Goodbye Mammy



Emotive posterage (slightly more sophisticated than last time) for the No side in next month’s Marriage referendum by Mothers and Fathers Matter.

At a lamp pole near you.

Mothers And Fathers Matter (Facebook)



There that’s fixed.


Thanks Dale McDermott and David Higgins

Sponsored Link

127 thoughts on “Goodbye Mammy

    1. ahjayzis

      Why isn’t the state vindicating the rights of children being brought up by person(s) other than their biological daddy and mammy?

      1. Jane

        How? Are you prepared to accept the invasion of your personal life that would involve? It would be a massive, and in my opinion, unthinkable, enchroachment into the personal lives of citizens if the state were to try to force every couple who had conceived a baby to live together forever.

        It would also result in some very peculiar living situations, I imagine.

        1. ahjayzis

          I agree with you completely. But why aren’t’ the no side advocating this if they believe it?

          It’s always the case with that crowd that children yet unborn/concieved and entirely theoretical deserve protection, but existing kids, such as those being raised in same-sex headed households now, can f**k off and do one.

    2. Corky Duke

      Yea what if????? What if the childs gay dads/moms are childbeating psychos….

      A child deserves a Mother and Father end of. Vote No.

      1. NICE anne (dammit)

        A child deserves to be brought up by people who want and love that child. Would you deny any child this advantage in life?

        (oh and the guy adoption bill has already passed – the marriage equality vote has nothing to do with it)

      2. Fin

        What if what if!! Bla bla!!
        Children deserve 2 parents? Children deserve a mum and dad to be equal?
        Well what about me, my daddy dearest left myself and siblings when I was 5 years.
        I deserved a daddy , I was only one in my class in school who didn’t have both parents in school , should I have felt unequal through my own life cos only one parent at home????

  1. orla

    one of these went up outside my house yesterday. can I remove it? my inclination is that I am not permitted to do so, which is unfortunate. 22 May cannot come around soon enough!

        1. Jonotti

          I had a FF poster hanging outside my window. After a week, I just cut the strings, and dumped it. I did it in broad daylight, nobody stopped me. My anger levels decreased significantly too.

          1. Starina

            ooh. may have to invest in some good scissors and do a little tour of portobello/rathmines/ranelagh

  2. James

    I’m more surprised by the whole “they can put on the posters whatever they want” approach… I would assume content of posters should represent a) what’s under the referendum b) truth.

  3. Der

    It felt like someone punched me in the stomach as I walked by people putting these up in Ranalagh last night. I fear for how the school kids struggling with their sexuality will cope. Vote yes.

    1. Drogg

      Yeah when i was getting my coffee this morn i spotted how many of them there are in Ranelagh it sickened me.

      1. Jay

        Well, it’s probably one of the places that will have the highest yes vote, so maybe it’s being particularly targeted. Also could be Lucindas crew at work.

  4. Paolo

    I’m voting Yes in May but I’d like to know why, to the best of my knowledge, there isn’t a post on Broadsheet about the illegal artwork by Joe Caslin? Is it acceptable now to produce gigantic illegal murals now or is it only ok if you agree with the political message? Joe has stated that the poster is in support of the equality referendum.

    1. zackersetu

      Yes there is a definite question of planning laws (coughs at all the other instances where buildings and not just temporary installations of paper ink and glue have escaped the rigours of planning laws).

      I do say however. … 2 men embracing isn’t a lie put there to mislead and scare!!

      Just saying.

    2. Seriously

      Why is it illegal?

      There has been some concerns over whether it required planning permission (is it a form or advertising etc.) but it’s hardly illegal.

      1. Custo

        I think it’s 1) the scale of the piece could deem it ‘obtrusive’ & 2) it’s on the side of a listed building.

        You would think though, with his previous large pieces in Galway & on Powerscourt that he (or whoever deals with planning applications on his behalf) would have kown that, otherwise it’s a pretty big ball to have dropped.

        1. James

          If it’s really as easy to remove with water as he claims, it obviously wasn’t permanent art anyway. DCC said they probably wouldn’t issue permission. Plus it would take months, so there’s no way it would make it up before referendum.

          I’m going to put up massive banner on my house before referendum, by the time anyone comes to take it down it’ll all be done and dusted :)

          1. Paolo

            … regardless of any moral issue or debate on the image’s quality or message, regulations must be enforced.
            “It’s the equivalent of having an ad on the building; it’s unauthorised and constitutes a breach of the planning act,”

            Councillor Mannix Flynn

            It don’t matter whether it is permanent or not.

      2. orla

        Under the planning Act, “works” include any wallpaper or other material placed on interior or exterior walls of a protected structure. permission is needed for “works”. DCC did have the power to overlook “trivial” or “minor” works but seems like they chose not to exercise this power here.

      3. Paolo

        The problem is that it is, as Joe himself stated, a political poster or one intended to support one side of a political debate. It doesn’t matter whether it is accurate or not. Seeing as we are all so very quick to criticise others for ignoring planning laws, it seems a little hypocritical to fob it off as a non-issue.

        I doubt that you be so flippant if were a 30 foot high poster (without planning) by the catholic church saying that they are against marriage equality.

        What’s good for the goose etcetera ….

        1. Drogg

          Joe’s work is a piece of art these posters that the no side are putting up are no just ugly they are blatant lies so i see the difference there. The problem is that the no side has no creativity because ironically they have no souls.

          1. Paolo

            It doesn’t matter if it is art and I’m not comparing it to the cr@ppy No side poster. He should have sought planning permission for it but instead, he knew that he could use the system to ensure that it stayed up , at least, until May 22nd.

            Broadsheet is full of examples of developers and shysters manipulating the planning process to their advantage and we rightly decry them.

            From an aesthetic point of view, while there is obvious huge technical proficiency displayed in producing and displaying the mural, I don’t actually think it is very good as an image. I just think it is a little boring and includes too much negative space. Even if it were a 30 foot high Banksy, it would still be in breach of the planning laws.

          2. Shanti

            Er, Paolo, you realise Banksy never gets planning permission, right? That’s sort of the whole point with him..

          3. Drogg

            He had the building owners permission which generally is enough but DCC are attempting to have it removed on a technicality not really the same as back room deals between FG and DoB.

          4. Paolo

            No Drogg, building owners are not allowed to display 30 foot tall advertisements without gaining permission. Depending on where you are, you would be required to seek planning to put a large advertising sign in your front garden, regardless of the permission you granted yourself.

          5. Drogg

            But its not an advertisement. It has no message displayed on it, no contacts, no product or service information, it is a decoration of two men hugging, nothing more.

    3. ahjayzis

      Maybe cause it’s only paper stuck on the wall, it hasn’t damaged the building fabric, is immediately reversible and it’s really not a gigantic deal?

      Great to hear you’re voting yes, though it seems odd when confronted with evidence of abject, disgraceful, outright LIES on NO posters up and down the country, your only submission is about a picture of two lads having a bit of a hug…

      1. Paolo

        I’m pointing out that there are no posts about the Caslin mural. There ARE posts about these false “No” posters. I’m not sure why you are confused.

        1. ahjayzis

          I’m not sure why you’re confused. It’s fairly straightforward, obviously broadsheet doesn’t find a temporary poster of two lads hugging offensive to their sensibilities, but does find referendum posters carrying blatant lies and irrelevant misinformation offensive, perhaps?

          Because it is genuinely offensive, it’s a distortion of democracy when one side uses lies unopposed, and these god bothering regressives are ALWAYS at it on any issue because they haven’t the courage to just come out and say they’re honest-to-god prejudiced.

          Which bothers you more, as a Yes voter? The other side lying constantly and debating anything BUT the issue, or a one-off temporary mural of hot guys having a cuddle?

          1. Paolo

            Why are you attacking me? I’ve made my feelings clear on what I think about the posters above. My comment has nothing to do with them. I’ll paraphrase my comment from early.

            “… one side is campaigning with facts while the other side is campaigning with posters like the ones above.”

            I have also clearly pointed out that it doesn’t matter if you like the Caslin work or whether it is temporary, it is in breach of planning laws.

            Clearly you think that it is ok for the planning laws to be ignored if you are in favour of the message. Would you approve if you didn’t like the message?

    4. Benny

      The mural on Georges Street is not illegal. It was permitted by the owner of the property making it perfectly legal. Do you really think a cherry picker, and a couple of hours of work on one of Dublin’s main streets would have been allowed go ahead illegally.

      1. Paolo

        You may be surprised to find out that property owners are not the sole arbiter of planning consent.

    5. Dubloony

      I passed it on the way to work and must say, its is a stunning piece of art.
      There is no text on it at all, there’s no logos, no branding not even a tiny “vote yes”.

      There’s grafitti, posters, street art all over Dublin. No-body raises an eyebrow over them.

    6. Lalalala

      Ricks burgers own that building and apparently gave full consent for the mural to be erected. So therefore, it is not illegal.

    1. orla

      they have hung the ones on my street too high too reach without a very long ladder. any one have a very long ladder I could borrow?

      1. newsjustin

        They probably did that so that people intent on removing posters would be less inclined to do so. Fair enough I say, lot of unscrupulous people out there who would try to muzzle either side of this debate.

      2. Leela2011

        hmm just remembered I bought my dad telescopic hedge clipper last year from Aldi… could be handy!

  5. Mani

    From the looks of that second poster they’re advocating interspecies marriage, yer man’s definitely a vulcan.

  6. edalicious

    What, exactly, is the legality of defacing election posters? Just out of curiosity, of course…

    1. Ms Piggy

      I’ve been wondering the same thing. But presumably, if there’s no regulation of the posters’ content, then there’s also no regulation of that content being…altered ;-)

    2. Dubloony

      Happens all the time. Who’s to know who did whatever to them.

      Trick is to get them up high that they are not easily reached.

  7. Nessy

    I wouldn’t mind but same sex couples marrying does not equate to children being robbed from their parents as the posters suggest. It’s about equality and offering same sex couples the same recognition as heterosexual couples in the eyes of the law.

    If the SSM bill is passed, I for one will not be rounding up my fellow dykes and gay boys at the stroke of midnight, robbing local kids from my heterosexual neighbours; be they married or single parents…

    If people weren’t so naive in this country to believe the sh*te put up on posters and supposedly spouted from a fictitious book about a guy who was his own da, it’d be hilarious…

    1. Przemek

      It’s even more odd than that. Children protection bill is done and dusted. President signed it in only couple of weeks ago. Gay people can adopt children the same way now as they will regardless if referendum passes or not. Marriage has NOTHING to do with it.

      1. Nessy

        Gay people can adopt legally now yes, but they cannot get married as the law stands

        The marriage equality bill has EVERYTHING to do with marriage. And for anyone that says somethign along the lines of “ah sure they have civil partnerships… sure isn’t it the same as marriage…”

        No it’s completely different. Marriage is protected in the Irish constitution unlike civil partnerships. Any successive governments can revoke the civil partnerships bill should they wish so this referendum about EQUAL MARRIAGE has EVERYTHING to do with marriage

        *WE caN ALL uSe CapS, doesn’t MAkE a PoiNT MorE VaLiD

        1. James

          You barking at a wrong tree here.

          What I meant it that surrogacy and all those rubbish NO posters have nothing to do with marriage (which is what referendum is about).

      1. ahjayzis

        Intolerance of ignorance is a virtue. There is no constitutional right for opposite-sex married couples to partake in surrogacy or any AHR – therefore there will be no right to it for same-sex couples. It’s not intolerant to point out a lie created by the NO side to mask their actual, real intolerance and prejudice behind ‘save teh chizzlers’.

  8. JimmytheHead

    Fred and Rose West were straight and loved kids…. Same with Myra Hindley and her fella. Great parents they were and not a gay to be seen.

    I feel a bit ill

  9. Custo

    We’re going to see a lot more obfuscating and strawmanning from the No side in the next few weeks once they really ramp up their campaign.

      1. James

        Really, Ollie, and how would assure this right, exactly? Is state supposed to provide replacement mother or father if biological one is unavailable?

          1. Jane

            Why are you using a quote you don’t understand? The better solution would be for *you* to ask Leo Varadkar what me means before quoting him again, and then you won’t need to ignore questions based on your use of the quote lessening the chance of you looking like a total eejit.

      2. Jane

        How? Will you tolerate the massive expansion of the powers of the state to enforce this, should it happen? The level of state intervention and monitoring of people’s lives would be unimaginable. Would you suggest prison for parents who don’t want to live together any longer? Of course, it would have to be some kind of a family prison, since they’d be obliged, even when at the pleasure of the state, to care for their childrem who, in order to achive the primary priciple, would also need to be imprisioned.

      3. Lorcan Nagle

        You’ll be sorting out a fellah for my aunt who raised her son alone then? Or my friend who’s husband died in a bike crash a few years ago?

      4. Drogg

        ollie i don’t want to tell you that you are a moron but as someone raised very successfully by a single parent i am going to have to tell you that you are a fupping moron.

      5. Shanti

        Where is this right proclaimed?
        every child has the right to parents. There’s a difference, all the charters and statements on childrens rights specifically say parent rather than making that mistake.

  10. Banjo Bob

    I’m considering not voting at all in the referendum because both sides seem to scream ‘You’re with us or you’re against us’

      1. Banjo Bob

        It’s more a case of if you’re a homophobe or a destroyer of families. It seems like anyone who questions either side is instantly labeled one or the other.

        1. James

          Well, again, marriage has nothing to do with kids and having or not having right to mother and father. Children protection act is signed into law, so gay people can adopt. I can understand of No side had a problem with that, but this is not under referendum here.

          The question is : do you think gay people should be allowed to get married .if you don’t think so, obviously you believe their love or relationship is not as good as man and a woman so you are in fact homophobe (please note that this doesn’t need to mean that you’re affraid of gays).

          If you vote Yes, I don’t know how can you be family breaker… well, unless someone leaves their current spouse to get married to a gay person of the same sex… ?

          1. Banjo Bob

            My point exactly! Just because someone might not care either way does not make them a homophobe. As I said: ‘You’re with us or you’re against us’

          2. James

            No, you’re a homophobe if you vote No.

            If you don’t vote no one will call you a homophobe.

            Albeit it is weird that people died for your right to vote and you “don’t care” :p You know what they say: it’s nice to be nice. What if you don’t vote, and No vote comes though, and next year your child/nephew/niece/granny i donno comes out as gay? I wonder how would you feel then about lost opportunity. But this is concious thing :)

        2. Jane

          “It’s more a case of if you’re a homophobe or a destroyer of families.”

          The key is, one side is accurate, the other is a baseless lie. Refusing to make that distinction and saying they’re all as bad as each other is a bit of a childish cop out, really.

          1. Banjo Bob

            The Yes side is very much ‘You’re with us or you’re against us’.
            I respect everyone’s opinion but it’s very difficult to express that you are considering voting no because you’re immediately branded a homophobe.

          2. Jane

            Well, I’ve asked for the non-homophobic reasons (I’m assured they exist) for voting no at least 40 times as many of those who are bored with my asking this question will no doubt attest, but not one person has attempted any explanation. Perhaps you can satisfy my curiosity?

        3. Marie

          Bob there’s people in every referendum/debate screaming stuff at each other, mostly, I imagine, because it creates interest/reaction in TV shows/newspapers columns and they make themselves a media career out of it. Secondly because they feel better for having vented on the internet. That’s every issue/debate though, not just this one.
          At the end of the day inform yourself of the issues and vote however you see fit.

          I will say though that the posters mentioned here do hurt, it IS like a kick in the guts. The posters make the assumption that gay people are in illegitimate relationships and should stay that way, even if that status quo is counterproductive to the many children gay couples/single people are already raising.

          However I’m pretty sure it’s deliberate in its tone in order to cause a reaction that would suggest the ‘Yes’ side are anti-debate. Nothing more pro-debate than getting out and campaigning which is the only reaction we should have. I’ll happily debate the issues with any one who has a genuine interest in informing themselves for the purpose of doing their civic duty

        4. Nigel

          You do realise that you don’t have to tell a single solitary soul which way you voted? Like, ever, if you don’t want to.

    1. Paolo

      That’s sort of what a vote is. I don’t think there will be a “Maybe” option on the ballot. I am open to correction. The veracity of the message from both sides should tell you all you need to know. One side is using facts while the other is producing posters like the ones above.

  11. MotorCyclist

    See what they did there in the headline?


    Yizz’ll have to get up a bit earlier lads.

  12. Nigel

    People will vote in the Marriage referendum, then in the President’s age referendum, then wonder where they’re supposed to put their mark on the Kill All Mothers For Surrogacy referendum,

  13. Dubloony

    So are kids of single parent going to be rounded up and given to … wait, we did that already.

    Haven’t seen any posters in my neck of the woods.

    Where are people seeing these?

  14. Nikkeboentje

    I am straight and I think marriage is a complete sham, however, I believe everyone should have the right to enter into this sham if they want.

  15. jumper

    Anyone else notice the hypocrisy of using the love heart in the o in an attempt to discriminate against love in same sex couples?

  16. collynomial

    Here’s the stock image from the first poster:
    Here’s the website of the photographer:
    Some very nice family oriented pictures on it.

    I had hoped that there would be some obvious and flagrant abuse of copyright, but I don’t think that that’s the case. The image is however used a bunch of times probably without permission across the web to show for various ends.

  17. Kevin

    Apologies if this has been covered already but, based on the first poster, are the No side also opposed to adoption is is their anti-surrogacy stance only when it relates to same-sex couples?

    1. Barry the Hatchet

      They’re not opposed to adoption by straight married couples (David Quinn has adopted children). But I think they are opposed to surrogacy, even for straight people. Though, having said that, they don’t put much effort into campaigning on the issue unless they can use it to attack gay people.

  18. Simon

    I didn’t know there was a referendum about Surrogacy coming up. Why did no one tell me about that? The Marriage referendum has nothing to do with Surrogacy as far as I can see. So these posters need to be taken down and can be used if and when we have a referendum about surrogacy.

    1. newsjustin

      It has a little bit to do with surrogacy and the family to be fair.

      This whole mess could have been avoided if the Government hadn’t left it till the VERY last minute to sort out the legislation around this whole area. Really silly.

      1. Don Pidgeoni

        OK, i’ll bite. How? Gay couples can use surrogates without being married. Gay couples can adopt without being married.

  19. squigleyjoop

    I think this is the first time I’ve had a proper emotional reaction to anything the ‘no’ campaign has said. Up until now I’ve been able to view their arguments as silly and dismiss them. The straw clutching was so obvious it didn’t bother me too much. For some reason seeing those posters made me feel ill and sad in a strange way. My parents divorced straight after the referendum. I can remember the stigma attached to the whole divorce thing as a kid. I can remember not being able to tell anybody for fear of judgement. I remember seeing all the posters about how divorce ruins family and being aware (as a 6 year old) that it was definitely the best thing that could happen to mine. I can remember hearing members of my parent’s own families dismiss them as disgraceful for choosing that option. But it was definitely the right option. The fact it took so long to be legalised is ludicrous.

    I’m very aware how different the two matters are but the way they have been argued against is the same. All this hyperbole about always needing a mother and father and the nerve to claim it’s done in the name of love. So many people in Ireland have been brought up outside of the typical family unit and turned out just fine. I guess this is where the visceral reaction to the poster came from. They insult my upbringing. They insult my family. They insult the superb job my parents did under extremely difficult circumstances. These posters cause all that hurt without the whole marriage issue coming up so I can’t even imagine how hurtful they are to the people directly affected by it.

    I’m voting yes and I’m sure there are people out there who have genuine reasons for voting no. I don’t agree with the view that everybody who votes no is a bigot or homophobe. But the reasons spouted on these posters equate to bigotry in my mind. They are lies told by the conservative right to scare people into voting no. Be a bigot by all means but embrace your bigotry. Admit that the ‘everybody has a right to a mother and father’ line is nonsense and you are just trying to scare people. Stick to telling us ‘the bible says so’. It’s not a reason I agree with but at least it’s something you genuinely believe in rather than lies and scare tactics.

  20. Tomboktu

    If a company selling biscuits put up posters with false claims in them, it would be ordered to take them down, so why in a referendum on the fundamental rights of citizens is Mothers and Fathers Matter allowed with impunity to publish its utterly false ‘SURROGACY?’ poster?

    It’s time to change the law on truth in referendum campaigns.

    1. newsjustin

      And who decides what the truth is? Your point contains the implicit bias that the No side must be lying and that the yes side must not be.

      Will I decide on the truthiness of referendum posters?

      1. Drogg

        Well firstly the referendum has nothing to do with surrogacy and secondly children raised by single parent families have been coming out as successful adults for centuries also these studies about same sex parented children happiness.

        So that shows that both those posters are lies with evidence and not scaremongering lies like the No side.

      2. Jane

        *And who decides what the truth is?*

        In this case, objective reality.

        *Your point contains the implicit bias that the No side must be lying and that the yes side must not be.*

        Yes, because the No side are lying when they associate this referendum with surrogacy and they’re lying when they imply that voting no will keep families together.

        *Will I decide on the truthiness of referendum posters?*

        From your own point of view, probably. As a national policy, hopefully not.

      3. Tomboktu

        A properly mandated referendum commission.

        The original referendum commission had the job of getting barristers to produce cases for and against the proposed amendment (that task has been abolished).

  21. CousinJack

    Whats renting out a womb gotta do with motherhood? and how does it have the slightest relevance to the referendum, which is about marriage not childrens rights (legislation already passed by Dail)

    I really really don’t understand why a women lending or renting her womb to a couple, is significantly different to selling/giving blood (most countries blood is bought), there is no genetic connection.

    If this another subconscious Irish catholic hang up? something to do with mary and the ‘immaculate’ conception?

    1. ReproBertie

      On a point of order there Cousin Jack catholics believe that Mary was the immaculate conception – i.e. she was concevied without sin – and not her first born.

      1. CousinJack

        Judging by the comments below, many catholics aren’t sure about this ‘immaculate’ business, so as an atheist I can only aplogise for my lack of detailed theological knowledge :-)

  22. NICE anne (dammit)

    catholics believe that Mary was the immaculate conception

    They do? First time I heard this. I always thought it was the hippie lad with the beard and sandals that was the immaculate con. (ception)

    1. ReproBertie

      That’s a common misconception. The thinking was that Mary had to be a perfect vessel to carry the son of god so she couldn’t possibly have been tainted with original sin, thus she was concevied immaculate. I think it was at Lourdes that they claim she identified herself by saying “I am the immaculate conception”. There’s also a refrain used in one of the prayers that goes “Oh Mary conceived without sin – Pray for us who have recourse to you”.

  23. Anyways

    This occupation of the debate to introduce children is sickening to be honest. The people arent voting on children, they are voting to enshrine equal rights. Same sex couples DO raise children currently however they face discrimination , in this way a no vote can only discriminate further against future generations. Do the right thing folks, for the future, for Ireland, for yourselves. vote yes on May 22nd

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link