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

gravehold

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Unfortunately there's more than a few idiots about that would slap a few quid down, and vote no, in order to try and win 5/1 back.

My faith in people is ebbing.

For fence sitters where either result makes no difference it's a good plan, the odds are great as there will be a silent no like the silent tories vote in england.

Sure PP might be getting more people then vote no and that might not have being the plan. But it's not like I viewed that add as a call for yes anyway

K-9

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I disagree. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That you would so easily defend marriage of under 17 year olds is, to my mind, irresponsible.

But, sure, that's what we're voting on. You're in favour of teenage marriage, and I'm not.

Mod:

Keep it on topic please. The referendum has nothing to do with the issue of under 17 year olds marrying, that is a side issue and any future discussion of it will be viewed as an attempt to derail the thread.

Thank you.

PS. This goes for everybody, mentioning polygamy will also included as an attempt to derail the topic.

K-9

MrWalsh wrote: »

Ah GCU, still merrily trolling.

I'd like to welcome you to my ignore list.

Indeed, any repeat of the personal attacks on GCU and you'll be banned form the thread. Thanks.

donaghs

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Well every single poll on every matter to do with homosexuality clearly indicates and age bias, with the younger being more accepting and the older you get the less so. So while anecdotes like your friends aunt are great they are exceptions unfortunately.

I'd agree. But the most interesting anecdotes I've heard so far on this are from people who literately swear you to secrecy, and then admit they are voting no or are unsure. But basically say they are afraid to publicly admit it.

JONJO THE MISER

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Unfortunately there's more than a few idiots about that would slap a few quid down, and vote no, in order to try and win 5/1 back.

My faith in people is ebbing.

And what would be wrong with that, if you can make money out of something why the hell not.

Ave Sodalis

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

And what would be wrong with that, if you can make money out of something why the hell not.

More incentive to vote No, regardless of your actual feelings on the matter?

gravehold

sup_dude wrote: »

More incentive to vote No, regardless of your actual feelings on the matter?

Point is for the fence sitter that might not vote cause the referendum doesn't effect them it gets them out if they can think they can win some money.

Everyone should vote and if this gets more voting why the hell not

CramCycle

gravehold wrote: »

Point is for the fence sitter that might not vote cause the referendum doesn't effect them it gets them out if they can think they can win some money.

Everyone should vote and if this gets more voting why the hell not

If it did, which I doubt it will do to any noticeable affect, it would be a terrible reason to vote. Bookies never lose in the long run (Ivan Yates being the exclusion) if you wanted some quick cash the bet to take would appear to be the yes vote.

If this is the reason a person comes out to vote, I do despair, regardless of how it swings the vote.

Greyian

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

And what would be wrong with that, if you can make money out of something why the hell not.

Sounds like slavery would have been right up your alley so...

gravehold

CramCycle wrote: »

If it did, which I doubt it will do to any noticeable affect, it would be a terrible reason to vote. Bookies never lose in the long run (Ivan Yates being the exclusion) if you wanted some quick cash the bet to take would appear to be the yes vote.

If this is the reason a person comes out to vote, I do despair, regardless of how it swings the vote.

Odds for yes to win is too low to put a bet on. Pity you can't use an accumulater with the no vote though.

For most people the vote has no meaning so any reason to get voters in booths is good

CramCycle

gravehold wrote: »

For most people the vote has no meaning so any reason to get voters in booths is good

Really?!? If the incentive wasn't biased, sure, looking at the odds though you would be an idiot to lay on decent money on No (pplaying the odds not the event). If you have alot of cash, the odds would indicate to lay it on Yes and get something.

Regardless, I think your statement is idiotic, voting blind ( no understanding) and with a non relevant bias (financial) is a good way to ruin democracy.

I think it sways the vote in favour of Yes and I still think it is idiotic beyond belief even though I feel it suits my preference.

gravehold

CramCycle wrote: »

Really?!? If the incentive wasn't biased, sure, looking at the odds though you would be an idiot to lay on decent money on No (pplaying the odds not the event). If you have alot of cash, the odds would indicate to lay it on Yes and get something.

Regardless, I think your statement is idiotic, voting blind ( no understanding) and with a non relevant bias (financial) is a good way to ruin democracy.

I think it sways the vote in favour of Yes and I still think it is idiotic beyond belief even though I feel it suits my preference.

There is a huge silent no look at the silent tories vote that happened in England, it's worth a punt on betting no at them odds, not money you don't have just spare cash like upto 100 something you won't miss if you lose.

Point is I say the vote could probably go either way so the odds are great and people that don't care on the outcome can help their bet win.

CramCycle

gravehold wrote: »

, not money you don't have just spare cash like upto 100 something you won't miss if you lose.

LOL I have two kids, I certainly don't have 100euro lying around.

Either way, let's say it pushes the undecided masses to a NO vote when they would have otherwise abstained.

Do you really think that this is a positive thing for the function of democracy?

There maybe a huge hidden NO vote in your opinion, I don't think it's that hidden though, have met plenty of no voters. More than I suspected.

I am saying that either way, if it could be shown that it influenced voters, then it is disgraceful. I don't think it will though so it doesn't annoy me.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

gravehold wrote: »

There is a huge silent no look at the silent tories vote that happened in England

Bear in mind, their system means that a relatively small block of votes can get you a seat. SNP won almost every seat with only 50% of the vote. On the other hand, Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dem got one each in Scotland, with something like 25%, 15% and 3% of the voter respectively.

In our case, an awful lot of Yes voters would either need to be lying to pollsters or stay at home for No to win. It could be worth a speculative punt, but I really feel I'll believe in the silent no when it votes.

Hotblack Desiato

CramCycle wrote: »

The dominoes pizza story you refer to is a leafleting company put the two together and some nitwit on twitter didn't realise.

Sure yesterday we got leaflets through the door, the usual fast food junk mail and one Yes and one No leaflet at the same time :rolleyes: even though we've a Yes sticker on the door

There is a historic link between Domino's and funding extreme religious conservative causes though, and still a link currently.

Although founder Tom Monaghan has sold his stake in Domino's, he still owns its corporate HQ which they rent from him, so he still profits from the business. Given the causes he supports that's enough for me to avoid them.

Hyzepher

gravehold wrote: »

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

You do realise that gay couples can be rc?

The children of gay couples could be rc?

The church have already stated - Bishop Martin has said this, that children will not be labelled with the beliefs of their gay parents. Debate the logic of that separately!!

SpaceTime

gravehold wrote: »

There is a huge silent no look at the silent tories vote that happened in England, it's worth a punt on betting no at them odds, not money you don't have just spare cash like upto 100 something you won't miss if you lose.

Point is I say the vote could probably go either way so the odds are great and people that don't care on the outcome can help their bet win.

Not quite comparable tbh.

The Labour Party are not really the dish of the day either. There's a lot of underlying mistrust due to the underhand way they took the UK to war etc etc etc and Milliband was the wrong frontman entirely. Then you had the massive slide to SNP in Scotland which further weakened labour...

gravehold

SpaceTime wrote: »

Not quite comparable tbh.

The Labour Party are not really the dish of the day either. There's a lot of underlying mistrust due to the underhand way they took the UK to war etc etc etc and Milliband was the wrong frontman entirely. Then you had the massive slide to SNP in Scotland which further weakened labour...

Still think it's worth a punt, 100 euro is spare cash really and it comes in I can get a second gtx980 gpu for sli quilt free for the witcher 3

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

Still think it's worth a punt, 100 euro is spare cash really and it comes in I can get a second gtx980 gpu for sli quilt free for the witcher 3

Wouldn't that be nice....:rolleyes:

Have you now changed your reason to voting no to the chance of a quick buck?

galljga1

gravehold wrote: »

Still think it's worth a punt, 100 euro is spare cash really and it comes in I can get a second gtx980 gpu for sli quilt free for the witcher 3

Traitor, even thinking so....but you have a point.

johnnyskeleton

Mod: @gravehold - do not under any circumstances criticise the moderation of other forums here. Take it to feedback or dispute resolution.

@Mr Walsh - please dont discuss moderation on thread.

To both of you, id ask you to discuss the topic at hand but if you cant or wont do that id suggest you dont post in this thread at all.

ByfocalPhoto

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll-finds-drop-in-support-for-same-sex-marriage-1.2154891

The yes side is losing ground it would seem but I doubt it will be enough to make money for the punters.
Any theories as to why the numbers are moving ?

timetogo

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll-finds-drop-in-support-for-same-sex-marriage-1.2154891

The yes side is losing ground it would seem but I doubt it will be enough to make money for the punters.
Any theories as to why the numbers are moving ?

Because it was 80% before. It was hardly going to go up from that.

74% still seems high. I would have thought the religious would have more control than that.

gravehold

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll-finds-drop-in-support-for-same-sex-marriage-1.2154891[/url]

The yes side is losing ground it would seem but I doubt it will be enough to make money for the punters.
Any theories as to why the numbers are moving ?

In party terms, Fine Gael and Labour supporters are the strongest opponents of the move being proposed by the Government.
Some 71 per cent of Labour voters and 68 per cent of Fine Gael voters intend to vote No.

No wonder enda doesn't want to debate it, there has been a stronger showing of people fed up with the yes sides wording of people that won't automatically vote yes which is turning people off voting or going no on the day.

Hotblack Desiato

gravehold wrote: »

In party terms, Fine Gael and Labour supporters are the strongest opponents of the move being proposed by the Government.
Some 71 per cent of Labour voters and 68 per cent of Fine Gael voters intend to vote No.

No wonder enda doesn't want to debate it, there has been a stronger showing of people fed up with the yes sides wording of people that won't automatically vote yes which is turning people off voting or going no on the day.

The quote you included refers to the presidential age referendum :rolleyes:

Enda doesn't do debates. On anything.

The rest of your post is just gibberish, sorry.

ByfocalPhoto

It is apparent to me that the media are firmly behind the Yes camp. Pollsters are media organisations.
I could easily conduct a poll that would return a clear majority either way just by selecting where and among whom I conduct it.

There is only one poll that counts as the Brits will tell you.
My wife was talking to a guy who is in charge of one of the yes campaigns. He is by no means complacent. He is very worried.

The 23 year old I was telling you about is a barman. A customer asked him how he was voting. He said "No".
She went absolutely spare. "Hit the roof" was the term he used.
In the years I have been here I have noticed the Irish hate to be pushed around. They had 800 years of it. The yes side need to try debating rather than berating. Otherwise a lot of Irish will go the other way just to annoy them. I remember the first Lisbon referendum. Some European bigwig said the Ireland would face bad consequences if they voted no. I thought at the time "that's torn it, he has practically guaranteed a no vote". I was right. You had to be asked again to give the answer the govt wanted.

The main thing is to get everyone possible out to vote, only then will we actually know what the country wants.
It is all to play for.

dubscottie

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

It is apparent to me that the media are firmly behind the Yes camp. Pollsters are media organisations.
I could easily conduct a poll that would return a clear majority either way just by selecting where and among whom I conduct it.

There is only one poll that counts as the Brits will tell you.
My wife was talking to a guy who is in charge of one of the yes campaigns. He is by no means complacent. He is very worried.

The 23 year old I was telling you about is a barman. A customer asked him how he was voting. He said "No".
She went absolutely spare. "Hit the roof" was the term he used.
In the years I have been here I have noticed the Irish hate to be pushed around. They had 800 years of it. The yes side need to try debating rather than berating. Otherwise a lot of Irish will go the other way just to annoy them. I remember the first Lisbon referendum. Some European bigwig said the Ireland would face bad consequences if they voted no. I thought at the time "that's torn it, he has practically guaranteed a no vote". I was right. You had to be asked again to give the answer the govt wanted.

The main thing is to get everyone possible out to vote, only then will we actually know what the country wants.
It is all to play for.

It wont matter what the vote is.. Myself and my partner will still be treated like **** or with suspicion by some.. The yes side have nothing to debate.. Its a simple change.


.

roosh

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm actually against two gay men adopting children. I believe every child needs a mother and those I've known who grew up without one have really stuggled with relationships.

I have to vote no in this referendum even though I'm in favour of gay marriage.

The reason they struggle in relationships may not be down to the lack of a mother, but rather, the lack of experience with a relationship model. Two same sex parents who exhibit a loving relationship to one another, and the child, could possibly have the same effect as a heterosexual couple.

roosh

bopper wrote: »

They basically think that a yes vote sends the message that a family consisting of a same sex couple, is the same as a family consisting of an opposite sex couple (with or without children). In their eyes that's a terrible thing. At least I think that's what their main argument is, it seems to change a lot. I'd watch the debate from the Late Late last night if you get a chance.

cheers, I had watched it and that is largely where my question arose form.

ByfocalPhoto

dubscottie wrote:

It wont matter what the vote is.. Myself and my partner will still be treated like **** or with suspicion by some.. The yes side have nothing to debate.. Its a simple change.

If I may say this demonstrates a very narrow view of history. In my mother's lifetime they stopped throwing gay people into concentration camps. In my lifetime western countries repealed laws jailing people for gay relationships. Now this referendum is a milestone. No it won't solve all your problems but I can't help thinking you should be a bit more excited about it.
You are there.

CramCycle

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

It is apparent to me that the media are firmly behind the Yes camp. Pollsters are media organisations.
I could easily conduct a poll that would return a clear majority either way just by selecting where and among whom I conduct it.

That would be a biased poll as you have determined what you would like the response to be before you set out. Most polling companies have guidelines and methods to avoid this as much as is reasonably possible. It is in their best interest to be unbiased.

There is only one poll that counts as the Brits will tell you.

+ 1

My wife was talking to a guy who is in charge of one of the yes campaigns. He is by no means complacent. He is very worried.

My own biased and anecdotal evidence is that the split is close to the polls, too much complacency and low turn out because of it, he is right to be concerned.

The 23 year old I was telling you about is a barman. A customer asked him how he was voting. He said "No".
She went absolutely spare. "Hit the roof" was the term he used.

I asked a no voter about their reasons, they mentioned surrogacy and I said that the referendum had nothing to do with that. They then went into a long speech about congenital heart defects and family history and how gay marriage would cause a spike in surrogacy and then a spike in these issues. I pointed out that legislation means that if this is or was going to happen it would do so regardless of SSM. They then got annoyed and stormed off, I brought it up a few days later and they turned on me saying I was too angry and uunreasonable and they could not and did not want to discuss it with me.

Point being, anecdotes are just that, maybe your barman just didn't want to listen.

They had 800 years of it

We didn't

The yes side need to try debating rather than berating

There are some who do and some who don't on both sides. I have found the No side far more unreasonable but I could be biased.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

CramCycle wrote: »

There are some who do and some who don't on both sides. I have found the No side far more unreasonable but I could be biased.

In fairness, apart from your good self and two other Yes posters, I haven't found the Yes side to be open to discussion at all.

All they want is a conversation that starts with "Art thou a witch?"

Ave Sodalis

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, apart from your good self and two other Yes posters, I haven't found the Yes side to be open to discussion at all.

All they want is a conversation that starts with "Art thou a witch?"

In fairness, I've tried having a discussion with you but it's very nearly impossible when you keep twisting things and stick stubbornly to arguments that have nothing to do with the referendum.

sydthebeat

so Justice Kevin Cross confirms today on newstalk:

1. there is no changing of the definition of marriage in this referendum
2. there is no changing of the definition of a family in this referendum
3. there is no change to the right to adoption. No one has the right to adopt, everyone has the right to apply to adopt.
4. there is no change to the right to surrogacy. Currently there are no rights to, or restictions from, surrogacy as there is a vacuum in the law on this issue.
5. no child has a legal right to a mother and father, so that doesnt change with this referendum.

the ONLY persons whos rights change in this referendum is a gay man or woman who want to marry, according to law.

NO ONE ELSES RIGHTS CHANGE AT ALL


http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.301/47027/0/

timetogo

sydthebeat wrote: »

so Justice Kevin Cross confirms today on newstalk:
...
NO ONE ELSES RIGHTS CHANGE AT ALL

I think this will make not one jot of a difference to most voters. We knew this already. Just read back over this thread and see the same explained to no voters many times over. Then you get posters saying the yes voters aren't open to discussion

MrWalsh

timetogo wrote: »

I think this will make not one jot of a difference to most voters. We knew this already. Just read back over this thread and see the same explained to no voters many times over. Then you get posters saying the yes voters aren't open to discussion

I dont think Ive ever seen a situation where people were so stubbornly refusing to accept fact. Its like the denial of an alcoholic or drug addict. Literally being presented with factual evidence and still repeating the same incorrect nonsense over and over. Its very weird!

traprunner

sydthebeat wrote: »

so Justice Kevin Cross confirms today on newstalk:

1. there is no changing of the definition of marriage in this referendum
2. there is no changing of the definition of a family in this referendum
3. there is no change to the right to adoption. No one has the right to adopt, everyone has the right to apply to adopt.
4. there is no change to the right to surrogacy. Currently there are no rights to, or restictions from, surrogacy as there is a vacuum in the law on this issue.
5. no child has a legal right to a mother and father, so that doesnt change with this referendum.

the ONLY persons whos rights change in this referendum is a gay man or woman who want to marry, according to law.

NO ONE ELSES RIGHTS CHANGE AT ALL


http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.301/47027/0/

But don't let the true facts be confused with no voters 'facts'!

I never thought I would have to use the word true about facts.

timetogo

MrWalsh wrote: »

I dont think Ive ever seen a situation where people were so stubbornly refusing to accept fact. Its like the denial of an alcoholic or drug addict. Literally being presented with factual evidence and still repeating the same incorrect nonsense over and over. Its very weird!

My dad is hugely homophobic. He's made no bones about it over the years. He'll talk about "queers" and worse etc. to just try and get a rise out of people.

For this referendum he's been arguing about the rights of children as his reason for voting no. I can't talk to him about it. Reason doesn't enter the conversation. I'm absolutely not saying that he's representative of everybody but for any no voter I've talked with they're either voting no because of the children or because of their deeply held religious beliefs.

I can accept that those may be valid reasons in many peoples minds. Its just weird to me that I haven't met one person who is voting no because they don't like gay people.

Loafing Oaf

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

It is apparent to me that the media are firmly behind the Yes camp. Pollsters are media organisations.
I could easily conduct a poll that would return a clear majority either way just by selecting where and among whom I conduct it.

The Irish Catholic is a media organisation, so they must be for yes right?

Have you any actual evidence of 'liberal bias' on the part of polling companies? If not your post is just tinfoil hat conspiracy mongering...

traprunner

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

The Irish Catholic is a media organisation, so they must be for yes right?

They are also a bank. You pay in for years and get nothing out just like most pension funds. So since they are obviously a big company they should by some peoples beliefs definitely be promoting a yes vote.

Not a NSA agent

sydthebeat wrote: »

so Justice Kevin Cross confirms today on newstalk:

1. there is no changing of the definition of marriage in this referendum
2. there is no changing of the definition of a family in this referendum
3. there is no change to the right to adoption. No one has the right to adopt, everyone has the right to apply to adopt.
4. there is no change to the right to surrogacy. Currently there are no rights to, or restictions from, surrogacy as there is a vacuum in the law on this issue.
5. no child has a legal right to a mother and father, so that doesnt change with this referendum.

the ONLY persons whos rights change in this referendum is a gay man or woman who want to marry, according to law.

NO ONE ELSES RIGHTS CHANGE AT ALL


[ururl]

But I believe differently based on 0 evidence so he has to be wrong. Sure what would he know.

MrWalsh

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

But I believe differently based on 0 evidence so he has to be wrong. Sure what would he know.

What he doesnt realise is that IF we vote yes, then IF we dont repeal all other legislative acts, then IF we get a conservative government in the future, then IF they want to they can decide to stop gay people owning dogs and itll be easier to do that if the gay people arent married in the first place. So vote no to stop gay people owning dogs.

carveone

MrWalsh wrote: »

I dont think Ive ever seen a situation where people were so stubbornly refusing to accept fact. Its like the denial of an alcoholic or drug addict. Literally being presented with factual evidence and still repeating the same incorrect nonsense over and over. Its very weird!

I have - the Divorce Referendum. And the entire 1980s. Most of the 1990s before people decided they'd had enough and told the loonies to spuc off. And then we discovered what the government and church had been doing while telling us that we were twisted and evil and corrupt and shameful for standing there with our wooden bowl saying "please sir, can I have some more basic human rights?"

MrWalsh

carveone wrote: »

I have - the Divorce Referendum. And the entire 1980s. Most of the 1990s before people decided they'd had enough and told the loonies to spuc off. And then we discovered what the government and church had been doing while telling us that we were twisted and evil and corrupt and shameful for standing there with our wooden bowl saying "please sir, can I have some more basic human rights?"

I dont remember the divorce referendum being so vitriolic myself. I remember when it passed my (now husband) came running down the aisle in the supermarket where we worked shouting "Divorce is in will you marry me!!!". (very romantic).

I remember even among my parents, my father was voting no, my mother was voting yes - doesnt take much brainpower to know who was afraid of being divorced eh??

carveone

MrWalsh wrote: »

I dont remember the divorce referendum being so vitriolic myself.

It's quite possible it depended on your family - my father was voting no, mother yes as well but there was quite a bit of foam and rage from my father on it. My mother got my gran to vote yes too which didn't help

There was the whole poster campaign too - "hello divorce, goodbye daddy" was one I remember. But yeah, you're likely right - I admit my memory is quite possibly heavily skewed by previous campaigns (1986 campaign where you were told what to vote in mass - in our church anyway) and the dire and vicious 1983 referendum. The early 90s was the era when the Church lost its grip but also when Spuc and YD mounted some pretty unpleasant campaigns.

gravehold

carveone wrote: »

"hello divorce, goodbye daddy" .

This kinda did come true, we still really need to fix the rights of divorced dads in this country.

MrWalsh

carveone wrote: »

There was the whole poster campaign too - "hello divorce, goodbye daddy" was one I remember. But yeah, you're likely right - I admit my memory is quite possibly heavily skewed by previous campaigns (1986 campaign where you were told what to vote in mass - in our church anyway) and the dire and vicious 1983 referendum. The early 90s was the era when the Church lost its grip but also when Spuc and YD mounted some pretty unpleasant campaigns.

I remember that alright.

I think the divorce referendum was the first one I was eligible to vote in so I may not have paid too much attention to previous ones.

ByfocalPhoto

Loafing Oaf wrote:

Have you any actual evidence of 'liberal bias' on the part of polling companies? If not your post is just tinfoil hat conspiracy mongering...

Being an illegible foreigner I don't have a dog in this fight. I am a bemused bystander. The local radio stations seem to be flooding us with yes slanted warm fuzzies. All the polls are overwhelmingly yes but yes campaigners who actially know what is happening are redoubling their efforts.
The children's referendum was a shoe in according to the polls but it only scraped by.
From an outside viewpoint I smell an agenda.
A friend of mine worked for the UK statistics dept in the 70s. His team was told to produce statistics that show it will be good for Britain to join the common market. Not a new problem.
I will go. The mother ship is calling.

carveone

gravehold wrote: »

This kinda did come true, we still really need to fix the rights of divorced dads in this country.

But the posters meant it in the "middle aged men sauntering off into sunset with saucy mistress" sense and it seemed to work. Especially when hammered home with "people will end up penniless/homeless/etc". It might be worth noting when comparing it to this referendum that initial polls showed the yes side way way ahead. Over 70% yes if I remember rightly (doubt I remember last week at this stage). The No side was going for emotional scaremongering against the "entrenched liberal media and government and people talking about tolerance". And the Yes side was going for "ah we're grand - well ahead in the polls".

In the event the referendum squeaked in by the thinnest of margins - I'll have to go look it up...... Yikes! 9000 votes or 0.6%. Yeah. Pretty thin. I think it was young women voters that really turned it around at the end.

MrWalsh

carveone wrote: »

In the event the referendum squeaked in by the thinnest of margins - I'll have to go look it up...... Yikes! 9000 votes or 0.6%. Yeah. Pretty thin. I think it was young women voters that really turned it around at the end.

What I have always found bizarre about the divorce referendum is that it only squeaked through right? But yet afterwards we didnt have half the country campaigning to get rid of it, we didnt have a massive outcry etc...

They just accepted it and that was it!