Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread Part 2

frostyjacks

I thought the campaigning on both sides was fair, nothing to get all riled up about. I've grown up in bitterly fought elections in the north so the all the slings and arrows getting fired from each side was actually quite entertaining. If people are very sensitive to that, they probably shouldn't get so involved.

Hoop66

JaseBelleVie wrote: »

I remember a friend of mine going bananas because a young lad who worked with her said he was voting No. This guy was 19, and when asked, he simply said "I don't like gay people and I think two guys going at it is disgusting".

Now, while I may find his views repugnant, I at least admired him for his honesty! He aired his views and was honest about it. He didn't drag adoption, surrogacy or Jesus into it. He kept it concise and to the point. He just disliked gay people. Simple as.

This was a problem I had with the No side. They tried to tart it up in every way possible to avoid saying what they really felt (ie. "I don't like gay people"). And it made them look dishonest, disingenuous and more crooked than a $3 bill.
Could
I think that no matter what, the No side was going to lose. But the least they could have done was be bloody honest about it!

Couldn't agree more. The rampant dishonesty was as annoying to me as the outright bigotry.

The desperate scratching around for "reasons" just so they could avoid saying "I don't like gays". It would have been laughable had it not been so serious.

BizzyC

One for "Dr" Twomey

aloyisious

Maybe/probably/reportedly a first for the Irish Times: Engagement notice posted by the parents of a gay couple.

LEO O'SHAUGHNESSY - MARK KINSELLA. it is with delight that Charles and Kate O'Shaughnessy of Foxrock, announce the engagement of their eldest son Leo to Mark, youngest son of Yvonne and the late Clem Kinsella of Blanchardstown Village.

Cheer's to the happy couple and their families.

JCX BXC

This referendum is now a memory in my head. Seems everyone forgot about it pretty quickly.

I have seen alot more people expressing their homosexuality in public lately, eg holding hands (not that normal stereotypical way, with the men with the handbags and the funny walk). It's good to see imo, shows how much we have become tolerant as a result of this referendum.

It really got people questioning there actual beliefs and talking about the subject. Being "gay" was always perceived as a bad thing among society, but I feel as if that had lessened to a large extent. It's now OK to be who you are, to be who you were born as.

So this referendum really wasn't all about just marriage (and definitely not anything remotely about surrogacy), it has lead to a more accepting and tolerant Ireland.

MrWalsh

Carnacalla wrote: »

So this referendum really wasn't all about just marriage (and definitely not anything remotely about surrogacy), it has lead to a more accepting and tolerant Ireland.

Constitutional and legislative change leads to social reform. Being an unmarried mother used to be the biggest stigma in Irish society, so much so that as a society we hid these women away and took their babies off them and caused untold misery and shame for thousands of people. Until 1973 when the government (after much lobbying by Cherish) brought in the unmarried mothers allowance. Suddenly the state supported unmarried mothers and over the next couple of decades there was a change is social attitude also.

Bit off topic, but it was the best example I could think of that many of us here will remember as a change in social attitude.

aloyisious

I saw this event Ad poster on the quays tonight. The poster seem's to indicate more than SSM is likely to be discussed at the meeting.

Meesared

aloyisious wrote: »

I saw this event Ad poster on the quays tonight. The poster seem's to indicate more than SSM is likely to be discussed at the meeting.

That picture is amazing

aloyisious

Two couples will go to court in Northern Ireland today to mount a legal challenge against the country's ban on gay marriage.

Grainne Close and Shannon Sickles and Chris and Henry Flanagan-Kane are taking the joint action. They are applying to Belfast High Court for leave to have the refusal to legalise same-sex marriage judicially reviewed.




http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/two-couples-to-challenge-northern-irelands-ban-on-gay-marriage-31331574.html

kunst nugget

Meesared wrote: »

That picture is amazing

That bishop is having a great time on that sleepover…

mailforkev

US Supreme Court has just ruled that same sex marriage is a legal right nationwide.

aloyisious

Sooo close SCOTUS decision, 5 to 4 in favour, but it's there.

alaimacerc

Margin was sadly predictable -- either way it went -- as on a lot of these "litmus test" issues, there's a block of four conservatives, and a block of four, what they would call in the US "liberal", but what elsewhere in the world would pass as "on this planet" judges.

If I were to describe Kennedy as the "swing judge", you can make up your own jokes from there.

Frank Bullitt

With all this legalization of gay marriage all over the place, god really does move in mysterious ways, doesn't he?

dxhound2005

aloyisious wrote: »

Sooo close SCOTUS decision, 5 to 4 in favour, but it's there.

In the same way that everyone who voted NO in the referendum was widely condemned as being homophobic are these 4 judges homophobic as well?

aloyisious

dxhound2005 wrote: »

In the same way that everyone who voted NO in the referendum was widely condemned as being homophobic are these 4 judges homophobic as well?

That'd be some judgement call to make.

traprunner

dxhound2005 wrote: »

In the same way that everyone who voted NO in the referendum was widely condemned as being homophobic are these 4 judges homophobic as well?

They very well could be but I don't know them to say.

alaimacerc

dxhound2005 wrote: »

In the same way that everyone who voted NO in the referendum was widely condemned as being homophobic [...]

So, "not", then.

Perhaps you're thinking of "the many people deploying homophobic lines of argument against the ref measure".

Meesared

dxhound2005 wrote: »

In the same way that everyone who voted NO in the referendum was widely condemned as being homophobic are these 4 judges homophobic as well?

I personally don't think everyone who voted no in the referendum was homophobic, however the people running the No campaign most definitely are, what with the outright lies and misinformation being fed by them.

alaimacerc

Meesared wrote: »

I personally don't think everyone who voted no in the referendum was homophobic, however the people running the No campaign most definitely are, what with the outright lies and misinformation being fed by them.

Strictly speaking that might simply make them religious conservative liars and misleaders. The Bible says so/following Vatican orders -- who are we to have our own thoughts on such weighty matters?

In several cases, though, the mask didn't so much "slip" as was being worn casually as a scarf all along.

Meesared

alaimacerc wrote: »

Strictly speaking that might simply make them religious conservative liars and misleaders. The Bible says so/following Vatican orders -- who are we to have our own thoughts on such weighty matters?

In several cases, though, the mask didn't so much "slip" as was being worn casually as a scarf all along.

Really though, are they mutually exclusive? When religion is being used as a defense for something that has nothing to do with religion, it's still homophobia at the end of the day.

aloyisious

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/video-gay-couples-win-right-to-challenge-northern-irelands-ban-on-samesex-marriage-31332506.html.

It's dancing-in-the-street day, wishing all my straight relatives, friends and acquaintances a merry Dublin Pride day. and a BIG thank-you to all those who voted YES, or didn't vote NO, on the marriage issue. Get your walking-shoes on, moisturizer on, water bottles filled, cameras ready & packed. Choose your costume well, don't want to scandalize the straight-laced chaps....................... too much, lol.

obplayer

aloyisious wrote: »

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/video-gay-couples-win-right-to-challenge-northern-irelands-ban-on-samesex-marriage-31332506.html.

It's dancing-in-the-street day, wishing all my straight relatives, friends and acquaintances a merry Dublin Pride day. and a BIG thank-you to all those who voted YES, or didn't vote NO, on the marriage issue. Get your walking-shoes on, moisturizer on, water bottles filled, cameras ready & packed. Choose your costume well, don't want to scandalize the straight-laced chaps....................... too much, lol.

Dancing in the City

aloyisious

This from the Irish Indo: http://www.independent.ie/style/weddings/cork-footballer-valerie-mulcahy-weds-longterm-love-meg-blyth-31332137.html

JaseBelleVie

I've always maintained (sometimes through gritted teeth and having to sometimes remind myself of this fact) that No voters aren't (necessarily) bad people or anything like that. However, No campaigners, in my humble opinion, are. Anyone who goes out of their way to deny others rights is a bad person.

There is a huge difference between just one vote and between actively campaigning and trying to get a No vote in.

darkpagandeath

JaseBelleVie wrote: »

I've always maintained (sometimes through gritted teeth and having to sometimes remind myself of this fact) that No voters aren't (necessarily) bad people or anything like that. However, No campaigners, in my humble opinion, are. Anyone who goes out of their way to deny others rights is a bad person.

There is a huge difference between just one vote and between actively campaigning and trying to get a No vote in.

You may not like it but that's democracy.

JaseBelleVie

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You may not like it but that's democracy.

No doubt! Democracy isn't perfect by any means, but it's true.

Still doesn't mean I have to like it.

alaimacerc

JaseBelleVie wrote: »

Anyone who goes out of their way to deny others rights is a bad person.

I think that's somewhat facile. Any side of any debate can be constructed in terms of a "right" someone aspires to, for themselves, or for some other individual, entity, or group. Indeed, look at the -- admittedly, hellaciously tortured -- attempts to co-opt the language of "rights" by the Mullen squad. I think the Vatican must have a Rapid Right Response Unit these says, such is the predictability and regularity this happens with.

In theory, I'm prepared to admit the theoretical possibility of there being a non-homophobic No campaigner out there. But from the evidence of the people on t'telly -- I didn't meet any at all in person -- I'd take some convincing.

metaoblivia

With regards to the Obergefell v. Hodges case that the US Supreme Court ruled on yesterday, two of the plaintiffs - Jim Obergefell and John Arthur - got married legally in 2013 in Maryland. They had been together for almost 20 years and John was dying of ALS. They wanted to be married when John passed, just so that his death certificate would show that he was a married man.

They learned though, that Ohio, their home state, would not put on John's death certificate that he was married and that Jim was his spouse. Even though Ohio recognized the legality of other marriages performed outside of the state - even marriages that Ohio did not permit - it would not recognize Jim and John's marriage. John died later in 2013 and that's what this court battle was about. They just wanted the acknowledgement of their marriage on John's death certificate issued by the state of Ohio.

John Arthur was my step cousin. I'm so happy that this is his legacy but I'm also quite sad that he's not here to see it. It's bittersweet.

arayess

JaseBelleVie wrote: »

I've always maintained (sometimes through gritted teeth and having to sometimes remind myself of this fact) that No voters aren't (necessarily) bad people or anything like that. However, No campaigners, in my humble opinion, are. Anyone who goes out of their way to deny others rights is a bad person.

There is a huge difference between just one vote and between actively campaigning and trying to get a No vote in.

what are rights?
outside of gay marriage the concept of denying rights is a complex one often muddied by emotion. Saying you don't agree with something isn't dislike or hatred of the person themselves.

Let's go outside gay marriage - am I a bad person because I believe some people shouldn't have the right to live in ireland. That social welfare shouldn't be extended to certain people. I'm denying them rights but am I a bad person because of it? I'm argue no.

Terms like "rights" and "human rights" are used in a debate to try a push a side - it's like using the racist term for anybody who has a notion that we shouldn't be all one homogenised society.

Rights itself is a meaningless term the person who defines it wins as they get to shout - you are against people having rights. Well yes I am toi be fair.
I'll take each proposal as I find it

Personally I'm in favour of a society determining the type of society that is and the people voting to move that society in a direction if that is what they want.
In this case we did in ireland and all is good.

Bannasidhe

aloyisious wrote: »

This from the Irish Indo: http://www.independent.ie/style/weddings/cork-footballer-valerie-mulcahy-weds-longterm-love-meg-blyth-31332137.html

Me 80 year old Mam was at that wedding along with her equally geriatric sisters.
Proud of them.

Also amused that my family turned out to be Cork's answer to the Burkes of Mayo - oh if only Iona had known that the Fiancee of the Female Footballer and The Man with Two Mammies are cousins

aloyisious

This Gerry is beginning to seriously piss me off.... http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-couples-may-face-marriage-delay-until-next-year-1.2265999

ixoy

aloyisious wrote: »

This Gerry is beginning to seriously piss me off.... http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-couples-may-face-marriage-delay-until-next-year-1.2265999

Only just? He's an utter pr1ck as far as I'm concerned. He will not respect the overwhelming choice of his country.

alaimacerc

ixoy wrote: »

Only just? He's an utter pr1ck as far as I'm concerned. He will not respect the overwhelming choice of his country.

Indeed, but y'know, There's Always One. There's clearly a process flaw when obvious nonsense like this -- recall that this guy is arguing "because CCTV!", and that the government parties (parties, mind you) shouldn't have been allowed to campaign in favour -- can hold up democracy.

Mr. CooL ICE

ixoy wrote: »

Only just? He's an utter pr1ck as far as I'm concerned. He will not respect the overwhelming choice of his country.

Being an electrician, he is probably against + + and - - currents. Humans aren't electrical charges, Gerry

aloyisious

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Being an electrician, he is probably against + + and - - currents. Humans aren't electrical charges, Gerry

Ah, it's just not natural.

alaimacerc

Equal rights for parallel connections! End the serialocentric hegemony!

aloyisious

Now that's a mouthful

Links234

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Being an electrician, he is probably against + + and - - currents. Humans aren't electrical charges, Gerry

Lets hope he doesn't weigh in on gender changers :pac:

Not a NSA agent

Links234 wrote: »

Lets hope he doesn't weigh in on gender changers :pac:

Gender-benders have become my favourite electrical item.

alaimacerc

aloyisious wrote: »

Now that's a mouthful

I'm tempted to respond, but I'm trying to maintain my cover as just an occasional visitor to AH, "keeping it classy". Going Native would be a dire prospect! :eek:

aloyisious

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm tempted to respond, but I'm trying to maintain my cover as just an occasional visitor to AH, "keeping it classy". Going Native would be a dire prospect! :eek:

One could always use a dental dam, they (reportedly) keep things clean and safe. avatar carefully selected for use.

alaimacerc

alaimacerc wrote: »

Indeed, but y'know, There's Always One. There's clearly a process flaw when obvious nonsense like this -- recall that this guy is arguing "because CCTV!", and that the government parties (parties, mind you) shouldn't have been allowed to campaign in favour -- can hold up democracy.

About the only positive thing one could say about this cretin is that his "argument" is marginally less ridiculous than the other fella who tried to argue that anyone who didn't vote should've been counted as a No voter!

alaimacerc

Deleted User wrote: »

About the only positive thing one could say about this cretin is that his "argument" is marginally less ridiculous than the other fella who tried to argue that anyone who didn't vote should've been counted as a No voter!

I could go either way on that one. Votes with a "threshold" are not unknown. The first referendum on Scottish revolution and various pieces of legislation on, for example, industrial legislation. (Not necessarily good precedents, but precedents of a sort.)

In both cases, though, they're arguing points that are "because reasons!" That don't relate to this measure in the slightest. That if they'd any merit, could have been successfully argued regarding any referendum. And Ireland's been having such referenda for a while. No good reason this shouldn't be barred on time -- as well as on every other grounds.

sunshine and showers

alaimacerc wrote: »

Indeed, but y'know, There's Always One. There's clearly a process flaw when obvious nonsense like this -- recall that this guy is arguing "because CCTV!", and that the government parties (parties, mind you) shouldn't have been allowed to campaign in favour -- can hold up democracy.

The CCTV argument is ridiculous. There's secrecy of the ballot, not of who is voting. Unless he is claiming that a camera was directly trained on the polling booth in his polling station and was recording each ballot paper. Which is frankly stupid. :rolleyes:

Further, there are a number of decisions saying it's grand for the government et al to campaign. They just can't use government money to promote a particular side - they can only use it to fund the Referendum Commission. The government are very much aware of the risks to a referendum result using State funds to run a yes campaign would have presented - which is why they won't have done it. Beyond that, there's no bloody case.

Whatever solicitor/barrister team running his farce of a case need to get a copy of both McKenna judgments, then promptly beat themselves over the head with them.

alaimacerc

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Whatever solicitor/barrister team running his farce of a case need to get a copy of both McKenna judgments, then promptly beat themselves over the head with them.

I'd love to help with that. Though I'd also like to have extra copies for McKenna herself, the judge making the judgement, and subsequent governments for not having dealt with the muddled fallout in any clear or consistent manner. All on the same basis.

As it stands, if we had a referendum tomorrow to add a constitutional provision that Ireland was a dampish island off continental Europe and a sound place altogether, RTE would feel obliged to give John Waters 50% of all airtime to argue that it was... I'm not sure, but I'm certain he'd think of something to fill the space.

sunshine and showers

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'd love to help with that. Though I'd also like to have extra copies for McKenna herself, the judge making the judgement, and subsequent governments for not having dealt with the muddled fallout in any clear or consistent manner. All on the same basis.

As it stands, if we had a referendum tomorrow to add a constitutional provision that Ireland was a dampish island off continental Europe and a sound place altogether, RTE would feel obliged to give John Waters 50% of all airtime to argue that it was... I'm not sure, but I'm certain he'd think of something to fill the space.

All of this. I will pay for the extra copies.

hotmail.com

Them weirdos pursuing this case are probably getting satisfaction out of p*ssing people off. They are nuts.

obplayer

hotmail.com wrote: »

Them weirdos pursuing this case are probably getting satisfaction out of p*ssing people off. They are nuts.

aloyisious

The video of the U.S. housewife below is a tad OTT. She gives the elder religion an equal footing to it's descendant, Christianity, but not so the newer one from the same region, if you get my drift. The judges don't get and merit badges.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/watch_indiana_woman_s_facebook_video_meltdown_rant_over_marriage_goes_viral