We seem to be replacing one set for another though, given the re-wording rather than removal.The Irish Times had an editorial a while back which said these refs were needed because the Constitution had become anachronistic. Meaning we had completely ignored the Constitution in this area. Take away - the Constitution is pious nonsense on social matters, the ref should be to scrap these sort of meaningless platitudes.
Not a hope I'm voting yes. Absolute nonsensical leftie guff. I'd rather have had a say in the so-called 'hate speech' thing.Any women on here like to offer their perspective ?
if one of the changes here is to change the definition of family to remove marriage (and replace it with durable relationship), what was the point of the last referendum to allow gay marriage?
Yes my point was that the definition of family was founded on marriage and this referendum aims to replace that with a vague term that is open to interpretation. What value would marriage now hold in our constitution if this is passed?The marriage equality referendum amended a different part of the constitution (41.4) to say:
4. Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.
This will not change regardless of these referendum results.
Yes my point was that the definition of family was founded on marriage and this referendum aims to replace that with a vague term that is open to interpretation. What value would marriage now hold in our constitution if this is passed?
Michael mcdowell is really doing serious damage to the yes campaign
He was on the Katie Hannon Upfront show on RTE Monday night and was very weak I thought.Michael mcdowell is really doing serious damage to the yes campaign, no government minister is willing to debate for the yes side, Thomas Byrne was on Claire Byrne last week batting for the referendum campaign and he got annihilated so that will frighten away any other ministers
I don't know how you can say that (by the way I never suggested that gay marriage was a dilution of marriage, nor I do think anyone could argue that is the case and I voted for same sex marriage change). Marriage had a certain place in society, a certain value. This referendum appears to me to further erode those values. We already had tax individualisation before which had a negative financial impact on married couples. Now it appears that the definition of family no longer depends on marriage. This is not a fear or fantasy, it is there in black and white in the proposed changes. One of the arguments made during the same sex marriage referendum was that gay couples was that civil partners do not enjoy the protection the Constitution gives to the family. If this referendum passes that argument would not have had any merit, so what was the point of the last referendum?Marriage is not being replaced or diluted. Parity of esteem is not dilution, in the way that gay marriage is not a dilution of "marriage". You may not like the definition but that's subjective.
What does that even mean Itchy? In real terms can you explain this one to me? What does this "special status" confer on married couples now?Family will be continue to be founded on marriage but there will now be another family structure that will be founded on a durable relationship. The institution of marriage will continue to have special status in the constitution.
The momentum has definitely moved to the no side though, I was surprised by sinead Ryan actually, she basically repeated verbatim Michael mcdowells main points.It's unfortunate to hear people advocate protest votes, e.g. Sinéad Ryan: I’ll be voting No in the referendums as a protest – but not for the reasons you might think. Constitutional rights should never be weaponised to "punish the government" when the citizens are the ones affected.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?