Your ‘equal right’ to vote no.
Wait, what?
Joe writes:
Spotted outside UCD Dublin…Pretty sure that’s Trinity College’s front arch….
Fight!
Sponsored Link
Everything. As It Happens.
Your ‘equal right’ to vote no.
Wait, what?
Joe writes:
Spotted outside UCD Dublin…Pretty sure that’s Trinity College’s front arch….
Fight!
That model is as gay as Christmas.
And a ride, too
I wonder does he know how his image is being used/?
pretty funny alright
I warned yous all about this equality bullshit! ;)
I like how he has a enough facial hair to be cool, but not enough to be mistaken for a terrorist
They’re bringing out the big guns now
I’m really getting tired of this childish “nobody lets me vote no” nonsense. If that’s the best the no side can do, it’s utterly pathetic. What do they imagine, that yes voters or campaigners are going to stand behind them in the voting booth and beat them to death between walking from the booth to putting their vote in the box and then re-do their vote for them while the voting clerk, returning officer, personation officer and garda cackle?
I think it’s a sign of how well the Yes campaign is being fought, and how strong and effective it is.
Fair play in fairness.
the single dads and other marginalised groups have a lot to learn from this.
Hi Jane, first, I have to start by saying I will vote ‘Yes’. This posters focuses on why I have to start with that as to not be pegged a ‘homophobe’.
I have never agreed with the referendum, and due to this I was on the fence for a while. I feel there was no need for it, and is/was an attempt by the Labour party to get attention. There are 160 difference between marriage and civil partnership. If the government parties had a true agenda of civil rights they would have simply changed these in the rights of Civil Partnership. I know the terms would still not be equal (marriage vs civil) but I don’t think anyone would have ever noticed / cared if all rights were equal. Especially as the focus was equal rights.
That all aside, we are having a referendum. This referendum focuses not on the homosexual community as an entirety, but those interested in marriage. As such, we can only really look at those who are in civil partnership to understand its need / demand. The same way we don’t include girlfriend and boyfriend in marriage statistics, to be equal we can’t include boyfriend and boyfriend / girlfriend and girlfriend in the ‘new’ marriage statistics. Therefore we are having a referendum to change the constitution for .04% of the population. Do you feel that is a valid reason to vote no? I ask not to start a war, but are there other populations that make up .04% that may ask for a change in the constitution to suit their legal entitlements? That’s a genuine question, as it is an approach that no voters have voiced. All previous referendums affected much greater populations.
To go back to my point at the start, before the hate arrives, I am voting Yes. I don’t do this to put myself up there with Martin Luther King, but because we are going to have this referendum and no point in having it twice. It could have been done in a far more efficient manner with equal rights the actual agenda, In my opinion.
I’m not sure what any of that has to do with my comment, but since you ask, I do think it’s worth our while having a referendum to correct an inequality regardless of the number of people affected.
I don’t plan to quibble with your figures – I have not looked into them. I accept that we may indeed be talking about .04% of the population who cannot marry currently, but I would argue that denying rights to any proportion of the population regardless of their number or percentage diminishes all of us who wish to live as equal as human beings in a free, democratic, liberal and tolerant society.
I noted you had asked before if there was any worthwhile no reasons, and then “If that’s the best the no side can do”… hence, focused on your comment. That, and I have a crush.
Well you are only human!
I did ask that before, yes. I didn’t make that connection when I saw your post. It seems you have a rather utilitarian approach to the value of a referendum – do think there is a baseline number of people affected below which we can tolerate discrimination?
Ok, well you’re twisting my words and missed the point. I said nothing about discrimination or denying human rights. Quite the opposite, actually.
“but are there other populations that make up .04% that may ask for a change in the constitution to suit their legal entitlements?” ….Hmmmmm…… Stats can say anything…..
c.3,500 women go to the UK for abortions each year, which is just 0.5% of all births in say, 2013.
Or…
3,500 women is only 0.0008% of the 4,581,269 population living here…..
Ans: Yes there are, and smaller.
Agreed, stats can say a lot…like 50.4% of the population are women.
And the remainder are men…. not seeing your point…
+1, my feelings also
Hi Owen,
One of the main differences between Civil Partnership and Marriage is that Marriage is afforded Constitutional protection. So it can not be altered without a referendum, with civil partnership this is not the case. If we were to see the rise of a right wing party, they could in theory remove all civil partnership rights. I know this is unlikely, but I’m not comfortable with my ability to protect my family being at risk like this.
I’m delighted to hear you’re voting yes all the same! :-)
Thanks Der… that never even occurred to me.
(Then again my apocolyptic overlord nightmare involves a herd of My Little Ponies high on PCP running rampage through the streets shouting “you’ll never melt* me with a magnifying glass again”.
* – I swear I haven’t )
And to be fair Der, that is a thought I had not considered. Not that I think the Civil Partnership could be reverted in time, but I do see your point regarding protection.
H Owen,
“I don’t think anyone would have ever noticed / cared if all rights were equal. Especially as the focus was equal rights.”
I’m not sure I agree with this point – it’s almost (and note I say almost) like saying – if they’re allowed on the same bus, but just told were to sit, I’m sure they wouldn’t have noticed or cared.
The focus isn’t, I would argue, on equal rights – it’s about equality.
“This referendum focuses not on the homosexual community as an entirety, but those interested in marriage.” If one homosexual is granted the option of accessing the civil institution of marriage, than all the homosexual community in its entirety has the option. Just like all heterosexual people have option, whether of not they choose to use it.
“As such, we can only really look at those who are in civil partnership to understand its need / demand.” No. There are many who choose not to enter into a civil partnership and await the day they, like their heterosexual counterparts, that they can enter into civil marriage. Thus limiting it to be only about 0.04% of the population (number of civil partnerships and total population) isn’t correct.
“I ask not to start a war, but are there other populations that make up .04% that may ask for a change in the constitution to suit their legal entitlements?”
Reducing it down to a figure robs this referendum of its true power (whether it passes or not). The power of equality for a group of people who had to battle in courts not be criminals – and only achieved that in the early nineties. A group of people who still have to ‘come out’ and say they are gay, including the stress of the power of those words. The mothers and fathers (because they matter) of those children who worried about their gay children growing up in a society that saw their love as unequal.
When, and yes I say when, on the 23rd of May, it is announced that Ireland has passed this referendum, the first country in the world that by popular vote extended equal marriage rights to a group of people whose love dared not speak its name, the first country in the world that the majority extended civil marriage rights to the minority (however small a percentage you want to make it) the Republic of Ireland will stand tall.
As a post-script, there are many who say we technically didn’t need to have this referendum. The government could have passed legislation allowing same sex couples access to marriage. BUT this could have been met by a constitutional challenge (from the groups that are currently campaigning for a No). As marriage is not defined in the constitution, the courts might have said yes or no. If the courts said yes it was unconstitutional, the government would then have needed to hold a referendum and we are back to 22nd May.
Thank you Owen for your Yes vote. No matter how you reached that decision.
Nice post :)
Jay, nice response. What was needed.
“I don’t think anyone would have ever noticed / cared if all rights were equal. Especially as the focus was equal rights.” – Yes, I thought that comment might come back to bite me in the butt. However, I’m not trying to diminish the need for equality, merely pointing out that most people (I agree most are unaffected personally, as you point out) would have never noticed the change. My thought process was why not change it in the legislation now, leave it say xx years then slip it in with a ‘bigger’ referendum in time. The same way we have piggy backed the change in presidential age on the back of this. At that stage the country would be ‘sure is it not the same already?’. Only a few nut-jobs on soap boxes to contend with.
This is why I was not keen on the referendum. I felt there was a much easier method to achieve this, although longer. You’re response above is great. Truly. I don’t disagree with any of it. And I’m not trying to play devil’s advocate. My comment focused on my feeling that we could have done this better. I point out a No perspective that is occurring, and one that warranted a worthwhile response from you, not a ‘you’re crazy bible baser’ response.
Reducing it down to figures it what some will do, and are.
Your confidence is great. And I do hope this goes through. Despite my un-want for it initially, it is occurring, and no point wasting all this money / time/ emotions to get it wrong. However, if it does not go through. What then? We can’t go back and do it the other way, and it will be a terrible set back towards equal rights globally.
Two follow-ups:
Civil Partnerships are already termed as weddings, and many people colloquially calling them marriages. But they’re not. Amending the civil partnership bill to be exactly the same as marriage would cause the minority community to be even more stronger in their push for equality. At the time of the Civil Partnership Bill, there were those in the gay community who wanted full equality, so they would have seen a ‘marriage in all but name’ as a cowards way out, and I think would be damaging to any political party that brought that in. Not to keep harping on to the metaphor, but the history of equality has shown that you can’t have two buses on the same route, and even more importantly, you can’t have one bus and tell people were to sit.
The second point is that IF this referendum is not passed, the government will have brought the homosexual community up a cul-de-sac. They will not be able bring in the legislation as a No side would, I think, have a stronger case in the courts to say (a) the government believed a constitutional change was needed and (b) the people said no to it.
I think though that there was no way to do it the other way (bring in the legislation first) as previous court rulings indicated that it interpreted the constitution to mean marriage to be between a man and a woman – without it being clearly defined.
Although this is a constitution in which the pronoun for the President is He, with the government at the time of Robinson’s election stating it was a ‘living document’ and needed to be interpreted as such, and thus no constitutional change was required. One might argue then that gender assigned to particular words, when it comes to the constitution, is quite fluid.
It’s constitutionally questionable whether marriage and civil partnership could be made exactly the same through legislation (given that Article 41 is all about protecting marriage, introducing an identical non-marriage arrangement would be open to challenge), and even if it were, there’d still be the issue of same-sex families not being recognised or protected under the constitution, and how insulting it is to be told that we have to accept a different institution with a different name.
Also, your ethical stance on “Referendums should only be held if they impact on enough people” is abhorrent. A constitution shouldn’t enshrine inequality.
Hi Owen,
As a gay man, I’m relieved to hear that you’re going to be voting yes. I’ve only one correction to make. You say that only 0.04% of the population would be affected by this referendum. 7 out of 72 of my graduating class in secondary school are openly LGBT. That’s 10%…a figure 250 times larger than the one you quote.
This is also held up by surveys: http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/how-many-people-in-ireland-are-gay-1.2155679
Going with the 0.04% figure, I appreciate that you’re saying that it only affects those interested in a civil partnership which has only been available for same sex partnerships for the last 4 years.
However, you’re assuming that only those already civilly partnered are interested in it
By that reasoning those who were married in the last 4 years are the only heterosexuals who are interested in marriage? And all others are not interested in being extended that right?
That figure is also affected by the number of people that resent civil partnership, as it’s seen as a second class option. Many are waiting to be able to avail of full civil marriage.
The Marriage Equality Referendum is about extending gay marriage to all LGBT people. I presume you see now that this is in fact a referendum that affects the entire LGBT community. In Ireland, going with a range between the conservative and the realistic, of 4%-10%, we have a population of 200,000-500,000 LGBT citizens.
So, this is a civil rights issue that really does matter, it affects the wider community, and it is very much overdue. I didn’t really appreciate just how much it was required until the referendum campaign started and I started to see the amount of latent distrust, disgust, and vitriol being aired. Then I realised that they (the No campaign) are likening LGBT marriages to incestuous marriages, or paedophilia because they themselves think that this proportion of the population is an abomination to their religious upbringing/society. They talk about the effects on a child of not being reared in a ‘proper’ mother+father home, but I don’t see them campaigning to have children stripped off single parents or widowers (as this too is not the ‘proper’ family). They bring up children as a weapon, but ignore the fact that how well one’s parents fit their proper model has nothing to do with how well they’re reared. It instead is how suitable the child’s parents are regardless of the number, age, religious background, gender, or sexual orientation.
The No campaign is attacking every LGBT person in the state, saying that they are unsuitable parents, unnatural, and abhorrent. I have to wake up in the morning, and open the curtains to a series of posters on lampposts right outside my window claiming that I couldn’t be a good parent because of who I love. I wouldn’t dare tear down those posters, as they are the No campaign’s right to post them. I can however empathise with all the LGBT people out there who are driven mad every day having to pass them by. If the referendum for marriage equality is rejected, this will be an affirmation of the hatred of the No campaign. It will be worse than before the referendum. Before the referendum LGBT people have been unequal, but that was only because of an old, conservative, viewpoint that is in need of updating. Afterwards however, LGBT people would be unequal because the majority of the voting public believe that they are either unsuitable parents, unnatural or abhorrent…whatever the case 200,000-500,000 citizens in Ireland will be different, and unequal.
I’ve also seen an argument that friends could get married once this is passed just to avail of tax incentives of marriage. That has always been the case…except it’s a male and female friend who could get married to avail of tax incentives. Once more…a ridiculous argument that assumes that men can only befriend men and women only befriend women, all in order to cloud the fact that this is a referendum on the maturity and compassion of the community of Ireland, and the recognition of the equality of love between two people regardless of gender.
I’m sure that there are No voters out there that don’t realise what sort of outcome their vote may have, and I don’t hold any hatred to them. I’m sure that some of them do hold genuine love for children. I do however despise this hate campaign that is being waged, and some of the players in it who are preying on that love.
The sooner it can be over and done with, the better. The sooner that the hate posters come down, the better. The sooner that it’s seen as improper to post leaflets about outlining how wrong a certain section of civil society is as it doesn’t fit their religion’s model, the better. The sooner that love is love, the better
Dónal
That is definitely Trinity’s front gate. It’s also a very camp photo – is this a parody ‘no’ poster? Why can I no longer tell?? :-D
Is it meant to be a dig at UCD students? (the Trinity front arch)
It says a lot about the No campaign so far that it is hard to tell which are the real posters and which are the spoofs.
Poe’s Law strikes again
It’s like your mammy telling you your squint eyepatch looks lovely, or convincing you nobody will even notice if you try on a pair of jeans on the shop floor in Dunnes. Or that time she swore, SWORE, that all the other girls would be wearing wellies to school.
It’s a dirty lie. They are all dirty lies.
Let it all out, Write, everyone’s sympathetic here.
I’m sympathetic for the “nobody will even notice if you try on a pair of jeans on the shop floor in Dunnes”
….you weren’t there man, you weren’t there!
I’m so glad other people’s mammies did this too. About time someone set up a support group.
Add victims of ‘the first bra-fitting with mammy and the Dunnes Stores lady’ to that.
My Mam made me try on a dress on the Dunnes shop floor one evening……I was a 30 year old man with a beard at the time. Still shaking, I tell you.
It was the Dunne thing at the time.
*grabs mac from bargain rail and legs it*
*beckons to security guard on exit door*
*clotheslined at the trolley bay*
Sure who’s going to be looking at you.
*Bites lip, must stop chuckling*
The point is that it *was* embarrassing, I *should* have known better, and I *did* live to regret not thinking for myself and not doing what I knew was right.
Having said that, I miss the piratical aspect of being a regular patch-wearer.
And as a result you now claim the world record for putting on a pair of trousers in 0.3 seconds. Tis all about the positivity.
accidentally puts picture of bigoted trinity student outside of UCD campus?
well done NO side, you could not write this sh*t
Also, that grammar and punctuation outside a university? For shame.
Irish Citizens for Liberty – ICL … who they?
A bunch of Iona Loonstitute associated semi-literate cry-babies, by the looks of it*.
*This statement does not prevent anyone from voting in accordance with whatever they are pleased to describe as a conscience.
YOUNG MAN, there’s no need to be ashamed! I say YOUNG MAN …
So, that’s the student version. There should be one somewhere for a building, worker, a garda, a Gaeilgeoir etc.
What costume would the Gaeilgeoir be wearing?
Right now, discount polyester tan slacks and a green V-neck sweater from M&S, since you ask.
Thumbs up or proposed hand-shake?
Whoever penned the copy probably goes round saying ‘No Shame in it’ just to justify every bit of bigotry and discrimination in their sad little brain.
Is that back-slanting italics?? *shudder*
NO SHAME IN IT
More like back-sliding… :D
Yes, yes it is, but they have a right to use it.
I think this is simply in response to the massive smugness of the yes campaign and the, frankly, intimidatory nature of it. The yes campaign is based upon “this is a done deal and if you vote no there’s something wrong with you”. All this is saying is if you feel like voting no there’s no shame in it. I’ve said on here before that I’m not voting but I would vote yes if I did but with every wearisome day that passes and every new smug yes post I’m beginning to think I might vote after all – no shame in it.
I was on the fence, but this lily-livered cynicism has just made me decide to vote Yes.
Wait, are you saying you weren’t going to vote but are now going to vote no because the yes campaign is not “smug”?
I’m saying that I really don’t care but, after another 3 weeks of this intimidation I might just decide on a protest vote. Shouldn’t effect the outcome.
Intimidation? Jeez, its a wonder you can survive out there with all the ads intimidating you and all. You should give your vote to someone with a brain.
Everywhere you turn there’s an ad. Every second segment on the news. Another “group for yes”. Broadsheet might as well be YES sheet. YES YES YES. vote yes or there’s something wrong with you – “you’re a d1ck” (see below), “you’ve no brain”, “you’re a fupwit” (see below) “ashamed of yourself” etc etc etc. That’s intimidation.
Broadsheet is well known for having a certain political leaning, that’s hardly a shocker. You either do not know what intimidation is or you sincerely think the yes campaign is going to do you injury or harm but yet, you comment on these posts….
wearnicehats – just because someone calls you out on your opinions does not constitute intimidation. and because you see ‘yes’ posters everywhere, well what does that tell you about consensus? vote no if you want, just be sure you’re doing it for the right reasons. btw, if you find a valid reason, by all means share it with us.
Seriously – what intimidation? I hear a lot from certain sectors about yes intimidation but not a single piece of evidence – what I have seen are cases like no voters making a spurious, homophobic, or just offensive and when challenged to support what they are saying with legitimate evidence, they clam up and claim they are being bullied by the Yes people –
Here’s the thing as a gay man who has actually known real bullying because of who I am and who is still being insulted through this campaign – all I can say is Grow-up! and if No voters are feeling so shamed about their position there might be a reason for — namely it is a shameful position being advocated
you’re absolutely correct. there is no shame in being a reactionary fukwit, oblivious to the facts and hiding behind dogma to justify your hateful bile. there are many things wrong with your beliefs but shame doesn’t have to be part of that yet. you don’t have to feel shame until you realise deep down that you’ve spent your life becoming the thing you hate – only then will you feel ashamed of yourself. but for now, continue being a d1ck all you want.
I’m clearly correct re intimidation anyway
no intimidation here at all. if you want to be a d1ck, then carry on.
While people are entitled to vote whatever way they see fit, there is a shame in it.
You have the right to say and vote what you like, but it’s a shameful action to deny something you already have to people who don’t when extending it to them wouldn’t effect you in the slightest. There’s shame in being spiteful and mean. If No wins on 22nd May Ireland will stand ashamed and we’ll confirm every god-bothering, curtain-twitching, backward stereotype of this country.
hear hear
Wearnicehats, if you are truly on the fence about this, do you think you might be open to being persuaded to a ‘yes’ if I’m not smug about it?
I’m gay. I emigrated and left Ireland a year ago because I couldn’t cope with being gay in rural Ireland any more. It’s hard to explain what it’s like to be ground down by casual homophobia – at the end of the day it’s not the vocal Iona types who’ll do it. It’s your own family who look uncomfortable at the mention of anything ‘a bit gay’, the constant having to mind what you say in case you slip up and make things weird, the nagging doubts that build up in your own head when there’s no positivity anywhere about who you are.
Without being boring about it – it’s shite. Since I left I’ve had space to get my head together, and I reckon in a few years I’ll have enough stability and confidence (from living in a more positive environment) to come back and just get on with the life I want to have in Ireland. I’m so happy about this referendum because it’ll change my life for the better in real and powerful ways if it passes. If it doesn’t, I don’t know what the fuck I’ll do. Probably not come home though.
So lookit – it’s obviously up to you what you want to do. But for a lot of us it comes down to a very simple fact – a yes vote will make our lives better and a no vote will hurt like fupp. That’s the heart of it.
Excellently put Ella – a yes vote is a generous, fair minded gesture that sends a powerful message that gay people ARE equal to straight people and so deserve the same relationship rights and respect in the eyes of the law. A no vote based on religious beliefs, or the imaginary impact on children, or on some other random reason, is a real kick in the teeth for gay people and how they see themselves in Irish society. And before anyone accuses me of being “too sensitive and to get over it”, trying growing up gay in Ireland – it’s not easy!
Remember folks, voting with “conscience” is not the same as voting with what the pulpit tells you on Sunday.
It’s YOUR conscience.
I usually vote with Conscience but she couldn’t get a flight home from Bratislava.
If you could vote by proxy, it’d be a Conscience Mark-for-it
*Sits back… and enjoys the punnage on that*
Leave him out of this.
:)
Looking at how this is worded, I feel this is actually a subtle campaign by the yes side.
Read it:
No Shame in it.
It’s not:
No shame in it.
The extra Capitalisation of ‘Shame’ implies the start of a new, or at a push, a secondary sentence,
With this reading, the poster tells students that their options are:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No. Shame in it.
Is the poster really trying to subliminally tell them that there is actually shame in voting ‘no’?
You decide, etc.
Sure at this stage I reckon half the No posters are put up by the Yes Campaign. It’s the only explanation for how enraging they can be.
Oh well done Sherlock for extrapolating a mountain from a misnomer.
The so-called Marriage Referendum is this year’s version of the ice bucket challenge: it’s not relevant to the vast majority of us but we can’t quite get over how many people we know who are enthusiastically embracing concepts they don’t fully comprehend simply because everybody else is doing it and they don’t want to be left behind.
Vote F**k Off and stop the State interfering in your private relationships.
Or we know people personally affected by the issues and want to support them.
A bucket of Ice for you to stick your head in… It’s bond to make you feel like you belong to something.
*bound
The Abortion referendum on the other hand was dear to the hearts of everyone, since an even greater proportion of us, men AND women have had abortions and know and love people who have done so.
Get a grip. Voting yes so your brother/sister/nephew/niece/son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter/friend/cousin can get wed isn’t a fad, it’s being a decent human being.
Men have had abortions?
I think you may have just derailed your own comment.
Fake Zuppy is fake.
Zuppy is his own sovereign being and has never let the so-called “State” interfere with his common law rights!
https://xkcd.com/1357/
“I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.”
Is he related to this guy? http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/confident-young-student-thumbs-up-sign-white-background-back-to-school-showing-31417904.jpg
If the spiral appears on the forehead then no – different tribe.
There is one outside DCU too -it’s as lame as all the other No posters.
Get yerselves down ta’Naas
For the best of the Homemade
No’s around
“Shergar wasn’t bred by two stallions”
They used Grand black markers too
(I would’a got a pic for ye but was driving and the opportunity for a U’ie didn’t present itself. But if anyone is out n’about there, head ta’Boots and look up)
*“Shergar wasn’t bred by two stallions”*
Compelling insight into the mentality.
I ain’t a for real cowboy but I sure am one heck of a stud
What’s that comment about not trusting somebody who says”trust me” – is the sense of shame at being associated with “No” starting to rub-off on them?
All joking aside about the poster; if the No voters are starting to feel there might be a sense of shame associated with their position, it says something about them and the message they are trying to get across.
My thoughts are more towards pride in who I am, with no sense of shame being associated with Yes :-)
https://conradbrunstrom.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/voting-no-to-marriage-equality-the-intellectual-cupboard-is-bare/