Caught some of the debates regarding Gay marriage and the coming Irish referendum, on the ‘Daily Politics’ show today. Fascinated, but not altogether surprised, that this would be cause for a national referendum. I must confess it holds more interest for me regarding the potential divisions within the Irish nation that might result from this. As I understand it, the polls are stating 75% for. The strongest argument against, seems to be that a child needs a mam.
I favour gay marriage.
I don’t see why they should be free of the misery most of us heterosexuals have to endure. They’ve had it too easy, for too long. 
As a Christian I really don’t mind it at all, I have several Gay friends and we get along quite well. Thought what I find funny is I rotate around several churches (so things don’t get to dull) and yet they all have different opinion on Gays and Gay Marriage. Personally like I said earlier I don’t mind it at all, the only thing I will have to say is I will not a minister for any Gay marriage; does this mean I won’t go to a Gay marriage? No, I would still go as a visitor. So what I am saying is, I am okay with it as long as I am not directly motivating it but in that case I am indirectly saying its okay. Dose this even make sense?
Divorce Lawyers everywhere are indeed very hopeful. Equal is equal.
No problem at all with Gay Marriage. I doubt that Christ would have had either. It seems to me Christ was quite a tolerant person. Churches, on the other hand, seem to lack that fundamental quality the Christ is reported to have preached.
If the objection is that ‘A child needs a mam!’, then, where we have female Gay Marriage, the child might, arguably, have two mammies.
I’m sure that there are more arguments, but that was the one that seemed prevalent on the news story I saw.
What I find intriguing, is the effect a yes vote might have on Ireland and the Roman Catholic church. Would it result in a renewed surge of challenges to the abortion laws, for instance?
I shall be voting in this Referendum bright and early next Friday morning, on my way in to work.
The reason a referendum is being held is that, although the relevant Article of our written Constitution does not define “marriage”, it implicitly relies on the view of marriage traditional from time immemorial (at least that is what the public letter issued to his flock by one influential Roman Catholic bishop). In view of this, it appears that the Attorney General’s advice to the Government (such advice is never actually published, but is publicly discussed) advised holding a Referendum, since the alternative was to risk relying on a statute that would be open to challenge in the Courts on Constitutional grounds. Since establishing locus standi to bring such a challenge would be fairly easy under Irish jurisprudence, a challenge to the statute would be virtually certain, potentially giving rise to lengthy legal proceedings capable of going all the way the European Court of Human Rights. Hence - we have a Referendum.
For those of us who have endured a number of referendums on “matters of sexual morality” over the years, this campaign has been interesting. Previous referendums on matters such as divorce and abortion have generally been conducted on a pretty irrational, hysterical (if I may use the term) level, with most of the hysteria coming from the extreme elements on either side (ultra-liberals and socialists on one side; ultra-Roman Catholic groups and the Catholic Hierarchy/priesthood on the other - that is always the way it is. This time, the whole thing has been more level-headed (if not always more rational). It is possible that this is a result of the development and growing influence of the Iona Institute, a Roman Catholic think-tank, in replacement of the more “swivel-eyed loony” groups such as “Youth Defence” that played a major part in previous campaigns. This time, while much of the dubious rationality has still come from the “No” side, the hysteria (such as it has been) has mainly come from elements of the “Yes” side - a bit of a turn-around.
The “Yes” side has relied for the most part on a simple equality argument - that same-sex couples should be afforded equality in marriage rights and obligations just like man-woman couples. What’s the problem, they say. The “No” argument is more complex, nuanced and - in its somewhat irrational way - well thought-out and presented; hence the suspicion that the intellectual powerhouse that is the Iona Institute is calling the shots. The main points of their argument may be summarized as follows -
(1) The extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples would undermine the status and nature of marriage in general, for everybody.
(2) It is unnecessary, as Irish law already provides for civil partnership that give same-sex couples who wish to avail of it the same rights as married couples “as near as makes no difference”.
(3) Constitutional support for marriage results from a recognition of the institution as basic to maintaining the common good, including the nurture and protection of children. The Referendum proposal, if passed, would deprive children of automatic connection with their biological mothers, which would be contrary to the common good.
(4) The extension of the “right to procreate” (of dubious Constitutional validity, except for the Iona lot) could only be exercised through artificial reproductive technologies (notably surrogacy) which present serious legal, ethical and moral difficulties. The passage of the Referendum proposals would make it impossible for our Parliament in future to legislate against unacceptable reproductive technologies, in particular, in relation to surrogacy, as same-sex couples would have the “right” to procreate, and this could only be done by potentially unconsciencable artificial means.
There are further points - but these are the principal arguments relied upon by the “No” side.
Three points need to be made about these “No” arguments. First, in general, the points advanced regarding the nature of marriage are religion-derived and not particularly rational, however carefully they have been worked out and presented. Secondly, jurisprudence already established rejects the notion that, even for heterosexual couples, our Constitution supports the right to access to any artificial reproductive technology. Thirdly, it is not strictly true that civil partnership provides, effectively, the same rights to same-sex couples as does marriage. It does not (in the view of the Attorney General) provide equal Constitutional protection, and may not be easy to accommodate civil partnerships in the framework proposed to deal with such matters as surrogacy and “modern” adoption.
I suppose it is obvious which way I have decided to vote. Indeed, the arguments advanced by the “No”, more than the “Yes” side have helped solidify my views (although, in my case, the “No” side would not like my conclusion.
The strategies of this debate are interesting. The “Yes” side do not feel the need to have one, as far as I can see. The “No” side, realizing that they were batting on the back foot in this case, have tried, not so much to persuade people inclined towards a “Yes” to change to “No”, but more to promote confusion and doubt among undecided and “soft” potential “Yes” voters that might persuade them to stay at home, abstaining. Since there is a very hard reactionary vote that can be expected to come out and vote, a low poll (with many “confused” abstaining) could deliver a “No” victory. This strategy seems to be working. Opinion polls over the weekend indicated a strong lead among “decided” voters in favour of “Yes”, but, unusually at this stage, an increasing number of the “undecided”. Whether the strategy will work in time is debatable. At any rate, in the next few days, we can probably expect the return of “sex referendum hysteria”.
Time reveals all. Yours from the Back of Beyond, JR.
That’s really very interesting. The ‘no’ side, presumably led by the RC church, feels threatened. It’s difficult to reconcile the sexual abuse scandals which have come to the surface about the world in recent years, with the church holding the moral high-ground and being custodians of the country’s moral compass.
Hahaha…too Funny.
I don’t favour gay marriage. Im not against gays having a love life but marriage consituation was created for man and woman.
I Have two gay cousins, one is my mum’s nephew, one is my fathers nephew. shane is seen as the girl with his gay man and my other cousin dean is the cross dresser. Shane is getting married with his man in Hawaii US (next year). Dean has Boyfriends but can’t live with anyone and doesn’t want to be married. Very nice men, top blokes, but i have a right to form my own opinions on gay marriage.
The Roman Catholic Church has taken a tremendous battering in recent years. Part of this arose simply from the explosion of information and broadened horizons, as well as the higher education as they have affected the Irish population. There was a time when bishops, some of whom seem to have seen themselves as Lord God Almighty, and their priests, could declaim any sort of nonsense from the pulpit and rely on their congregations to go along. Far, far from good enough now. The majority of “Catholics” now expect the message to make sense, which often it does not.
This factor was beginning to thin out congregations even before the tsunami of accusations (and even convictions) against evil Catholic clerics who perpetrated violence and/or sexual abuse on children over decades. The standard response of the Church authorities to such matters coming to their attention was, apparently, cover-up. Victims were intimidated into silence (as it turned out in many cases, long but temporary) and, in many cases, priests or brothers (presumably nuns in some cases) were either (supposedly) moved to areas of work where they would not have contact with children (a vain hope, really), or were moved on new parishes/schools where they could carry on abusing. At least until the next move. Anybody who has seen the excellent movie, “Doubt” (set in the US) will have some understanding of the latter process, which was repeated an unknown number of times, not only in Ireland but across the Catholic world. It seems to have been particularly common in branches of the Catholic tree strongly influenced by an “Irish heritage” - one aspect of the “Irish diaspora” of which we can be less than proud.
As a result (as my wife assures me - she is still a Glenstal Hymn Book-carrying Catholic), congregations have been reduced to handfuls of old ladies, except on special occasions like First Communions and funerals, and the recruitment of priests is bumping along the bottom at the training colleges. Notwithstanding their pomp and circumstance, the bishops are very far from being the force they were, say, in my childhood back in the 1960s. Believe me. Even a visit to Belfast seemed liberating in those days. That really says something.
And yet … the influence of the Church over the moral and ethical climate in the Republic cannot be wholly discounted by any means. The Church still has operational control of most of the primary and secondary school system, a result of the cheap option taken by the State over decades of leaving this to Church-management in Church-owned properties. This is only now changing, but slowly. Church-run schools have legal protection for their “ethos” in the school’s operation. More generally, the fact that so much of our population is, in a sense, Catholic-educated tends to produce a widespread sense of … I suppose deference to the Church’s positions, even if it takes the form of giving ecclesiastical “coloring” to much public discourse on a “for-or-against-the bishops” basis. I parted company with the Church many years ago, but even I would at least take its views seriously, even if I usually reject them in the end.
Another factor to be borne in mind is the “urban-rural divide”. Starting with Dublin, and spreading out to other cities and large towns, opposition to the more (arguably) oppressive policies of the Church has spread, and church attendance has plummeted severely. This is much less true in genuinely rural areas. In “morality” referendums, this makes turnout, and its distribution, particularly important. It is a generalization but … if the Dubs stay at home in droves, and the Culchies turn out, the Church position has a much better chance of prevailing. Even in General Elections - where overall turnout is usually considerably higher than in a referendum - there are enough seats (mainly rural) with substantial “believing” electorates to caution any government wishing to be re-elected against placing itself in opposition to the Church’s views unless absolutely necessary. This is one reason why our Constitutional law on abortion, which went off the rails many years ago, is unlikely to be sorted out properly any time soon.
I am not without reservations about gay marriage. However, in the end of the day, the fairly elaborate construct of the arguments made against it fail to convince (me) and I shall be voting “Yes”. One concrete reason for this beyond that point is that, contrary to the arguments made by the “No” side, I find it hard to see how looming difficulties regarding surrogacy and adoption being sorted out through statute law while it remains impossible for single-sex couples to engage in full matrimony. There may be troubles ahead; for example, the Constitutional recognition of the “special role” of women in the home (crazy at this stage, but anyway) raises interesting questions around the issue of how this might relate to a situation in which both spouses are of the same gender. We shall see, perhaps. In any event, I shall be supporting the proposition and am nervously confident for its success. Yours from the Dungeons of the Inquisition, JR.
Very illuminating, JR.
Well today’s the day. If I had a vote, it would most definitely be yes.
Two-thirds the way through polling hours, turnout is generally estimated at 30 per cent or over. Precise distribution is still unclear. Extraordinary stories of our expatriate “young people” still registered to vote at their Mammy’s address expending their efforts to get home to vote. Too early to say - but the Holies may be on a loser this time … Yours from the ferryboat terminal, JR.
Regardless of the result, Ireland, which hasn’t been at the forefront of marriage reform over the last few centuries nor of freeing itself from the shackles of Catholicism as pretty much a state religion until fairly recently, now leads the charge on a radical social issue which contradicts everything one would have predicted of Ireland viewed even merely a generation ago.
What was /were the pivotal point(s) or issue(s) which led to such a dramatic turnaround?
I think the homosexuals are basicly born different peoples
I don’t hate someone because he or she take his own sex if even this isn’t normal
They are born different and feel different inside, you can’t change their hormones by force
Gay marriages looks like to me funny a little bit but if they happier, marry each other
Great result! Democracy at its best. This result has to have far reaching consequences for the Roman Catholic church in Ireland and beyond, and for the Irish constitution.
To me it’s pretty simple, gay people have the rights to plan their financial destinies and decide who gets their property when they die. If they want serious relationships and the commitment that go with marriage how can anyone deny them that right?
If anyone is willing to shoulder the ponderous responsibility of Marriage, there is no reason to deny them, as long as both are Humans, and not too closely related, there should be no objection.
What’s been overlooked is that there wasn’t any constitutional provision dealing with the children of homosexual couples.
Heterosexual couples usually generate their own children.
Homosexual couples can’t.
It adds a new dimension to the already bitter custody battles fought by heterosexual couples. For example: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2002/193.html
The postscript, fortunately rare and extreme, to the linked case is that one of the mothers frustrated the biological father’s court awarded access to his child by killing the child, and herself.
“PARENTING – whether the father is a ‘parent’ under the Family Law Act and Child Support (Assessment) Act – meaning of ‘family’ – nature of parenting – gay and lesbian families – Family Law Act sections 60B, 60H”
Didn’t read through links to the Family Law Act and Family Support due to lack of time and legal experience.
If a sperm donor is recognised as being the ‘father’, then would that apply to a rapist?
“1. In deciding an issue such as this, section 65E of the Act requires the Court to regard the best interests of Patrick as the paramount consideration. It is a consideration of those best interests which forms the cornerstone of the judgment and remains its final determinant.”
This appears to be the common sense approach, but I’m sure that arguments can and do arise as to what is in the child’s best interests.
I’m curious to see what will happen if and when a gay couple apply to be married by the RC church.
Homosexuals want the life of heterosexuals…But should they? There is a reason why god created man and woman.