Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Options
1…4344464849…124

Comments

  • Options
    #1352
    heretothere
    Registered Users Posts: 635 ✭✭✭heretothere


    Would a yes vote on the Family Amendment mean treating people in durable (what ever that means) relationships legally the same as married people? So tax credits/ widowers pension/ inheritance?

    Marriage is open to everyone is Ireland so if people are choosing not to marry for their own personal reasons should they be given rights plus responsibilities they don't want?



  • Options
    #1353
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,921 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121771042#Comment_121771042

    We already get all the responsibilities and none of the rights: Mr OBumble cannot get any welfare because he lives with me, but I cannot get the tax credits because we're not married.



  • Options
    #1354
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,721 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121770835#Comment_121770835

    It's not going to get overturned if the court finds the legislation compatible with the constitution.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #1355
    Furze99
    Registered Users Posts: 11,105 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121772028#Comment_121772028

    Exactly - now you have it. This is a Pandora's Box that could and will allow all manner of relationships to be deemed durable. The Irish public don't like buying a pig in a poke.



  • Options
    #1356
    MilkyToast
    Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭MilkyToast


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121771042#Comment_121771042

    It's far more likely that tax credits for married people, inherited pension, etc. will be stopped than that they will be added for 'durable relationships'.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1357
    MilkyToast
    Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭MilkyToast


    I'll vote NO to both. I've seen nothing that makes me think the change is necessary, and while I'm definitely for the government supporting family carers they can add that into the constitution without changing what has already existed without issue for years, and they can do it in a way that is more concrete than a legally flaccid "strive".

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis



  • Options
    #1358
    Alena Chubby Rig
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ Alena Chubby Rig


    They got rid of the blasphemy laws to make way for the hate speech laws. Watch out for these lot they're slippery fish



  • Options
    #1359
    Furze99
    Registered Users Posts: 11,105 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121771042#Comment_121771042

    That seems to be the general idea, so all & sundry will claim they are in a durable relationship with resulting legal entitlements flowing to them. The government might try to prescribe this in legislation but they might as fart against the wind if that sort of vague term is put into the constitution. And when same politicians then give out about the courts interpretations, the justices will come back and say - it was your fecking fault for inserting such a wide ranging description.



  • Options
    #1360
    road_high
    Registered Users Posts: 19,407 ✭✭✭✭road_high


    Hard to get a sense of this but it doesn’t at all seem to be landing well for the government despite the obvious NGO/media cabal behind them. A very deeply unpopular government at that. About half dozen family members we’ve spoken about it and all are voting No to both proposals. Would have been firmly Yes in the two previous referendums



  • Options
    #1361
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121770879#Comment_121770879

    Guess what. Gay couples married and nobody tried to marry a horse.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1362
    road_high
    Registered Users Posts: 19,407 ✭✭✭✭road_high


    I know there’s extremely thin pickings of talent these days on the government benches but could they have picked a bigger bumbling idiot than Thomas Byrne to lead their campaign?



  • Options
    #1363
    smallbeef
    Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭smallbeef


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121773428#Comment_121773428

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

    It mentions persons, so you couldn't marry a horse.

    You might be able to have a durable relationship with a horse though, how can anyone tell you otherwise. That's what makes the text in this case so open to abuse.



  • Options
    #1364
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,921 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121773445#Comment_121773445

    A lot of people have more durable relationships with their dogs than their families.



  • Options
    #1365
    tabby aspreme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭tabby aspreme


    Michael McDowell on VM one now, worth a listen too



  • Options
    #1366
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121773445#Comment_121773445

    Sounds as crazy and off the wall as the marrying horse argument or that gays would get married to abuse children. Off the wall drivel.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #1367
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,364 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121773335#Comment_121773335

    You don't set any store by opinion polls?

    https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/02/09/yes-campaign-in-the-lead-but-signs-referendum-campaign-likely-to-tighten/

    or bookies' odds

    https://www.boylesports.com/sports/politics



  • Options
    #1368
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121773486#Comment_121773486

    They probably do but they won't be constitutionally recognised. Off the wall conspiraloon drivel about animals has nothing to add to this discussion.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #1369
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,264 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121771042#Comment_121771042

    You are confusing two different things the strategic decision about the direction you want the country to take versus the tactical decision of who and who it should be implemented, that comes later at a general election.

    The only question being asked right now is do you think married people should have superior rights to those others in long term relationships or not.

    When you talk about tax credits etc you are talking about general elections and party politics and that is not part of this decision. And most voters know the difference and will not fall for these tactics from politicians and pressure groups.



  • Options
    #1370
    ThePentagon
    Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭ThePentagon



    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121773522#Comment_121773522

    It's interesting that better informed voters are more likely to vote No. If one were to go by the assumption that someone who has gone to the trouble of getting themself informed on the particulars of a referendum is more likely to actually go out and vote, the result could certainly be closer than the recent polls project. The government must be praying that people don't ask too many questions before they vote 😄.

    I'd also be slightly skeptical of bookies' odds when it comes to public votes. I recall looking at oddschecker at around 12 am the night of UK's EU referendum and a 'NO' result was still only around 8/1 on most betting websites. Something similar happened the night D. Trump was elected US President - I checked the betting sites before I went to bed around 12 o'clock Irish time and a Trump victory still was still at only about 8/1 or 9/1. We all know what happened next....



  • Options
    #1371
    ThePentagon
    Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭ThePentagon


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121773740#Comment_121773740

    "I recall looking at oddschecker at around 12 am the night of UK's EU referendum and a 'NO' result" was still only around 8/1"

    That should've been 'LEAVE' rather than 'NO'



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1372
    thegame983
    Registered Users Posts: 913 ✭✭✭thegame983


    I mean I think it's a pretty dumb referendum, but I assume it's going to pass.

    There's very little point in hoping that it won't.

    By all means vote no if you want, but assume it will pass.



  • Options
    #1373
    applehunter
    Registered Users Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭applehunter


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121773740#Comment_121773740

    Trump was not 9/1 on the night of the election.

    It was at most c. 4/1



  • Options
    #1374
    ThePentagon
    Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭ThePentagon


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121773867#Comment_121773867

    Definitely on at least a couple of betting sites the odds were that long. It sticks in my mind because I remember thinking at the time it was so similar to how the Brexit vote defied the odds a few months before.



  • Options
    #1375
    minimary
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭minimary


    "Referring to the phrase “durable relationship” in the family referendum, she suggested it seemed a logical process for the wording to contain a term that could be legislated for by the Oireachtas and then interpreted by the courts.

    She said the Taoiseach had this week given an indication of the types of relationships he envisaged being legislated for and she pointed to the Supreme Court case last month involving John O’Meara, who had sought a widower’s pension after his long-term partner had died, as a perfect example of the sort of personal circumstances the referendum dealt with.

    “The Taoiseach said it will be one-parent families, like Mr O’Meara, cohabiting couples, grandparents heading up families, that sort of thing.”"

    https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/02/15/electoral-commission-to-address-uncertainty-over-next-months-referendums/


    Am I remembering wrong or didn't the Government tell us that they don't intend to define durable relationships by legislation and instead it will be left open to the Courts to decide?

    Also if the Government do intend to define this after the vote then shouldn't we as voters be aware of what they intend to define it as? Pre-abortion referendum we were told the parameters, before 12 weeks, waiting period etc.



  • Options
    #1376
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121773937#Comment_121773937

    No. I don't think they did say that they were not going to legislate.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #1377
    TokTik
    Registered Users Posts: 1,454 ✭✭✭TokTik


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121773937#Comment_121773937

    They won’t even let the public see the minutes of the meeting they had with Revenue etc lest it influences the publics vote.

    Now all of the government is pushing for a yes vote, so you’d think that if the minutes were in favour of Yes, they’d have no issue influencing the public under the guise of ‘letting them know all the facts’. This stinks to high heaven.



  • Options
    #1378
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,849 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    The whole circumstances around this and the track records of people like O'Gorman should be enough for people to question why they are pushing so hard for a Yes vote.

    The fact that the advocates are all over the place in trying to explain what exactly they're advocating for (much as how McEntee can't explain what "hate speech" is but is determined to force her bill through anyway) should make people question the reasons for this and the long term consequences it may have.

    Ultimately this Government have already damaged communities and undermined the fundamental social contract of our society, as well as trying to silence objections to same under the aforementioned "hurt feelz" legislation. Anyone who feels they are somehow more competent or legitimate on this issue really should stay home to be honest - as should those referred to in that IT article who don't really understand it but will vote Yes anyway. That's not only ridiculous, it's dangerous to our constitution and society as a whole.

    Vote No, if for no other reason that even its most vocal supporters can't clearly explain why you should support it themselves. There's nothing to stop them coming back to the public once a proper debate and case for the changes has been had after all.

    But vague law and emotive arguments to push it through is bad law, and we really should know this by now.



  • Options
    #1379
    MilkyToast
    Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭MilkyToast


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121773937#Comment_121773937

    Also if the Government do intend to define this after the vote then shouldn't we as voters be aware of what they intend to define it as?

    LOL no. You're a pleb. Your job is to inhale all the hyperbolic nonsense and bullsh!t over the next few weeks and then imagine that you are finally freeing Irish women from the kitchen sink they've been permanently chained to before you, good citizen, came along to free them. (And ignore all other possible outcomes, intended or otherwise, if you'd be so kind.)

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis



  • Options
    #1380
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 82,426 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    I received my voting cards this morning, don't think I've ever received them so early .



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1381
    Famous Blue Raincoat
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭Famous Blue Raincoat


    Does the current wording in the constitution help to give women in any way a greater right to the children and family home in the event of divorce?

    I realise the prejudices, and secretive nature, of family law judges play a huge role in disempowering men in divorce, but does this constitutional provision provide a constitutional basis for women's superior rights to control the family home in the event of divorce?

    If so, will the new wording give something approaching equality to men in divorce in family law courts in Ireland? It seems very difficult to find any legal article which addresses this specific issue.



Advertisement