to just set out the facts of the matter.

traprunner

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Why the need to demand that everyone has the same view?

I was just letting you know that it's ok to renounce the past and change your ways

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm just trying to link some people to a useful source of information, because there's really very little stuff out there that gives the answers people need to make a decision.

I just think that article is a good basis for someone to make up their own mind on the matter. By a law lecturer who is a Yes voter, but has the confidence to just set out the facts of the matter.

You are the one that has introduced things that are not facts of the matter in your posts....just look back over a few of your posts and it's obvious.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

traprunner wrote: »

You are the one that has introduced things that are not facts of the matter in your posts....just look back over a few of your posts and it's obvious.

I firmly disagree.

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Why the need to demand that everyone has the same view? I'm just trying to link some people to a useful source of information, because there's really very little stuff out there that gives the answers people need to make a decision.

It does seem quite clear and concise, and is a reasonable framework from my other readings into the referendum.

I just think that article is a good basis for someone to make up their own mind on the matter. By a law lecturer who is a Yes voter, but has the confidence to just set out the facts of the matter.

It is, but as an opinion, from yourself, if you were a no voter, and you accept the article at face value, do you think there is anything in that article that reassures your stance, or is there anything that makes you think, I never thought about that and upon revision, I might change my preference to a Yes vote.

Reading through the article, I have not found anything that shows a benefit to leaving the constitution as is, I have found several points that say to me, voting Yes is the correct course of action.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

CramCycle wrote: »

Reading through the article, I have not found anything that shows a benefit to leaving the constitution as is, I have found several points that say to me, voting Yes is the correct course of action.

When I read it, I see the main substantial issue to be the difference between "shared home" and "family home" (and other stuff in that space).

Then I take a step back, and ask "if I was concerned with ensuring that families (in the broad sense - not just married families as per Constitution) were secure in their homes, would I see this as a priority"?

And I wouldn't. I'd see rights of renters as a bigger problem - be they married or single or cohabiting.

So I'd then frame the question "why are these rights only for married couples - be they straight or gay"? Why are they only (effectively) for owner-occupiers?

I'm afraid, I don't see the stuff about protected disclosures as material. I'm delighted to know my wife can't, usually, be forced to shop me. But, you'll appreciate, it's hard to see that in a practical way as a key protection that everyone needs. "Marry me, so you can't be compelled to give evidence against me" would be an arresting proposal.

traprunner

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

When I read it, I see the main substantial issue to be the difference between "shared home" and "family home" (and other stuff in that space).

Then I take a step back, and ask "if I was concerned with ensuring that families (in the broad sense - not just married families as per Constitution) were secure in their homes, would I see this as a priority"?

And I wouldn't. I'd see rights of renters as a bigger problem - be they married or single or cohabiting.

Ah, nice one!!! Another new excuse for you.....other things have a higher priority. You must be really proud that you thought this one up to avoid the matter we are being asked to vote on.

K-9

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

When I read it, I see the main substantial issue to be the difference between "shared home" and "family home" (and other stuff in that space).

Then I take a step back, and ask "if I was concerned with ensuring that families (in the broad sense - not just married families as per Constitution) were secure in their homes, would I see this as a priority"?

And I wouldn't. I'd see rights of renters as a bigger problem - be they married or single or cohabiting.

So I'd then frame the question "why are these rights only for married couples - be they straight or gay"? Why are they only (effectively) for owner-occupiers?

Well historically it would relate to property rights and stuff like that I'd assume. Renters don't have a lot of rights but that's a different area of law really.

Between increased rights for tenants and big reform of family law you've quite the wishlist and a load of boxes to be ticked!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

traprunner wrote: »

Ah, nice one!!! Another new excuse for you.....other things have a higher priority. You must be really proud that you thought this one up.

But, sure, I've been saying that from the start. Here's a post from two weeks back.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

<...>
[*]If there's a protest element to the vote, its that there are more pressing issues requiring an amendment (specifically termination of unviable pregancy) that I expect this proposal is attempting to distract from.<...>

I've several times said that one of my reasons is I don't see this as a pressing issue, compared to other things.

What I'm finding is there's very little point is attempting a discussion, as folk just don't want one. Feck, the "new excuse" that I've been putting out there for two weeks. You couldn't make it up.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

K-9 wrote: »

Between increased rights for tenants and big reform of family law you've quite the wishlist and a load of boxes to be ticked!

Indeed, and I don't know how to just get that point across. I just don't see this as a priority, and I can't accept the "ah, but, would you just go along with it" line. I feel this is a time-wasting referendum. Not as time-wasting as the one on the age of the President, I'll admit. But I'm not going to give myself a pat on the back by voting Yes, as if I thought I was participating in some great social change. I suspect this is a distraction, and I'm not going to be distracted.

(Sez he, having apparently posted on the topic for two weeks now. How did that happen? I've always said Enda Kenny is a great politician, and there's your proof. Enda, you got me.)

SireOfSeth

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, I've been saying that from the start. Here's a post from two weeks back.I've several times said that one of my reasons is I don't see this as a pressing issue, compared to other things.

That's our point, you don't! We're not being asked about those other things in this referendum. Most likely they will come up in a future Ref - especially since some of them are damn important. However, for now, that is NOT what we are being asked to vote on.

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I just don't see this as a priority, and I can't accept the "ah, but, would you just go along with it" line.

I could accept that as a reason for not voting, but as a reason for voting against? That just doesn't make sense to me at all.

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

When I read it, I see the main substantial issue to be the difference between "shared home" and "family home" (and other stuff in that space).

Then I take a step back, and ask "if I was concerned with ensuring that families (in the broad sense - not just married families as per Constitution) were secure in their homes, would I see this as a priority"?

And I wouldn't. I'd see rights of renters as a bigger problem - be they married or single or cohabiting.

So I'd then frame the question "why are these rights only for married couples - be they straight or gay"? Why are they only (effectively) for owner-occupiers?

I'm afraid, I don't see the stuff about protected disclosures as material. I'm delighted to know my wife can't, usually, be forced to shop me. But, you'll appreciate, it's hard to see that in a practical way as a key protection that everyone needs. "Marry me, so you can't be compelled to give evidence against me" would be an arresting proposal.

You seem to be sidetracking yourself, there are issues in your post to be addressed, mainly at legislative, not constitutional level but you also seem to be taking only one point and running with it, here was my reading of it:

1. The Name

Might mean nothing to you but I appreciate its importance to the couple getting married and also to the belief that it will help normalise same sex relationships over time for those who do not see it that way currently.

2. Constitutional Protection

Possibly the biggest point, alot of the attachments to civil partnerships are legislative and as such can be taken back or changed at any time, not easily but plausibly.Marriage is protected by the constitution, and seeing as it applies to a larger wedge of the population than civil partnership, will not be as easily changed in terms of legislation to the detriment of those married couples.

3. Family

As stated, heterosexual couples can get the benefits if they choose currently, homosexual couples cannot.

4. Shared/Family Home

Legal issues which could lead to long and protracted court issues, this amendment helps alleiviate those

5. Shared/Family Home Protection and Desertion

Basically if my civil partner hops the country and leaves me with a mortgage, I am pretty screwed currently

6. Marital Privilege

I don't like this regardless, I would be all for it being removed from everyone.

7. Loss of Consortium

This entitlement is not available to civil partners.

8. Next of Kin

Unclear, this helps clarify it


9. Insurable interests

The corresponding position relating to civil partners is unclear, can't wait for insurance companies to drag their heels.

10. Engagement

Inequality

11. Succession

Inequality

12. Prohibited Degrees

Why are they different unless the legal standpoint is they are not equivalent?

13. Registration process

I think he is wrong to a point in that I have been to weddings/partnerships where the officiator has come in on a weekend

14. Judicial Separation

Inequality

15. Dissolution

Probably one of the few things where current legislation is biased in favour of Civil partnerships, once made equivalent, hopefully legislative changes can be brought in to make the process easier on people.

16. Provision for Reconciliation

Shows that as in other cases, legally, civil partnerships are looked on as a lesser relationship

17. Family Home following divorce

I don't know enough on this.

18. Remedies following dissolution

Bias in favour of marriage

19. Cohabitation and marriage

The rights of cohabitants’ spouses are protected more rigorously than those of their civil partners in the cohabitation scheme.

20. Contracts

This does not apply in respect of a contract made for the benefit of a civil partner.

21. Family Home and Bankruptcy

This provision does not apply to the shared home of civil partners.

K-9 wrote: »

Between increased rights for tenants and big reform of family law you've quite the wishlist and a load of boxes to be ticked!

And some are important issues for discussion and future legislative and constitutional action, just because we are not fixing everything all at once though, does not mean we should not fix anything at all.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Indeed, and I don't know how to just get that point across. I just don't see this as a priority, and I can't accept the "ah, but, would you just go along with it" line. I feel this is a time-wasting referendum. Not as time-wasting as the one on the age of the President, I'll admit. But I'm not going to give myself a pat on the back by voting Yes, as if I thought I was participating in some great social change. I suspect this is a distraction, and I'm not going to be distracted.

I am not asking someone to go along with it. I think that the changes are a positive for Irish society in terms of fairness and decency. Maybe it was brought up as a distraction, maybe it wasn't, not one sh1t do I give to either, it has not distracted me from what I do and do not like about Irish politics and those who are our elected representatives. Neither am I so bitter that I would voice my distaste with any of them by voting against something I feel has clear benefits to our nations populace, with both immediate and trickle down effects.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

SireOfSeth wrote: »

We're not being asked about those other things in this referendum.

And, indeed, that's what I'm responding to when I say I can't accept the "ah, but, would you just go along with it" line.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I could accept that as a reason for not voting, but as a reason for voting against?

I'm leaving aside the specifics already set out in this and other threads, because who wants to go through all that again. Voting isn't compulsory here, but I typically do. After all, isn't that what Constant Markievicz laid down his life for in 1916.

CramCycle wrote: »

I think that the changes are a positive for Irish society in terms of fairness and decency.

And that's grand. I look at the same list, see really just one issue that convinces me that it relates to a pressing concern, and I judge this isn't a material response to that issue.

SireOfSeth

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And, indeed, that's what I'm responding to when I say I can't accept the "ah, but, would you just go along with it" line.

Obviously you vote no in all referendums (as the constitution is in an awful state).

GCU Flexible Demeanour

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Obviously you vote no in all referendums (as the constitution is in an awful state).

Off the top of my head, I can't recall them all. I've voted against some EU-related referenda (which I'd guess is what most of them are about), but not all of them.

I voted against the International Criminal Court, as I felt an Irish soldier serving with the UN should be entitled to have any case against him heard in an Irish court. I though it was a bit much to say "off you go to Chad, and if anything screws up you're on your own."

Couldn't help noticing that time that no-one knew what the International Criminal Court was, and I recall a journalist saying on a "Drivetime" programme on RTE that the Department of Foreign Affairs weren't able to produce a copy of the Treaty setting it up when asked. But, sure, go along with it. Who'd be against International Criminals being brought to court? They're international, Ted.

Anyway, I'm open to voting yes when there's a reason.

BoatMad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Off the top of my head, I can't recall them all. I've voted against some EU-related referenda (which I'd guess is what most of them are about), but not all of them.

I voted against the International Criminal Court, as I felt an Irish soldier serving with the UN should be entitled to have any case against him heard in an Irish court. I though it was a bit much to say "off you go to Chad, and if anything screws up you're on your own."

Couldn't help noticing that time that no-one knew what the International Criminal Court was, and I recall a journalist saying on a "Drivetime" programme on RTE that the Department of Foreign Affairs weren't able to produce a copy of the Treaty setting it up when asked. But, sure, go along with it. Who'd be against International Criminals being brought to court? They're international, Ted.

Anyway, I'm open to voting yes when there's a reason.

me too , voted no to serval EU treaties , especially later ones, no to ICC and will vote no to lowering age of president

SireOfSeth

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Off the top of my head, I can't recall them all. I've voted against some EU-related referenda (which I'd guess is what most of them are about), but not all of them.

I voted against the International Criminal Court, as I felt an Irish soldier serving with the UN should be entitled to have any case against him heard in an Irish court. I though it was a bit much to say "off you go to Chad, and if anything screws up you're on your own."

Couldn't help noticing that time that no-one knew what the International Criminal Court was, and I recall a journalist saying on a "Drivetime" programme on RTE that the Department of Foreign Affairs weren't able to produce a copy of the Treaty setting it up when asked. But, sure, go along with it. Who'd be against International Criminals being brought to court? They're international, Ted.

Anyway, I'm open to voting yes when there's a reason.

But surely there was more important things to be dealt with at the time. :rolleyes:

constance tench

To safeguard the existing rights of others, another option may be to add the text to
Article 40 (Personal rights),
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html#article40

'Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two human persons without distinction as to their sex.'

and, repeal section 2 (2) (e) of the Civil Registration Act 2004.

For the purposes of this Act there is an impediment to a marriage if—
...(e) both parties are of the same sex.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0003/

BoatMad

constance tench wrote: »

To safeguard the existing rights of others, another option may be to add the text to
Article 40 (Personal rights),
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html#article40

'Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two human persons without distinction as to their sex.'

and, repeal section 2 (2) (e) of the Civil Registration Act 2004.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0003/

what about Vulcans, hang on this is very discriminatory

ByfocalPhoto

I confess I haven't read back over this whole thread but has anybody looked at the tax implications of opening marriage up to all combinations of two adults ?
If there is a yes vote same sex spouses will quite reasonably look for the same tax perks available to existing married couples.
Perhaps an economist might let us know the projected cost to the exchequer. I have a horrible feeling that if it is excessive the government may reduce the married tax benefits to all married couples to balance the books. Can the average "coping class" family afford another financial hit ?
I am a foreigner so I can't vote in this but I am an Irish tax payer of some years standing so this does directly affect me.

Can anybody comment ?

gravehold

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I confess I haven't read back over this whole thread but has anybody looked at the tax implications of opening marriage up to all combinations of two adults ?
If there is a yes vote same sex spouses will quite reasonably look for the same tax perks available to existing married couples.
Perhaps an economist might let us know the projected cost to the exchequer. I have a horrible feeling that if it is excessive the government may reduce the married tax benefits to all married couples to balance the books. Can the average "coping class" family afford another financial hit ?
I am a foreigner so I can't vote in this but I am an Irish tax payer of some years standing so this does directly affect me.

Can anybody comment ?

One of the reasons to vote is so gay couples can get the tax breaks, yes if it costs to much the government could reduce it but I doubt there would be enough gay marraiges to warrant it.

It should be removed anyway as it's discriminatory against unmarried people

ByfocalPhoto

gravehold wrote: »

It should be removed anyway as it's discriminatory against unmarried people

It would be off topic to pursue that but we could could do a whole thread on what's wrong with that statement.

gravehold

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

It would be off topic to pursue that but we could could do a whole thread on what's wrong with that statement.

It give tax breaks to married people, what about long term coiple that don't believe in marriage why should they be excluded, hell why should a couple get a tax break at all

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

It give tax breaks to married people, what about long term coiple that don't believe in marriage why should they be excluded, hell why should a couple get a tax break at all

Tax breaks for married people is a completely different topic, why don't you open a thread on it and stop trying to derail this one?

gravehold

MrWalsh wrote: »

Tax breaks for married people is a completely different topic, why don't you open a thread on it and stop trying to derail this one?

So one asked could the referendum lead to tax breaks being reduced or removed due too many applying while improdable it could happen. So marraige tax breaks ismon topic

gravehold

Will gay married couples adopted kids be allowed to attend rc schools, I can't see why the schools would admit them it's against the ethos and this will lead to poorer education for many kids adopted by gay couples

ByfocalPhoto

I have been told by an accountant that civil partnerships already get the tax breaks and inheritance rights and the world hasn't ended. So the whole question might be answered already.

Whether or not married couples should get tax breaks in the first place is definitely off topic so I won't be drawn.

gravehold

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I have been told by an accountant that civil partnerships already get the tax breaks and inheritance rights

Really, why do the yes side say they don't?