Jump to content

Irish Marriage Equality Referendum


Scott Malbranque

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

Just wondering how any of the Irish on here feel about todays Marriage Equality referendum.

I'm all for equality and I have a bit of the gay myself - as you're all aware - but there's far, far more to it than the black and white presentation that's been fed to us.

 

My main suspicion is why the constitution has to be changed to accommodate gay marriage, it does not, and that has not happened anywhere else in the world. That's why I think Ireland is a test case to see how far they (they being - big companies, funded by the richest people in the world, venture capitalists etc, same people that fund the 'philanthropic' projects, great for PR and a slick way of driving their own agenda) can push this 'right to beget children' thing within Article 41 - which relates to the Family.

Boils down to this - no one has a right to a child, telling straight or gay couples they can 'fullfil their dreams' of having one through donor eggs and surrogacy is cruel in a way, because their dream may not work out and and leave them broke and heartbroken.
 

The last straw was Enda Kenny (our poxy, charmless 'Prime Minister') confirming yesterday that there will be no legislation on Surrogacy or Assisted Repro until after the next general election, which gives these private IVF companies the green light to do whatever they wish for the forseeable future.
 
(Surrogacy was included in the Children and Family Relationships Bill, but mysteriously disappeared from it before it was passed through the Dail/Parliament.)

The lawyer attached to the clinic wrote an article 6 months ago saying the fact surrogacy was left out of the Bill was politically motivated, yet when asked her yesterday if she still felt the same way she declined to comment.
 

I could go on and on and on...but I shan't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't know the specifics of the right to beget children issue described by Malbranque above, but if it means that provision of IVF will be administered without distinction to the sex of the parents then good. It's a shame if the surrounding legislation is unclear at the moment, but that's no reason to vote No (not that I'm implying that Branquey said that, although he didn't not say it either).

 

Referenda tend to be once-in-a-generation events, it would be heinous if marriage equality was deferred to the children/grand children of the present generation because legislation on IVF is unclear for the time being.

 

Hopefully the polls are right on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

It should be a separate referendum. The government over here were sneaky bastards.

Unfortunately, it isn't as black and white as Yes for Gay marriage (I'd vote Yes in a flash), but the fact that there's so, so much more hidden implications that have come to the forefront over the last few weeks is swaying me towards a no vote.

Say for example, I turn gay and divorce my wife. She's single and left to rare my daughter and I turn weekend dad (as is usually the case), but if I marry Pinc and my missus is still single, the judge will categorically rule in favour of me and Pinc raring my daughter and grant us full custody because we are a married couple and deemed a more stable home environment, leaving my missus without the child she carried and rared.
It's fucking nonsense, and it is that simplistic as it's happened numerous times in Boston...

I won't even get into the 'farming' of children and tax implications on that. It really is a joke over here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say for example, I turn gay and divorce my wife. She's single and left to rare my daughter and I turn weekend dad (as is usually the case), but if I marry Pinc and my missus is still single, the judge will categorically rule in favour of me and Pinc raring my daughter and grant us full custody because we are a married couple and deemed a more stable home environment, leaving my missus without the child she carried and rared.

 

Presumably it would be the same if you left your wife to marry a woman though, yes? I'll take you at your word that judges categorically rule in favour of married couples in these cases, but your complaint is with child custody law not with same-sex marriage.

 

Start/join a campaign to have the concept of stability disentangled from marital status in child custody cases if you feel strongly about it. In the mean time there's no reason not to grant all consenting adults the same right to marriage as one another, regardless of sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That has little to do with being gay, though.

 

If you divorced your wife, married a woman and then went for custody of your children the judge would be forced to decide who gives the kid the best chance in life, provides the most stable environment etc.

 

There no reason why that situation should be different dependent on who you divorce your wife for, as that is a fundamental equality issue.

 

Are you saying that a man who remarries should never be allowed to take custody of his children away from a woman who 'cared and reared' for their kid? Or just not if they're gay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Nothing got to do with that. My fault Daz, I should have had two examples rather than single out the gay one.

I could marry Courtney Love and what I'm saying is that I will get preferential treatment by the courts, even if said mother is a wonderful, caring mother and is the right person for her childs upbringing, but because I am married, I will get full custody.

 

What's really irritating me about it all is that this is not just a vote for Gay Marriage and Marriage equality, there is a hidden agenda regarding the surrogacy and reproduction industry and the beneifts that it will bring the state.

I rang a new clinic here in Dublin only fifteen minutes ago. It's a surrogacy clinic - essentially after opening in anticipation of the Yes vote (which is a shoe-in) - I asked how much it would cost for myself and my partner to have a child. I got quoted €250,000 approx. I asked what would happen if it was a girl and I wanted a boy, and I was told - without so much as a flinch - that you can abort and start again at a reduced rate.

There is something ludicrously inhumane and capitalist about that, I'm sorry.

My problem with this referendum - again - is that it's not just marriage equality, there's so much more to it than that.

 

For the record, I would gleefully take one in any hole from Mike Patton and if I wasn't straight and so enamoured with hips and big bums, I'd be gay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Nothing got to do with that. My fault Daz, I should have had two examples rather than single out the gay one.

I could marry Courtney Love and what I'm saying is that I will get preferential treatment by the courts, even if said mother is a wonderful, caring mother and is the right person for her childs upbringing, but because I am married, I will get full custody.

 

Where are you getting this notion from Slev? It's false. Courts rarely, rarely separate a child from its biological mother. And what you're saying has nothing to do with this referendum anyway - nothing at all. Have you been on conspiracy theory websites again? You seem grossly misinformed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's really irritating me about it all is that this is not just a vote for Gay Marriage and Marriage equality.

 

Yes it is. If private interests cynically take advantage of the result then that's unfortunate, but can be legislated for through the usual channels.

 

There will always be indirect consequences from any constitutional change but I'm not reading anything in your posts that comes close to outweighing the potential benefits of a yes vote; specifically a more equal nation in which an oppressed minority is made significantly less so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

 

Where are you getting this notion from Slev? It's false. Courts rarely, rarely separate a child from its biological mother. And what you're saying has nothing to do with this referendum anyway. Have you been on conspiracy theory websites again? 

 

 

No, I ain't been on any conspiracy website, Herbivore, I'm just reading a lot about it the last few days. (Up until Tuesday night, I was a resounding YES). But I've been hearing a lot of shite that's making this less black and white as it seems.

 

This article was the one that really had me thinking, to the point, where I actually made a few phone calls. And you know me, Herbie, I'm not very motivated when it comes to anything besides my kids, training, movies and masturbating.

 

I really do want equal rights for gays and that's why I'm so conflicted, as if my daughter grows up gay (Jake's 14 and I don't think he's gay as I found Mila Kunis fake porn on his phone) I want her to be happy and have as much rights as anybody, but the whole 'children' thing that's been dragged into the referendum in where reproduction clincs and the state will profit, is really fucking me off.

 

 

I think the government should have explained it better.

 

 

When Dad walked out of our family home, all hell broke loose. With

four children under ten my mother was forced to learn to drive and go

out to find work to pay the mortgage. Our hearts were broken. The

family was broken and no amount of tears, begging and hanging on to

his trouser legs on his sporadic visits from the US could make him

stay. My memory plays like a film reel as my sister and I - the

youngest - chased his rental car out the gate and down the road as he

departed in emotionally charged scenes worthy of a

Hollywood blockbuster.

Aged five and seven, my sister and I made a pact never

to get married, so traumatised were we by the fall out. Ten years

after he left, we found ourselves on an Aer Lingus flight to Boston

to fulfil a visitation agreement. There, to my devastating shock, I

found Dad in relationship with another woman. Someone I

never knew existed and whose presence drove a final nail in the coffin

of a childhood dream I had nurtured privately, that my parents would

reconcile.

We spent that summer confined indoors watching Jerry Springer and

eating Pop Tarts, Dad was too busy working to take time off to spend

with us. He loved us, no question, but discipline was not his strong

point.

Ten years later, completing teacher training work placement at a

secondary school in the west of Ireland, I had a class pet. Ronan* (name changed) was a bright, funny, cheeky 13 year old whose behaviour changed

radically within the space of six months. He became sullen, withdrawn,

antagonistic, pale and tired. Facing his parents at the end

of term parent teacher meeting, an explanation for his transformation

unfolded. His mother and father were engaged in a

bitter feud. It emerged the only custody arrangement they could agree

to was to share the child’s time equally between them. Ronan spent one

week at his mother’s and the next at his father’s. He had no permanent

home. My mentor teacher and I exchanged looks; he gave a sad shake of

the head. I was heartbroken for little Ronan; I felt his anguish.

I’ve searched feverishly for the truth throughout this horribly divisive campaign. I found it in an article written by a former judge who

declined to advise me which way I should vote. Michael Pattwell, who retired in 2011, pointed out that the only existing impediment to the marriage of two

people of the same gender is contained in Section 2 of the Civil

Registration Act 2004. Section 2 states: For the purpose of this Act

there is an impediment to a marriage if one or both parties are

already married, one or both parties are under 18, if one of the

parties is considered a ‘lunatic’ and both finally and crucially, ‘if both parties are of the same sex.’

“There it is,” the former judge writes in his Evening Echo column.

“The only legal impediment to the marriage of two people of the same

gender is those seven words.”

In an instant, the agenda behind this hideous campaign of what Mr

Pattwell calls the ‘misnomer’ of marriage equality becomes clear. The

Yes side’s consistent insistence the vote has nothing to do with

children is revealed as a lie, because if that were the case, part (e)

of Section 2 of the Civil Registration Act 2004 could simply have been

removed through an amendment to the existing legislation.

But why then would the government choose to spend an estimated €30m on

the referendum and associated advertising by political parties and

government agencies, all of whom are urging a Yes vote?

Could it be because the EU is seeking to implement the ramifications

of this vote across Europe as a handy solution to same sex marriage

resistance in various member states including Germany, where gay rights groups say Angela Merkel has consistently opposed marriage and adoption for same sex couples?

And so, in the misguided frenzy to enshrine the rights of same sex

couples to marry specifically within Article 41, which defines the

Family within the Constitution, where its revision will be all but

irreversible, we could reach right into the heart of the lives of

children across Europe where we have no business to meddle.

That’s not to mention the children of egg and sperm donors who will grow up without knowledge of their biological mother or father, just as babies born - to our shame - into our Mother and Baby Homes and Magdalene Laundries were and continue to be today.

My father never looked for custody of myself and my siblings. But had he

been resident in Ireland and sought it in court, having re-married after divorcing my mother, I believe this amendment to the Constitution together with the provisions of the Children and Family Relationships Bill, would grant him the trump card as a married man, whether he re-married a man or a woman. The  redefinition of marriage relegates biology and genetics to a status of lesser importance and as such, in a court of law, the legal option open to a judge operating within this new legal framework would be to deny custody to my biological mother in favour of my father, because he and his new wife form a married couple and therefore must constitute a more suitable home environment. What options would be open to a judge to rule in the case of the custody battle over little Ronan, if one or other of his parents remarried?

I have to vote No to this flawed and sinister amendment to the

Constitution that could remove children from single parents in situations where their ex-partner has remarried and as such is considered the

provider of more suitable home.

 

Ends

     

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

The only agenda I can see here is by the uncredited moron that wrote that stupid anecdote - she makes a far-fetched assumption, and then rolls with it as if it's a fact. Mental.

 

I believe this amendment to the Constitution together with the provisions of the Children and Family Relationships Bill, would grant him the trump card as a married man, whether he re-married a man or a woman. 

 

'Believe' is appropriate here because that's what you need to do when you lack any actual evidence to back up your claims.

 

vote No to this flawed and sinister amendment to the

Constitution that could remove children from single parents

'Could'; according to the assumption made by quack author. Not 'will' - but 'could'... based on nothing.

 

Slev - I love you, but this is some retarded shit right here. It has nothing to do with the referendum that is being voted on today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Voted Yes anyway. Surprised by the number of young-ish (late 20's early 30's) people in my job who are voting no. Main reason seemed to be that only a mother and father should raise a child. Oh and one lad from Zimbabwe thought gay marriage is a sin. Was too hungover and wasn't bothered pointing out that gay parents and one parent families already exist. I'll say it will pass, but by a close enough margin. Similar to the way the divorce referendum passed back in the 90's. Glad when it's over anyway and the morons can jump on the next bandwagon, sick of reading and hearing idiotic for and against opinions fucking everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

The ex-president Mary McSomething summed it up quite well, "to vote yes costs nothing, to vote no costs gay men and women everything". You need to take yourself out of the equation and think how it would feel to be a homosexual waking up on a Saturday morning knowing the country you lived in have denied you the chance to live as an equal.

 

I'm in Dublin tomorrow and Sunday so I hope it's a yes mainly just so there's more of a party atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...