Wake Up, Queeple


notogo kmills1

Now, for yeh.

A Vote No leaflet from The Marriage Equality Referendum that was being distributed by a delegate at the Fianna Fail Ard Fheis (top) and a reprint of a Sunday Independent piece by Keith Mills (bottom) currently being used as a leaflet by Vote No campaigners.

Irish Election Literature

(H/T: Alan)

Sponsored Link

56 thoughts on “Wake Up, Queeple

  1. Gary

    An absolute disgrace. He should be ashamed of himself. How stupid can you be to be a gay man and not think equal rights are fair?

    1. bisted

      …being a contrarian generally seems to be very lucrative in Ireland if you can get yourself noticed – Dunphy, Hook, Waters etc. A niche like this doesn’t come along too often for the likes of Kieth Mills and even if he fades back into oblivion after the referendum he’ll be considerably richer.

        1. Kieran NYC

          And that c*** O’Doherty. His interview on The Last Word last week is the only ‘debate’ that has made my blood boil thus far. He’s on ‘our’ side, you see. But only if the gays aren’t too gay about the campaign and sit down and shut up.

  2. Wayne.F

    160 differences between, civil partnership and civil marriage. So the 1st point is wrong what else is?

    1. Grouse

      That’s impressive! I wonder if they’re referencing a real screening.

      “Praise of homosexuality led to rapists agreeing it is great.” Blasted rapists, always aligning themselves with popular opinion.

  3. Jane

    Of course the real problem is that the media can’t let any eejit who says controversial stuff alone. He’s like Gay-tie Hopkins – happy to say anything so long as it gets him a small bit of the pathetic attention he’s looking for and, of course, the likes of the Sunday Independent are so desperate for content they just lap it up.

    1. ReproBertie

      Also the balance thing requires the ramblings of a lunatic be set on the same level as reasoned debate.

  4. Jordofthejungle

    The reference to the hard-done-by Church of Rome is perfect. More of this please!

    I wouldn’t worry too much about Mills: an attention seeker apt to tie himself in knots once challenged.

  5. fluffybiscuits

    His arguments are all hot air

    There are 160+ differences to marriage and civil partnership so that takes care of that point and marriage is being extended not redefined (maybe legally but its being extended is more correct to say). Children will still have parents

    Again nonsense

  6. Jess

    Im sick of this whole redefining marriage nonsense. Marriage between one man and one woman for love is about 150 years old. Throughout most of human existence it was polygamous, then it was mostly for economic reasons, then we introduced divorce. Even in Ireland a religious wedding was an odd thing until the 17th century, it being a much more informal affair.

    These people should actually look at the past they want to return to

  7. ReproBertie

    “Obviously other family units exist, and children can be raised successfully outside of traditional marriage and while all children should be protected equally in law, marriage should remain the cornerstone of the family unit.”

    Well, given that other family units exist and children can be raised successfully outside of traditional marriage then why should marriage remain the cornerstone of the family unit? Seriously, why?

  8. Drogg

    I have said it before and i will say it again Keith Mills is an attention seeker, he just causes more controversy to shine more light on himself nothing more.

  9. Bobby

    Gays can’t be trusted. Keith is advocating a no vote. But Keith is gay, so he can’t be trusted. Vote yes.

  10. Odis

    I see, one document from the Fianna Fail Ard Fheis, which we learned yesterday, was being trolled by headers.
    Another – a reprint from an article in the Sunday Independent.
    Both presented in the same post.
    No agenda here Chompsky?

    1. Tony

      Not only posted together here but also published one after the other on Irish Election Literature. Coincidence? Or sinister crypto facist anti FF plot by [REDACTED] mole within BS? We’re through the looking glass, here people.

    1. Casey

      I don’t like the principles of the man but publishing his phone number is out of order.


  11. LetsBeMoreTolerant

    It would appear that the level of tolerance being shown by certain YES supporters towards anyone daring to have an opposing viewpoint is on a par with the level of tolerance shown by ISIS towards Christians.
    (and I’m a YES voter).

    1. Nice Anne (Dammit)

      Actually, all that is happening on this thread is that people are intellectually refuting the mans points with, like you know, proof, evidence, facts and all that stuff.

    2. Ppads

      Preaching tolerance of the intolerant to one of the most marginalised group’s in Irish society may perhaps be best suited after legal equality?

  12. ahjayzis

    Was my comment censored ’cause I called him an Uncle Tom or ’cause I postulated that the odds of him getting any touch in this town again in future are severely, severely curtailed?

    1. rotide

      an Uncle Tom?

      How overwhelmingly liberal and left wing of you.

      Might I also suggest Choc Ice and House N***er while you’re at it?

      1. ahjayzis

        Crawl back under your rock rotide, anyone ‘perceived to be complicit in the oppression of their own group’ qualifies as an Uncle Tom.

        The term has no racist connotations, the opposite actually – the ones you use do.

        1. rotide

          You are either being willfully ignorant or backtracking desperately.

          You think that term has no racist connotations? Despite your own invented definition, the term actually explicitly refers to black people. It may have been co-opted by other minorities in much the same way as jimmy rabbit called dubliners the blacks of europe but at the end of the day, its an derogatory term for a black person. Try using it anywhere in the US and see how you get on.

          See also, Aunt Jemima.

          1. ahjayzis

            rotide, kindly unbunch your knickers and settle yourself down, pet.

            It’s a derogatory term used by black people to refer to other black people who are seen to have betrayed their cause – it fits perfectly in the gay context here. It has race connotations certainly, but not racist. It certainly would be incredibly offensive if used by someone who isn’t black to refer to a black guy being ‘too white’ or something, but obviously that doesn’t apply here.

            Hope you’re okay.

          2. Odis

            @ rotide – Would it be OK to use Uncle T*m. If Keith Mills were a black gay journalist, referring to other black gays?

  13. Clampers Outside!

    If it came down to it that there were two couples a “Man + Woman” and a “Man + Man” / “Woman + Woman” who were all equal in every way possible that could effect a child’s upbringing, except for the fact one is a hetero couple and the other two SS couples, the “man + woman” would get the child, wouldn’t they, under the proposed changes a Yes vote would bring in.

    I’m sure “the State” and it’s agencies would find it that way too and I’m sure that’s how it would come down to it . So, that’s his first point gone out the window, I think.

    His second point that civil is the same as marriage misses the 162 differences. So, that’s bullcrap too.

    So… he has no argument of worth, I think.

    1. ahjayzis

      There’s no possible scenario where three couples are ‘equal in every way possible’ though. That just never happens in life, it’s a redundant question that keeps getting asked.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        But… if you could measure them as best possible, because in reality, that is what is going to have to be done at some point if there are competing adoptive parents-to-be… so, would you agree, the hetero couple get the baby?

        1. ahjayzis

          No, because I don’t know them. Honestly, it’s an impossible question to answer.
          What age is the child? Who do they want to live with? Very few adoptions are of non-verbal babies.
          Vast majority of adoptions are performed either by a partner of a biological parent or by a foster couple after a placement – has he/she bonded with the foster parents?
          If the foster parents are the same-sex couple, do a supposedly equally-qualified opposite-sex couple still have first dibs if it’s a baby?
          I won’t write rules for the adoption board being completely unqualified, and I presume they know their business without us or Breda O’Brien giving them a gender quota.

    2. ahjayzis

      Plus, if it were shown to him how under Adoption criteria that the same-sex couple beat out the straight couple, do you really think they’d suddenly be all ‘fair dues’?

        1. ahjayzis

          David Quinn et all who stick a meaningless ‘all other things being equal’ to the end of every sentence. If the criteria favour the gay couple over the straight couple, do you expect Quinn to agree with the decision? Hell no.

  14. rotide

    Has anyone produced an easy to read list of the 162 differences between civil partnership and marriage yet?

    I’m surprised the no side hasn’t picked on this aspect more considering this si what the RefCom website has to say about CP:

    Consequences of a civil partnership
    The legal consequences of entering into a civil partnership are broadly similar to the legal consequences of getting married but there are some differences.

    Obligation to maintain each other
    Civil partners are legally obliged to maintain each other in the same way as married couples. That obligation may be enforced through the courts.

    Civil partners are subject to taxation in the same way as married couples. Details are available at:

    According to that it seems like theres little to no difference. I’m assuming there is though, what are the ‘biggies’ among the 162 differences?

  15. Tá Frilly Keane

    I like being thought of as the Power Elite

    I must put it up on me LinkedOut profile

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link