murphyProfessor John A Murphy

Article 41 of the Constitution, as of now, clearly deals with the man-woman based family. If the proposed amendment is popularly approved, then a “marriage between two persons of the same sex will have the same status under the Constitution as a marriage between a man and a woman” and “will be recognised as a family and be entitled to the Constitutional protection for families” (Referendum Commission).

Thus, if the referendum is passed, Article 41, heretofore unambiguously and exclusively heterosexual, will also recognise a homosexual couple “as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society . . . a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights , antecedent and superior to all positive law”. Moreover such a couple will be guaranteed protection by the State “as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State” (Article 1.2).

Because I reject this grotesque nonsense, I will be voting No.

John A Murphy

 Irish Times Letters



Oh brother.

Miss Panti writes:

Sometimes the mask slips and they reveal what they’ve tried so hard to conceal: their true feelings. I think it’s very revealing that David Quinn is prepared to endorse the use of the word “grotesque” about gay relationships and families.

I can think of lots of things that are grotesque. Extending constitutional protection to all families is not one of them. Even families that David so witheringly disapproves of. I would call it “fair”, “reasonable”, “compassionate”, “considerate”, “respectful”, or even “the very least we can do”. But not “grotesque”.

Miss Panti (Facebook)

Thanks Andy Sheridan

76 thoughts on “Grotesqueries

  1. newsjustin

    I recommend that people read John A Murphy’s full letter (BS have provided the link). It puts his musings in some context.

        1. Nially

          I’ve read it. It does not make his use of “grotesque” to describe LGBT families any better. Thanks though!

        2. Don Pidgeoni

          Except he is wrong. So what are you informing yourself with? Lies and mistruths?

    1. Joe the Lion

      that is true

      in the full context of the gibbering raving gibberish it exhibits

    2. pedeyw

      Is there a context in which calling gay marriage “grotesque nonsense” is okay? Cos I can’t see it.

    3. Jane

      Uh huh. It’s hard to imagine a context where a word like “grotesque” is used with reference to a human being without being grotesquely offensive. Surprisingly, this letter doesn’t manage to cross that bridge.

      In any event, the traditional constitutional marriage that John A. Murphy advocates is between a man and a walking womb slave as it was in the 1930s. For some reason, the No side aren’t too keen to describe how they see women in the type of marriage they’re advocating.

      I wonder why that is.

      In any event, this letter, the grotesque endorsement from David Quinn and the incomprehensible intervention by the monk is a bit of a boost for the Yes side, I think, and I’m sure you agree, definite Yes voter who just wants us to do it all right, NJ.

  2. Laughter Tack.

    Is there a vote for something coming up?

    Odd, you would think there would be more posts about it on this “broad… Sheet”.

    I will check back again in 30 seconds to see if this vote thing gets covered.

  3. ZeligIsJaded

    Self flagellating ninja priest from The DaVinci Code rows in with some nonsense.

    And his mickey wrapped in barbed wire.

    Grotesque indeed.

    1. newsjustin

      Easier to deliberately misunderstand and clutch one’s pearls.

      “He called us grotesque!” The implicit insinuation being that he is a homophobic hater. he couldn’t possibly have a point even worth listening to.

      The Yes side have learnt nothing and are starting to circle the plughole.

      1. ReproBertie

        What, exactly, are the Yes side supposed to learn and who is providing these lessons?

      2. dan

        That’s exactly what it is, he says several things which amount to: gay relationships are not heterosexual and shouldn’t be treated equally because they’re grotesque. Is there some nuance I missed?

      3. Kieran NYC

        Try not to sound so gleeful at the fact that a lot of people would be hurt and devastated should the referendum fail.

        Since you’re so much of a ‘Yes’ supporter, doncha know.

          1. Kieran NYC

            The only reason it is a ‘mess’ is that you shout loudly at every opportunity that it is so, disregard any evidence to the contrary, and never seem to have a problem with the No campaign.

          2. newsjustin

            I just say what I see. The No side have the upper hand now. Yes is haemorrhaging support.

          3. Kieran NYC

            What a load of bolloxology.

            You’re someone who continually talks up the No side on this site at every single opportunity, saying they have reasonable points, refuses to debate what they are, seems to have a perverse enjoyment in tormenting those terrified of a No win by smearing the Yes campaign, and still floats the farcical line “I’m a Yes voter”.

            Bollox. Get a life and feck off out of mine.

          4. newsjustin

            I’m beginning to think the Yes side doesn’t really want my support – or the support of anyone who isn’t in 100% blind agreement. I’ll have to think about where that leaves me.

          5. Don Pidgeoni

            You mean the blind support you give every post about the no side regardless of accuracy or fact? With friends like you who needs enemies eh?

    2. ahjayzis

      Grotesque isn’t a word bandied about all that frequently.

      This was a dog whistle and everyone knows it.

      1. Joe the Lion

        I bandy it about myself from time to time

        Usually when up against rabid dogs

    3. Nially

      Yeah, weird thing, when you say “The change to the law required to recognise these people is so ridiculous that I consider it grotesque”, you’re making a pretty harsh value judgement on the people you consider less-than-equal. Learn to think.

    4. bruce01

      Well he refers to the changing of the constitution to include marriage of homosexual couples “as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society” as grotesque. So I would disagree with your assertion that it is just the change to the constitution that he finds grotesque. If I find a sentence in a book about gay people grotesque, it probably isn’t the font and paper that I am offended by.

    5. orla

      This is what he is calling grotesque- “Thus, if the referendum is passed, Article 41, heretofore unambiguously and exclusively heterosexual, will also recognise a homosexual couple “as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society . . . a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights , antecedent and superior to all positive law”. Moreover such a couple will be guaranteed protection by the State “as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State” ”

      he is saying equal recognition of a same sex union is grotesque. I can read and i’m disgusted by his implied sentiments.

      1. Mary buckley

        Grotesque is defined in OED as repulsive, ugly and other horrible stuff. He uses vitriolic langiage, dismisses the legitimate aim of LGBT for marriage rights in an insulting manner and barely bothers to cover his contempt for equality. The subtext here is profoundly unpleasant. Sad to see a formerly respected scholar descend to the hyperbole of the mob. I am ashamed to share a country with such an intolerant boor.

        1. newsjustin

          There is only one side showing mob behaviour in this referendum. It’s not the No side. Not that I would say that Murphy is part of the No side. He’s just a man who wrote a letter.

  4. ReproBertie

    “Article 41 of the Constitution, as of now, clearly deals with the man-woman based family.”

    How is this clear given the Constitution does not mention man-woman based family? In fact the Constitution does not define family anywhere. This lack of a definition means there’s a lack of restriction on the definition meaning the state is free to recognise unmarried couples, single parents, married childless couples, same sex couples, civil partnership couples and whatever you’re having yourself as a family.

    1. Domestos

      This is correct. What we now need is a referendum changing the definition of the word “consummation”!

  5. TheQ47

    Maybe I’m missing something, but the article of the constitution which will be changed if this referendum is passed (article 41.1) does not “clearly deal[s] with the man-woman based family”. In fact, nowhere in this article does it say that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

    For clarity, article 41.1 of the constitution as it now stands reads as follows:

    ARTICLE 41
    1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

    2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

    Again, I may be missing something, but show me where it mentions man and woman in the above, Professor.

    The only part of this article which mentions gender at all, is in article 41.2.1
    2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

    1. Jess

      I guess thats why he is a professor of history, not law.

      Though in my opinion that is even more egregious, as historically his view of marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, for life has been in the minority of cases

  6. Bacchus

    as voting day gets nearer the cracks will become even wider in this thin veneer of concern and “christianity” from the No campaign.

    1. 评论员

      so long as they don’t get so big as i might damaged my alloys if i hit one, just got them refurbished by a crowd up in Dundalk, great bunch of lads, plus got 2 coffee refills while I was waiting.

    1. scottser

      yeah, but their dna will get trapped in amber and millions of years from now, they’ll bring him and his ilk back to life and open up a park where they spew this nonsense out for the amusement of future gay space aliens.

  7. Jess

    Unlike the rest of the no camp at least this guy is being honest. He is against it because ‘gay people are icky’

    1. Don Pidgeoni

      Also, they can’t do sex right so its not proper. Only p in v is the right and godly way to do sex

      1. Jess

        Lets listen to the guys who never had sex, and voluntarily don’t start families. Surely they’ll be the experts on sex and families.

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          I still don’t get how people can keep a straight face at those pre-marriage sessions. All that nonsense so you can get a few nice pictures?

          1. Lorcan Nagle

            The priest at my pre-marraige course said that he loved little kids. And he didn’t get that it might be even slightly inappropriate.

        2. ahjayzis

          I don’t know how voluntary it was with Roe-nawn ‘confirmed-bachelor’ Mullen.

      2. scottser

        it’s only for making the babbies, don. you’re not allowed break sweat or crack a smile even. oh no -10 hail mary’s for that.

  8. p

    The least you could do is put the full text of JA Murphy’s letter in the article instead of quoting it out of context.

  9. Derval

    By the way, is there any truth to the recent allegations that the No side are making – that the Yes side is receiving massive amounts of money from USA?

    1. downtowntrain

      The No side are funded by the owner of Domino’s pizza so I was surprised to hear them play that card.

    2. Lorcan Nagle

      I seriously doubt it. But on a wholly unrelated note, I got a vote no pamphlet through the door the other day – from the same lot who put up most of the posters – with a publisher’s address of Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, which is the site of the offices of incorporation for a significant chunk of the American companies who are headquarted in Ireland, and their lawyers.

      I’m sure it’s just a happy coincidence.

  10. Tá Frilly Keane

    Years ago
    Seriously years ago

    I wrote a book
    (An did nathin’ with it)

    But there is a side story where one’s the baddies
    Breaks into this lads house
    And plasters the place with the word

    ( a deranged drug n’drink bender reaction to his having it off with the heroine who carries some scars)

    I’m actually very disturbed by David Quinn’s use of it now

    I don’t know if I’m the rhymes with punt
    Or he is

    Its an incredible word
    Maybe we’re both too light weight to use it

  11. Derval

    This letter on the same page is fupping brillo:
    “A chara, – Isn’t it time that the broadcasting rules on referendums were altered to ensure that discussion centres on the actual topic to be voted on? The vast majority of the debate on the airways regarding the marriage referendum seems to be on adoption and surrogacy, which the Referendum Commission has made clear are not related to this vote. Responsibility toward actually debating the issue is surely more important rather than a fixation on giving equal seconds to the Yes and No sides. – Is mise,
    Dublin 7.”

    1. bob

      Trouble is… then there’s nothing left for the No side to “debate”.

      I agree that the moderators of these debates should be more ready to intervene when some of these outrageous claims/lies/misinformation are spouted…

  12. Steve

    This might be a bit controversial but I reckon I could change David Quinn to a yes in about 40 seconds and ram that article of the constitution down his throat.

    I’d bring him on a little stroll down amien street on a Saturday morning about 10 past the meth clinics where hetero couples are coming out holding their cups of concentrated sugar shouting at some toddler running after them, saying “hurry up ye bleeding prick”, while another malnourished/fed on Burger King child is screaming in the pram being veered between 4 lane traffic.

    “There you go david – that hetero under our constitution and your article are deemed to be more appropriate parents for our children than two respectable loving men or women in a stable couple”.

  13. Owen

    He left out the Initial sentence in Article 40 before he jumped into Article 41.

    1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

    Opps… awkward.

Comments are closed.