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

ByfocalPhoto

There was query about evidence of media yes bias.

The latest four podcasts on Newstalk 106.
An interview with the referendum commissioner - neutral
An interview with Enda Kenny on his journey to a yes vote - say no more.
Interview with a gay guy who lost his mother to cancer and is objecting to the "Mother's Love" No poster.
Interview with a mother who lost her gay son to suicide.

A debate with one each way on the right hook. Balanced

The score so far is two neutral, one yes, two strongly yes.

I will keep listening.

Hotblack Desiato

You might as well say Irish society is biased :rolleyes:

All political parties are in favour

Every opinion poll is in favour.

The idea that 50:50 time to each side is 'fair' is ridiculous and cowardly by the BAI.

gravehold

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You might as well say Irish society is biased :rolleyes:

All political parties are in favour

Every opinion poll is in favour.

The idea that 50:50 time to each side is 'fair' is ridiculous and cowardly by the BAI.

50:50 is fair.it's the definition of fair coverage, you you prefer if your side got less coverage

K-9

gravehold wrote: »

50:50 is fair.it's the definition of fair coverage, you you prefer if your side got less coverage

Sometimes a logistical nightmare.

Tbh I wouldn't care about the ratio, more the quality. You could have 80/20, but the 20 making the best points.

timetogo

gravehold wrote: »

50:50 is fair.it's the definition of fair coverage, you you prefer if your side got less coverage

Nope. It's perfect. This morning I heard a guy talking convoluting his argument into children being taken from mothers in Africa.
This evening on RTE during their debate on the radio one guy on the no side said there was no point in voting yes as gay marriage would never be accepted by normal people anyway. There was a eery silence on the radio as the other people in the conversation were presumably thinking "WTF".

With people like that we should give them 100% airtime.

timetogo

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

There was query about evidence of media yes bias.

The latest four podcasts on Newstalk 106.
An interview with the referendum commissioner - neutral
An interview with Enda Kenny on his journey to a yes vote - say no more.
Interview with a gay guy who lost his mother to cancer and is objecting to the "Mother's Love" No poster.
Interview with a mother who lost her gay son to suicide.

A debate with one each way on the right hook. Balanced

The score so far is two neutral, one yes, two strongly yes.

I will keep listening.

I only see 2 positive and one neutral.
http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/

Unless you mean the one about penis size in the animal kingdom. Is that a yes or strongly yes?

Good job you didn't listen yesterday the only one they had was Ger Brennan for the no side.

K-9

timetogo wrote: »

Good job you didn't listen yesterday the only one they had was Ger Brennan for the no side.

QED

Stark

meglome wrote: »

Bigots of all types make me pretty angry but attacking them in any way is completely wrong. I don't suppose they meant to hurt anyone if they were throwing eggs but still.

It's a dangerous thing to do. A nurse was blinded in one eye a couple of years ago when someone threw an egg at her.

meglome

Stark wrote: »

It's a dangerous thing to do. A nurse was blinded in one eye a couple of years ago when someone threw an egg at her.

I'm not saying eggs don't or can't hurt. I'm saying if you really intended to hurt someone you'd throw stones.

Hotblack Desiato

meglome wrote: »

I'm not saying eggs don't or can't hurt. I'm saying if you really intended to hurt someone you'd throw stones.

Like in the bible?

FixdePitchmark

The more this goes on .

The more I think - The Yes Side - did not understand what the Yes is about.

I feel they furiously started asking "what is this 41 all about ?",
"I don't know ?" "Something about family"
"But they are bigoted anyway, if they question gay people, at all, or ever like"

"But did you know we were becoming a man and woman family ?"
"No - no way I'm having kids - losers like"
"But, I love my boyfriend"


At the start of this - a yes voter told me- I was a bigot - intellectually weak - a Joe Duffy listener - suddenly religious - against the 1950 black movement - not as good as my father.

All that is serious.

The more the debate has gone on

---

I think I can impose every accusation they imposed on me, with more validity and intellect back onto that person.


The Yes side have been a disgrace in this referendum.

They may have their hollow flawed Yes - but if their attitude is indicative of their marriages - it will not last long, as they are the most intolerant self righteous demanding people I have ever come across.

Ozymandius2011

Summary of no side's arguments:

- Marriage is about children.

My Answer: Then why do we allow the infertile to marry?

- A child deserves a mother and a father.

My Answer: Gay couples can already adopt under the Children and Family Relationships Act and a no vote won't change that. Also individual gays have always have the right to adopt. According to Geoffrey Shannon of the Adoption Board, only 0-2% of adoptees go to same sex households. I personally don't know any gay men who want children. 36% of childeen are raised out of wedlock today. Clearly the egg did not ask for a marriage license before meeting the sperm.

- The institution of marriage is being redefined and this is bad.

My Answer: It was redefined before when the woman stopped being the husband's property, when the marriage ban in the civil service ended in 1979, when marital rape was banned in the 1990 Criminal Justice Act, and when men lost the right to beat their wives.

- The institution of marriage has been around since the dawn of time.

My Answer: So was slavery until 1866. It still exists unofficially in Mauretania.

- The biological parent should have a right to access.

Answer: That's an argument against adoption. I am adopted.

- Gay marriage will supposedly lead to increased surrogacy.

My Answer: Almost all demand for surrogacy in this country comes from straight infertile couples. This is a separate issue. The Referendum Commission Chairman Kevin Cross has said that the Constitutional right to procreate does not amount to a right to surrogacy.

ByfocalPhoto

Enda Kenny in his interview with Pat Kenny, which didn't even pretend to be balanced, pointed out that 40,000 young people have registered to vote. You can bet that is a huge yes vote bloc. I would say that will clinch it.

traprunner

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

Enda Kenny in his interview with Pat Kenny, which didn't even pretend to be balanced, pointed out that 40,000 young people have registered to vote. You can bet that is a huge yes vote bloc. I would say that will clinch it.

Hopefully that 40,000 will vote Yes and everyone is treated equally.

Loafing Oaf

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

They may have their hollow flawed Yes - but if their attitude is indicative of their marriages - it will not last long

You think there will be another referendum to repeal SSM within a short time? Really?

CramCycle

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

Enda Kenny in his interview with Pat Kenny, which didn't even pretend to be balanced, pointed out that 40,000 young people have registered to vote. You can bet that is a huge yes vote bloc. I would say that will clinch it.

Thats not really how it works, PK can be challenging if he wishes but the onus is on Newstalk to provide a No campaigner to talk about the No campaign for the same amount of time. I think Nick Park was talking for the No side the day before.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Referendum Commission Chairman Kevin Cross has said that the Constitutional right to procreate does not amount to a right to surrogacy.

Indeed, but he says something of wider interest and significance

http://refcom2015.ie/answers-to-questions-on-surrogacy-and-adoption/

• As the referendum envisages only one constitutional status of marriage, any law which treated one type of married couple differently from another would be likely to be very carefully scrutinised by the Courts and the circumstances in which such different treatment could ever be permitted would likely be exceptional.

• Were such different treatment possible, and such laws introduced, they would be upheld only if they did not create invidious or arbitrary discrimination between opposite sex and same sex couples. This means – in practical terms – that the reason for the different treatment would have to be a very good reason, which served a legitimate legislative purpose. The difference in treatment would also have to be relevant to its purpose and both opposite sex and same sex couples would have to be treated fairly. Whether these requirements are satisfied in any given circumstance would depend on the evidence presented.

That's essentially confirming the concern expressed by John Waters, to the effect that the amendment could reduce the scope of the existing Constitutional protection, rather than extend it to all.

Because, on the face of it, it's not clear from the Commission's advice that legislation could be framed that reflects the fact that it's perfectly normal for straight married couples to have children together. For the sake of argument, if we want to continue the application of the presumption of paternity for straight married couples, we'd have to demonstrate that it's not "invidious discrimination".

And, no, that concern doesn't arise from the fact that some straight couples have fertility issues, as the framework is simply saying what happens if they do have children together.

Can you explain why we might want this?

...any law which treated one type of married couple differently from another..

Thanks

timetogo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Because, on the face of it, it's not clear from the Commission's advice that legislation could be framed that reflects the fact that it's perfectly normal for straight married couples to have children together. For the sake of argument, if we want to continue the application of the presumption of paternity for straight married couples, we'd have to demonstrate that it's not "invidious discrimination".

I don't understand this bit. Are you saying that married couples with children should be discriminated against married couples without children. I'm probably picking it up wrong there.

SireOfSeth

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

The more this goes on .

The more I think - The Yes Side - did not understand what the Yes is about.

I feel they furiously started asking "what is this 41 all about ?",
"I don't know ?" "Something about family"
"But they are bigoted anyway, if they question gay people, at all, or ever like"

"But did you know we were becoming a man and woman family ?"
"No - no way I'm having kids - losers like"
"But, I love my boyfriend"


At the start of this - a yes voter told me- I was a bigot - intellectually weak - a Joe Duffy listener - suddenly religious - against the 1950 black movement - not as good as my father.

All that is serious.

The more the debate has gone on

---

I think I can impose every accusation they imposed on me, with more validity and intellect back onto that person.


The Yes side have been a disgrace in this referendum.

They may have their hollow flawed Yes - but if their attitude is indicative of their marriages - it will not last long, as they are the most intolerant self righteous demanding people I have ever come across.

I know. Isn't it just shocking the way some foke passionately fight tooth-and-nail for human rights and civil liberties. :rolleyes:

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you explain why we might want this?



Thanks

timetogo wrote: »

I don't understand this bit. Are you saying that married couples with children should be discriminated against married couples without children. I'm probably picking it up wrong there.

What I'm saying is legislation currently reflects the fact that it's perfectly normal for straight couples to have children within marriage. What I'm driving at is the frequent statement to the effect that "straight marriage won't change at all" doesn't seem robust.

The presumption of paternity is the obvious case that comes to my mind. It can't be coherently applied to a same sex couple. That suggests to me, following the Commission's advice, that the concept can no longer exist after the amendment is passed, as same sex couples can't contract marriage with that presumption.

What the Commission's statement is saying is that, post amendment, there will be very, very limited scope to have any tailoring of legislation that takes account of gender as "the referendum envisages only one constitutional status of marriage".

traprunner

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What I'm saying is legislation currently reflects the fact that it's perfectly normal for straight couples to have children within marriage. What I'm driving at is the frequent statement to the effect that "straight marriage won't change at all" doesn't seem robust.

The presumption of paternity is the obvious case that comes to my mind. It can't be coherently applied to a same sex couple. That suggests to me, following the Commission's advice, that the concept can no longer exist after the amendment is passed, as same sex couples can't contract marriage with that presumption.

What the Commission's statement is saying is that, post amendment, there will be very, very limited scope to have any tailoring of legislation that takes account of gender as "the referendum envisages only one constitutional status of marriage".

Ok, you talk about robust. As I said before, please make a constitutional challenge. If you have conviction in your beliefs then you would. Now I wouldn't promise not to laugh when it fails.

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The presumption of paternity is the obvious case that comes to my mind.

The presumption of paternity is something that should be looked at legislatively regardless of the referendum, there are huge issues with it in regards heterosexual couples, separated couples, non married couples etc.

It has nothing to do with the referendum AFAIK but if the referendum speeds up this legislative reform, for me, it is another reason to vote yes.

gravehold

CramCycle wrote: »

The presumption of paternity is something that should be looked at legislatively regardless of the referendum, there are huge issues with it in regards heterosexual couples, separated couples, non married couples etc.

It has nothing to do with the referendum AFAIK but if the referendum speeds up this legislative reform, for me, it is another reason to vote yes.

Shouldn't it be vote no till it is sorted then vote yes.

Better to be safe then sorry

timetogo

gravehold wrote: »

Shouldn't it be vote no till it is sorted then vote yes.

Better to be safe then sorry

What's the sorry scenario?

gravehold

timetogo wrote: »

What's the sorry scenario?

We can't be sure till all the questions are answered, but the yes side don't want to answer them. Hence being safe till we know all the ramifications

ByfocalPhoto

It has occurred to me that this is not an equality issue at all.
All of us currently have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
None of us has the right to marry someone of the same sex.

We are all equal.

If the referendum passes we will ALL have new rights that we didn't have before.
The fact that the vast majority of us will choose not to avail of these new rights is irrelevant.

We will still all be equal.

If I understand the religious aspect of the no side correctly the thinking seems to be that the sacrament of marriage will be in a way devalued by being open to any combination.
I suppose it is similar to when the Beatles got an OBE. A lot of old guys sent their OBEs back because they felt that if that scruffy bunch of ragamuffins got an OBE then it was meaningless.

Could a No voter tell me if that is the thinking ?

Greyian

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

It has occurred to me that this is not an equality issue at all.
All of us currently have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
None of us has the right to marry someone of the same sex.

We are all equal.

Most of us can marry the person we love.

A minority can not.

We are not all equal.

gravehold

Greyian wrote: »

Most of us can marry the person we love.

A minority can not.

We are not all equal.

But this referendum won't fix that, we all still won't be equal

ixoy

gravehold wrote: »

But this referendum won't fix that, we all still won't be equal

The referendum isn't a magic cure all for equality. It's fixing one area : same sex marriage.

meglome

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Like in the bible?

Exactly like in the bible. Except the religious right won't complain about that.

gravehold

ixoy wrote: »

The referendum isn't a magic cure all for equality. It's fixing one area : same sex marriage.

But it's making it harder for other relationships to get recognition cause it's added the word couple to the constitution that was not there before.

It's the exact opisite of equality

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

But it's making it harder for other relationships to get recognition cause it's added the word couple to the constitution that was not there before.

It's the exact opisite of equality

No it makes it equal for all couples wanting to get married.

meglome

gravehold wrote: »

But it's making it harder for other relationships to get recognition cause it's added the word couple to the constitution that was not there before.

It's the exact opisite of equality

The mental gymnastics are getting funnier and funnier.

gravehold

traprunner wrote: »

No it makes it equal for all couples wanting to get married.

But there was no discrimination of the wording for couples before. You are adding discrimination for non two person relationships and calling it equality.

What was wrong with adding

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law without distinction as to sex.

Only reason to add the couple part is to discrimination against certain relationship types

Stark

Presumably so "slippery slope to polygamy" arguments could't be used against SSM. But I guess there's no winning when you're down arguing in the **** with idiots.

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

But there was no discrimination of the wording for couples before. You are adding discrimination for non two person relationships and calling it equality.

What was wrong with adding



Only reason to add the couple part is to discrimination against certain relationship types

Surely that is a battle further down the line for those who favour different relationship types. We are not being asked to vote on that now. In the future we may be asked to vote on any number of people rather than 2. If that's what you want then start lobbying your TD's because these things take years.

The current battle has been years in the making. It will immediately make 10%(?) of the population equal to the other 90%.

SireOfSeth

gravehold wrote: »

But it's making it harder for other relationships to get recognition cause it's added the word couple to the constitution that was not there before.

It's the exact opisite of equality

Surely same-sex marriage would help strengthen a future case for polygamy. However, since polygamy has nothing to do with THIS referendum, I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

gravehold

traprunner wrote: »

Surely that is a battle further down the line for those who favour different relationship types. We are not being asked to vote on that now. In the future we may be asked to vote on any number of people rather than 2. If that's what you want then start lobbying your TD's because these things take years.

The current battle has been years in the making. It will immediately make 10%(?) of the population equal to the other 90%.

But you naking it hard for them in the future by adding discrimination to the constitution now. And you have the check to call it equality.

If they left out the couple partit would still immediately make 8%(?) of the population equal to the other 90%. But not make it way harder for the 2% that wan't to marry more then one person discriminated more against.

gravehold

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Surely same-sex marriage would help strengthen a future case for polygamy. However, since polygamy has nothing to do with THIS referendum, I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

It doesn't cause it adds the word couple to the constitution, if they left out that word then yes the referendum would strengthen the change in the future.

But the current wording make it way harder by adding discrimination under the wording of equality

gravehold

Stark wrote: »

Presumably so "slippery slope to polygamy" arguments could't be used against SSM. But I guess there's no winning when you're down arguing in the **** with idiots.

What's wrong with polygamy?

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

But you naking it hard for them in the future by adding discrimination to the constitution now. And you have the check to call it equality.

If they left out the couple partit would still immediately make 8%(?) of the population equal to the other 90%. But not make it way harder for the 2% that wan't to marry more then one person discriminated more against.

“To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.” – Winston Churchill

SireOfSeth

gravehold wrote: »

What's wrong with polygamy?

Nothing.

Sofiztikated

I haven't been keeping up here.

Is gravehold still a yes voting trans female that is being "devils advocate" by coming up with more and more obscure reasons why you should vote no?

Is GCU still coming across as a <snip - no personal abuse>, and arguing that this referendum will have swathes of teenagers wanting to get married?

SireOfSeth

gravehold wrote: »

It doesn't cause it adds the word couple to the constitution, if they left out that word then yes the referendum would strengthen the change in the future.

But the current wording make it way harder by adding discrimination under the wording of equality

I don't really believe that to be honest. A future Ref could get the changed. I think trying to get SSM and polygamy passed within the same Ref would definitely fail - it's obviously that many still have a problem with homosexuality.

johnnyskeleton

Stark wrote: »

Presumably so "slippery slope to polygamy" arguments could't be used against SSM. But I guess there's no winning when you're down arguing in the **** with idiots.

MOD: Careful now

AtomicHorror

Stark wrote: »

Presumably so "slippery slope to polygamy" arguments could't be used against SSM.

It's a slippery slope all right, upwards. 22 years since the abolition of sodomy as a crime and here we still are debating the next step. I wonder how no campaigners would deal with actual rapid or revolutionary change if this torturous struggle has been too quick for them.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

traprunner wrote: »

Ok, you talk about robust. As I said before, please make a constitutional challenge. If you have conviction in your beliefs then you would. Now I wouldn't promise not to laugh when it fails.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what a Constitutional challenge is. There's nothing preventing the Irish people from voting in any nonsense that they like.

CramCycle wrote: »

The presumption of paternity is something that should be looked at legislatively regardless of the referendum, there are huge issues with it in regards heterosexual couples, separated couples, non married couples etc.

It has nothing to do with the referendum AFAIK but if the referendum speeds up this legislative reform, for me, it is another reason to vote yes.

Ah, hang on, it very clearly does have something to do with the referendum, as the Commission's advice is:

http://refcom2015.ie/answers-to-questions-on-surrogacy-and-adoption/

• As the referendum envisages only one constitutional status of marriage, any law which treated one type of married couple differently from another would be likely to be very carefully scrutinised by the Courts and the circumstances in which such different treatment could ever be permitted would likely be exceptional.

• Were such different treatment possible, and such laws introduced, they would be upheld only if they did not create invidious or arbitrary discrimination between opposite sex and same sex couples. This means – in practical terms – that the reason for the different treatment would have to be a very good reason, which served a legitimate legislative purpose. The difference in treatment would also have to be relevant to its purpose and both opposite sex and same sex couples would have to be treated fairly. Whether these requirements are satisfied in any given circumstance would depend on the evidence presented.

And, you'll appreciate, my point is not particularly whether or not we want to change this. It's that the Yes campaign is saying that marriage will not change for straight couples. That's not really consistent with what the Commission is now saying.

SireOfSeth

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what a Constitutional challenge is. There's nothing preventing the Irish people from voting in any nonsense that they like.

Ah, hang on, it very clearly does have something to do with the referendum, as the Commission's advice is:

http://refcom2015.ie/answers-to-ques...-and-adoption/

• As the referendum envisages only one constitutional status of marriage, any law which treated one type of married couple differently from another would be likely to be very carefully scrutinised by the Courts and the circumstances in which such different treatment could ever be permitted would likely be exceptional.

• Were such different treatment possible, and such laws introduced, they would be upheld only if they did not create invidious or arbitrary discrimination between opposite sex and same sex couples. This means – in practical terms – that the reason for the different treatment would have to be a very good reason, which served a legitimate legislative purpose. The difference in treatment would also have to be relevant to its purpose and both opposite sex and same sex couples would have to be treated fairly. Whether these requirements are satisfied in any given circumstance would depend on the evidence presented.

And, you'll appreciate, my point is not particularly whether or not we want to change this. It's that the Yes campaign is saying that marriage will not change for straight couples. That's not really consistent with what the Commission is now saying.

So pretty much a non-issue then

CramCycle

gravehold wrote: »

Shouldn't it be vote no till it is sorted then vote yes.

Better to be safe then sorry

What?!?