After SSM, what next?

smash

So what will be the next big referendum that will have the country divided?

Personally, I'd like to see the divorce laws rewritten. I think the 4yr wait before a divorce can be granted is just crazy. I also want to see fathers rights and abortion laws being revised too.

libelula

Ah jaysus will ya stop me head is melted enough!

iDave

Blasphemy

walkingshadow

If the referendum is passed, on May 23, everyone in Ireland will go gay and engage in a reckless orgy of homosexual indulgence.

keano_afc

Polygamy. Its marriage equality for all!!

VinLieger

End of the world, obv.....

LDN_Irish

Marrying animals and small children if some of the No crowd are to be believed.

rainbow kirby

The 8th amendment absolutely has to go.

traprunner

The sky will fall in.

fleet_admiral

Equal rights for fathers

seamus

Assisted suicide.

fleet_admiral

keano_afc wrote: »

Polygamy. Its marriage equality for all!!

And bigamy

suicide_circus

keano_afc wrote: »

Polygamy. Its marriage equality for all!!

and since the "original" definition of marriage is irrelevant, there should be no obstacle to ushering in our new polygamous utopia.

VinLieger

suicide_circus wrote: »

and since the "original" definition of marriage is irrelevant, there should be no obstacle to ushering in our new polygamous utopia.

Marriage for everyone!!!!!! or else.........

jimdublin15

smash wrote: »

So what will be the next big referendum that will have the country divided?

Personally, I'd like to see the divorce laws rewritten. I think the 4yr wait before a divorce can be granted is just crazy. I also want to see fathers rights and abortion laws being revised too.

I would agree on changing the divorce laws, and suspect it would be a split topic. My own thinking is 6 months perhaps 12 months at the most wait before a divorce can be granted is long enough.

Not a NSA agent

We'll all die on the 23rd as society crumbles around us.

That or probably abortion.

smash

jimdublin15 wrote: »

I would agree on changing the divorce laws, and suspect it would be a split topic. My own thinking is 6 months perhaps 12 months at the most wait before a divorce can be granted is long enough.

With a whole new demographic being able to marry, they'll have to do something about it.

keano_afc

suicide_circus wrote: »

and since the "original" definition of marriage is irrelevant, there should be no obstacle to ushering in our new polygamous utopia.

Well thats it, once this referendum passes who defines what marriage is any more?

Robsweezie

A John waters murderous rampage

BoJack Horseman

Depending on who is in government from 2016, amendments on lowering the voting age and/or extending voting rights abroad for Presidential elections are likely to be the next referendums.

Rhys Essien

Religion and religious cermonies(communions and confirmations)having involvement with schools needs to be done away with.

AlmightyCushion

What sort of unjust society doesn't allow a man to marry an aborted foetus??? They should have a referendum for that next.

BoJack Horseman

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Religion and religious cermonies(communions and confirmations)having involvement with schools needs to be done away with.

That doesn't require constitutional change I don't think.

Schools can do that right now if they chose.

silverfeather

smash wrote: »

So what will be the next big referendum that will have the country divided?

Personally, I'd like to see the divorce laws rewritten. I think the 4yr wait before a divorce can be granted is just crazy. I also want to see fathers rights and abortion laws being revised too.

People don't know HOW bad the divorce issue is. Even after an agreement has been reached a woman can appeal for more after her settlement not once but twice should her financial means change. That's after the original agreement has been settled. Most women would never do that obviously but some do.

The issue is that marriage is seen as the family unit. This is NOT a good thing despite what people tell you. A single parent and a child are NOT recognized by the constitution as a family unit. If a mother remarries after her child and the husband and herself are considered the family unit and the biological dad is not.

Unmarried couples can have issues with getting joint parenting rights for the dad even if they are living together. I have a friend who gave birth to a baby boy last year and she lives with her partner but he went home briefly after to get her some stuff and to come back. The hospital wanted to do the birth cert. The form is completed before they discharge the mother from hospital. She had a very difficult birth and she was totally off her head. When she told them the father's name they asked were they married because they had different names she said no. They told her unless he was there they would not put it on. There is no father's name down on the birth cert. Also they wanted to call him Zachery ...she called him ...zebedee.

Abortion is something I would like to see tackled. It will be a blood bath.

AndyBoBandy

Whether our traffic lights should go amber (while also on red) for 1 second before the lights go green.

Put it to the people Gaybo, and let us have our say.

suicide_circus

keano_afc wrote: »

Well thats it, once this referendum passes who defines what marriage is any more?

the current set up which precludes the polyamorous amongst us from marrying the people they love is a damning indictment of our heinously discriminatory monoga-centric society.

mariaalice

smash wrote: »

So what will be the next big referendum that will have the country divided?

Personally, I'd like to see the divorce laws rewritten. I think the 4yr wait before a divorce can be granted is just crazy. I also want to see fathers rights and abortion laws being revised too.

You do realise you have probably put off the waivers form voting yes ad have confirmed the conspiracy theory that the yes vote is only the start of a push to undermine society as we know it, which will end with old people being compulsory assisted to commit suicide by the state :P

iDave

I presume we'll have to vote on something related to the EU twice.

Maximus Alexander

keano_afc wrote: »

Well thats it, once this referendum passes who defines what marriage is any more?

Who defines it now?

BoJack Horseman

iDave wrote: »

I presume we'll have to vote on something related to the EU twice.

The last treaty was conveniently self amending (to an extent).

Another EU referendum probably won't be needed for a while, until when/if enlargement occurs again for the former Yugoslav countries.

arayess

smash wrote: »

So what will be the next big referendum that will have the country divided?

Personally, I'd like to see the divorce laws rewritten. I think the 4yr wait before a divorce can be granted is just crazy. I also want to see fathers rights and abortion laws being revised too.

I think the 4 year wait for divorce is actually a really good thing, we all know the rebound effect of a break up can have and that 4 year wait prevents you doing something really stupid - again! or at least for 4 years.

hopefully fathers rights will gain some prominence.

I for one have been through family court and while it hasn't worked out too bad in comparison to other - i was given no protection against my ex or in other words there was no sanction against her for her spontaneous decisions to withhold access. It cost me time, money and heart ache and I actually understand why some lads would just walk away cos they can't take the grief. terrible as it sounds.

silverfeather

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Who defines it now?

The man in the sky for some...the big wiz

The constitution for others...which we vote on.

jimdublin15

mariaalice wrote: »

You do realise you have probably put off the waivers form voting yes ad have confirmed the conspiracy theory that the yes vote is only the start of a push to undermine society as we know it, which will end with old people being compulsory assisted to commit suicide by the state :P

So ... that means there is a plan, cool - I knew it. :-)

jimdublin15

arayess wrote: »

I think the 4 year wait for divorce is actually a really good thing, we all know the rebound effect of a break up can have and that 4 year wait prevents you doing something really stupid - again! or at least for 4 years.

hopefully fathers rights will gain some prominence.

I for one have been through family court and while it hasn't worked out too bad in comparison to other - i was given no protection against my ex or in other words there was no sanction against her for her spontaneous decisions to withhold access. It cost me time, money and heart ache and I actually understand why some lads would just walk away cos they can't take the grief. terrible as it sounds.

I will not comment on your own situation or experience other than sorry to hear that and hope it is sorted or gets sorted for you soon.

As for the 4 year wait for divorce don't you think it's excessive ?
I'm in the middle of a 4 year wait myself and it feels like a state enforced sentence but I've committed no crime.

Perhaps we could then lower the wait for divorce to 1 year however have a "suspended" sentence for the other 3 years preventing remarriage during that term ?

silverfeather

jimdublin15 wrote: »

I will not comment on your own situation or experience other than sorry to hear that and hope it is sorted or gets sorted for you soon.

As for the 4 year wait for divorce don't you think it's excessive ?
I'm in the middle of a 4 year wait myself and it feels like a state enforced sentence but I've committed no crime.

Perhaps we could then lower the wait for divorce to 1 year however have a "suspended" sentence for the other 3 years preventing remarriage during that term ?

I think couples themselves should dictate how long it should take. They are adults.

jimdublin15

silverfeather wrote: »

I think couples themselves should dictate how long it should take. They are adults.

In theory I do agree with you on that, however in practice I'm not sure adult behavior is at it's best from anyone when going though a divorce. (as much I would like my own to be finalized tomorrow)

Lollipops23

4 years wait after separating is excessive- if people want to divorce and remarry, what's the harm? Same argument as SSM-it's none of your business, let people get on with their own lives.

I'd like to see the blasphemy law binned for good. We are not a religious state anymore and it never should have been signed off.

Abortion reforms would be great if it were in any way realistic....I don't think we'll be getting that any time soon, I fear.

Ash.J.Williams

"sure jaysus if they after ssm a lad can marry his dog"

arayess

jimdublin15 wrote: »

I will not comment on your own situation or experience other than sorry to hear that and hope it is sorted or gets sorted for you soon.

As for the 4 year wait for divorce don't you think it's excessive ?
I'm in the middle of a 4 year wait myself and it feels like a state enforced sentence but I've committed no crime.

Perhaps we could then lower the wait for divorce to 1 year however have a "suspended" sentence for the other 3 years preventing remarriage during that term ?

thanks, no probs - my issues were sorted years ago - he is 16 now and actually lives with me full time but by choice rather than any court imposed thing.

I see your point on divorce - i was being glib to be truthful but I do genuinely think its a good thing. Some people would rush back.

but you can back date when you ceased to live together as man and wife if you are really in need to get married again (once you both agree)

keano_afc

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Who defines it now?

The government, as its a legally binding institution.

130Kph

A few people beat me to it but :- Marriage to friendly, cute dogs (MFCD) should & must be the next referendum.

To cover all angles though, if someone isn't married by 30 they should be compelled to marry a friendly, cute dog (to encourage human to human marriage before then and for other reasons).

Also, if they meet someone else at a later stage of life, they can divorce the cute dog (no fault) and marry the chosen human.
Signed: the Gay Lobby.

jimdublin15

arayess wrote: »

thanks, no probs - my issues were sorted years ago - he is 16 now and actually lives with me full time but by choice rather than any court imposed thing.

I see your point on divorce - i was being glib to be truthful but I do genuinely think its a good thing. Some people would rush back.

but you can back date when you ceased to live together as man and wife if you are really in need to get married again (once you both agree)

Glad to hear it's okay and your son is part of your life :-)

Ill disagree with you in part on the devoice wait but admit I might be slightly biased on the topic at the moment.

seamus

jimdublin15 wrote: »

I will not comment on your own situation or experience other than sorry to hear that and hope it is sorted or gets sorted for you soon.

As for the 4 year wait for divorce don't you think it's excessive ?
I'm in the middle of a 4 year wait myself and it feels like a state enforced sentence but I've committed no crime.

Perhaps we could then lower the wait for divorce to 1 year however have a "suspended" sentence for the other 3 years preventing remarriage during that term ?

I don't know the whole process, so can't really give any solid argument, but I agree that a wait of some sort perhaps imbues a sense of importance about marriage; that it's not easily undone so you shouldn't enter it lightly. That would seem to make sense.

That said, does anyone getting married even think about divorce (I should hope not) and therefore perhaps people are completely unaware about the wait period? I know a couple who split up before their first anniversary and were convinced they could get it annulled because it had been so short. No dice. They were practically aghast that there was a wait period at all.

So does the wait period actually have any bearing on peoples' decision to marry? It would be interesting to get some recent divorce stats and find out what the typical length of a marriage is before breaking up.

I imagine the "this is a serious matter" thing actually kicks in at the start where you require 3 months notice to get married and can't just decide on a whim to have it done the next day.

smash

arayess wrote: »

I think the 4 year wait for divorce is actually a really good thing, we all know the rebound effect of a break up can have and that 4 year wait prevents you doing something really stupid - again! or at least for 4 years.

No... it's a horrible thing. The laws don't force a couple to be engaged for 4 years prior to getting married so why should they force two consenting adults to wait 4 years to end a marriage?

kylith

Lollipops23 wrote: »

4 years wait after separating is excessive- if people want to divorce and remarry, what's the harm?

I think it's there to discourage you from divorcing as a sop to the religious, isn't it? A kind of cooling-off period so people don't run out getting married and divorced willy-nilly. 4 years of "Are you sure you want to get divorced? Are ya? Are ya really?"

Maximus Alexander

keano_afc wrote: »

The government, as its a legally binding institution.

They'll probably carry on defining it then.

Lollipops23

kylith wrote: »

4 years of "Are you sure you want to get divorced? Are ya? Are ya really?"

And that's why it should be scrapped really. Maybe 1 year to process paperwork, and get everything in order regarding finances would be be reasonable.

gravehold

kylith wrote: »

I think it's there to discourage you from divorcing as a sop to the religious, isn't it? A kind of cooling-off period so people don't run out getting married and divorced willy-nilly. 4 years of "Are you sure you want to get divorced? Are ya? Are ya really?"

Only a fool would get married in this day an age.

smash

Lollipops23 wrote: »

And that's why it should be scrapped really. Maybe 1 year to process paperwork, and get everything in order regarding finances would be be reasonable.

1 year would be bearable. After that I think the state should take a back seat and let people move on with their lives.

kylith

130Kph wrote: »

A few people beat me to it but :- Marriage to friendly, cute dogs (MFCD) should & must be the next referendum.

To cover all angles though, if someone isn't married by 30 they should be compelled to marry a friendly, cute dog (to encourage human to human marriage before then and for other reasons).

Also, if they meet someone else at a later stage of life, they can divorce the cute dog (no fault) and marry the chosen human.
Signed: the Gay Lobby.

As a single woman in her 30s I would actually welcome this proposal. I would prefer to marry a FCD than any of the guys I've met on the dating scene so far.

The big question though; could you have SSMFCD, or would you have to marry a dog of the opposite sex to you?

keano_afc

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

They'll probably carry on defining it then.

It'll be like Marge's Chanel dress in the Simpsons. Mangled and redesigned, but lets still call it the same thing.