The Whole Pantigate Thing

at

Screen Shot 2014-12-01 at 12.06.15Screen Shot 2014-12-01 at 12.09.131-BZdxcpokZrFVGTAzocFD-w

Chrissy Curtin writes

I wrote and illustrated this big, sprawling timeline on the whole Pantigate thing from a couple months ago. Thought you might be interested what with the Referendum on the way…

EXPLORE: Pantigate: An Illustrated Timeline (Chrissy Curtin)

23 thoughts on “The Whole Pantigate Thing

    1. Freia

      Oops sorry, see that your statement was illustrating the correct way of saying it. In fairness, I’d say it was just a typo, unless Chrissy’s North American.

  1. Spaghetti Hoop

    I do like the illustrations.

    Quite a revealing sequence of events and I admire Panti for enduring the whole thing with dignity and a great sense of humour. But I’m finding the connection between the referendum on gay marriage and the homophobic treatment of Panti a little forced. If it were a referendum which proposed that all citizens were afforded equal rights then it would be far more relevant.

    1. Alison

      I think you’ll find many who argue that it is a referendum on equal rights so that same-sex citizens can access and benefit from the same marriage rights as their straight counterparts. Of course there is a connection between marriage for same-sex couples and homophobia – to suggest otherwise would be nonsensical. That is not to imply that there are not people who have honest and bona fide objections (I genuinely have no issue with the religious brigade as long as they are upfront that their main animus is religious but this alas is the very last argument you’ll hear from the doctrinaire and shadowy over-archingly religious Iona Institute) but there are equally quite a lot who oppose out of blind ideology, ignorance and prejudice often hiding behind what they see as “reasonable arguments”.

      1. Spaghetti Hoop

        “…access and benefit from the same marriage rights as their straight counterparts.”
        But why just marriage? Why not just amend the Constitution to not discriminate any citizen for their gender, race, sexual orientation etc. etc. There’s an element of tokenism at work here. The legislators don’t want to tackle the gay adoption debate – awful terminology but that’s what it’s known as – and they are not addressing the homophobic policies so blatant within our organisations. Are we to applaud the gay marriage referendum as some sort of ‘turning point’ and expect that people who have been mistreated because there gay will all pipe down? Nah.

        1. ahjayzis

          Actually I think the plan is to legislate and put the adoption question* to bed BEFORE the referendum, so that it really is all about whether two consenting adults can get wed regardless of dangly bits/absence thereof. I think this is a fairly sound idea, since there’s no constitutional issue around adoption and it removes a leg of the tangent-stool the regressives always use in any marriage debate. I.e. that its all about stealing your kids and dissolving your marriage.

          It’s cruel and twisted enough that a minority have to beg the indulgence of the majority for a right like this, but this lessens the damage the likes of Ronan Mullen can do to gay kids having to listen to him validate their worst fears.

          *the question being the anomaly that a married couple or a single person, gay or straight, can apply to be adoptive parents, but a gay couple cannot apply jointly.

      2. ahjayzis

        What on earth are you insinuating? We all know the august Iona Institute’s misgivings are purely based around the fact that mammy’s and daddy’s are great and little boys and little girls need their mammy and daddy and no one ever marries for any other reason but to sanctify a bit of light sex purely to make new little boys and little girls. It’s a perfectly fine objection and accurately represents what marriage is all about, from a bunch of totally well adjusted people with a good grasp on modern life.

Comments are closed.