An excerpt from upcoming documentary The Queen Of Ireland, directed by Conor Horgan, who writes:

As the referendum approaches, we are busy shooting the final parts of ‘The Queen of Ireland’. The film is about Rory O’Niell and his journey from the small town of Ballinrobe [Co Mayo] to being a “national fucking treasure”.

We shot a series of in-depth interviews with Rory last Friday, and when I asked him how he’d feel if the referendum wasn’t carried, his answer was so personal and well said that we decided to release a clip from it before the vote on May 22nd. Vote yes!

(Thanks Conor Horgan)

42 thoughts on “All Rise

    1. Joe the Lion

      Why? It seems pretty one-sided to me.

      Everyone who is a gay or who backs the gays is a bully – that’s all it says.

    2. ToolBag

      Excellent piece. Its a shame that the agenda is so obvious it might backfire. Watching PT last night I actually felt sorry for the yes side as they were kicked around the studio and the ECHR and everywhere else. When Coveney reverted to the love piece, I knew his heart wasn’t even in it. Of course let gay people marry, but less of the smug, divisive, preaching, abusive, liberal crap that decision is wrapped in please. Thank you.

    3. St. John Smythe

      From ‘spiked’: a bunch of very hurt-sounding white guys each congratulating each other on being more intelligent than the ‘hoodwinked masses’, and obsessed with Feminists and Islamists while flirting with right-wing politics-lite.
      Basically a younger digital-savvy version of the bitter old guy at the bar-stool.

      1. joe

        Play the ball, not the man. I know nothing about that site apart form the fact they posted an insightful piece that raises some legitimate concerns about where freedom of speech lies in all this.

        To clarify (not that I should really need to – because I do not believe the piece necessarily gives it away or aligns with a Yes or No position): I am in favour of gay marriage but also believe that the precedence of freedom of speech needs to be preserved. I know a good few people who would be completely in favour of gay marriage but undecided on voting under these terms.

        I’ve seen some things on Broadsheet that are a bit forceful, like that post where young students ring up their grandparents to confirm that they will be voting Yes. Scrolling the comments suggested a consensus that it was sweet but I think it’s very sad that we think it’s ok to force our views on other people and assume they are misinformed, particularly our elders (https://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/03/15/grannys-intentions-2/)
        Imagine if the No side were to post such a video..

        1. ahjayzis


          You have the right to hold and express an unpopular belief.

          We have the right to think it’s shameful, or mean, or misinformed, or all three – and to call you out on it.

          You do not have freedom from criticism, get over yourself.

          1. joe

            “You do not have freedom from criticism, get over yourself.”

            It’s when criticism borders on something that challenges freedom of speech… and that is what the piece is about. For instance, I didn’t feel the need to use block caps or dismissive language in my post, yet somehow you are justified.

            Also, you have completely overlooked the fact that I have said I am in favour of marriage equality but went right ahead and pigeon-holed me as a No-voter. Good day to you.

        2. St. John Smythe

          I’ve seen this argument posted a lot on in comment sections here and elsewhere.
          They are variants along the lines off: I would vote yes/ I was going to vote yes, but I don’t like the tone of the yes side, so I’ll vote no. And it will be all the yes side’s fault!

          It seems odd not to vote on something you agree on, just to make what appears, to me at least, as a childish point (“don’t tell me what to do!”).
          The other thoughts I always have when I read such comments is to think that most probably these are people who never intended to vote yes, they either want an morally-easier excuse to vote no (one not related to gay people in their minds) which aligns with their gut feeling/morality/discomfort, or they would never ever vote yes and are just trying to stick one to the yes crowd.

          Back to these theoretical people who do sympathise with the yes vote, but decide to vote no to make a point: surely if one would really have one’s own independent mind, you would vote for the decision you feel to be right (yes or no) based on your own ideas and morality, independent of how annoying one side may be in your perception? Voting contrary to someones position – for the sake of it – is no more independent than voting alongside someone for the sake of following their opinion. Your acquaintances probably think their are really making a point for ‘free speech’ and individual-thinking by voting no on the basis you explain above, but ironically they are completely acting under the power of other’s ideas. They are no more free-thinking than someone voting with a church ethos, voting according to the party line, or because celebrities said so.

          1. ToolBag

            Its much more nuanced than that. Currently NO voters don’t want to say they are voting NO because that has been branded an act of homophobia by commenters in the media, at gatherings and vociferously on here. So they feel excluded, don’t speak out and don’t feel they have been listened to. Yes voters, like myself, abhor that kind of silencing and want nothing to do with those who behave that way. The YES vote is about some weird liberal genderless philosophy that they don’t even understand (having imported it from the States) and promotes something most people want nothing to do with. So, the hard core of the YES vote are being seen as using this to push a totally different agenda. (a bit like Sinn Fein promoting Irish language rights).

      2. ahjayzis

        Ringing my granny to see if she’s in favour of her grandson getting hitched isn’t me forcing my views on her, it’s providing balance to the muck read out in mass.

        “I know a good few people who would be completely in favour of gay marriage but undecided on voting under these terms.”

        This is not a position worthy of respect. You are either in favour or not – voting against your conscience because you dislike some of the people on your own side is infantile and unworthy and as someone else said, most probably just a get-out clause to justify a no vote to your self.

    4. Don Pidgeoni

      BS doesn’t have to present balance, it has a very clear political lean. You didn’t have trouble finding that article, which clearly suits your own political lean, so I don’t see what the problem is

    5. Graham Kavanagh

      Remind me again which organisation sicked their solicitors on RTE because their constant attacks on gay rights was characterised as homophobic?

  1. Smith

    Don’t look to Broadsheet for balance. Also be careful to express an opinion that is not ‘right on’ liberal regardless your position on the referendum

    1. Richard Moore

      What “balance” is there denying equal rights and responsibilities under the law? As that is what a NO vote would be. Since when are justice and equality only a “liberal” (meaning left-wing) concepts. Put forward one fact-based objection to granting equality if you can. I’m yet to see one.

      It amuses me that the right like to bang on about “Freedom” while failing to realise it and “Liberal” are just one root language and one part of speech apart in meaning.

      1. Smith

        ‘Balance’ as in representing both sides of a debate. ‘Liberal’ does not mean left-wing. You are also assuming that I am part of ‘the right’

        1. Paolo


          I amazed at the number of people who justify defacing No posters because “It is morally right” or who say it is ok for the RTE to ignore it’s legally binding rules on political balance.

          Some elements of the Yes side don’t realise that most votes involve two or more viewpoints and they generally all think that they are right.

          By all means, get the real information out there and try to highlight misinformation from the No side. The best thing you can do is vote Yes on May 22nd and if your brother or mother or auntie Mary votes No, don’t ostracise them FFS.

  2. ToolBag

    I notice most of the BS warriors are kicking to touch on this one… Ho hum, nothing to see here..

    1. Mikeyfex

      You should have been more patient. As you well know, some them simply cannot let certain things pass. They must change the world one comment at a time. You know the ones.

  3. TG

    “His answer was so personal and well said that we decided to release a clip from it before the vote on May 22nd. Vote yes!”

    A stupid person’s idea on what a good answer sounds like by a financially well-off actor in a warm apartment. He’ll probably keep on inviting the FG/Labour traitors into his pub and party the night away with them as the homeless, jobless, sick and dying on hospital trollies, and home-repossessed victims all fall by the wayside.

  4. rotide

    This is a pretty common sentiment amongst d’gayz particularly on facebook and Rory touches on it (the whole ‘i’ll leave the country if this doesn’t pass’). I can’t help but find this attitude a tiny bit OTT and disinegenous.

    For starters, we live in a pretty progressive country when it comes to equality and LGBT rights. It’s not like this is Russia or Nigeria and this is a life or death issue we’re voting on, we’re voting to become the MOST progressive nation in the world by being the only one to succesfully implement gay marriage by popular vote. This seems like a pretty wierd starting place to all of a sudden pack up and leave if it doesn’t go through.

    Secondly, what percentage of people is the tipping point for the flight to the UK? People will leave if the referendum fails? Suppose it wins 51%-49%? Thats still a sizable majority of people who are voting no for the reasons Rory suggested (which is obviously not the case, a lot of people won’t be knowingly voting no for bigoted reasons, a good amount of no votes will be coming from a place of ignorance and misplaced values).

    1. St. John Smythe

      I agree with you on this.
      Its not like its a vote to make things worse. Its a vote to improve things or leave them as they are.

      1. ahjayzis

        Do you really think the country voting en masse to ban gay people from marrying will just be water off a ducks back? It’s an intensely personal thing, how could it not be? I’ve never been so uncomfortable in a referendum, I feel I’m being scrutinised and debated as a person. It’s not a pleasant experience, and to at the end result in a “No, you’re not equal” vote, would be a crushing experience. That’s just being honest.

        1. St. John Smythe

          My point, clumsily made, was we are not voting to re-ban it, or add a further restriction… in the bad case a no wins, then things will objectively stay the same. (unacceptable though that is).

          But I take your point about how it will subjectively feel. I can’t appreciate that on a full level as a heterosexual person. I will only be mildly crushed, as well as embarrassed for the nation, if it doesn’t pass.
          I think your statement, as well as illustrating how it affect indivuals, is proof that this is a referendum of symbols as much as about pragmatic legislation and equal rights. It is a symbol of the possible directions Ireland is going in, the potential to have stand out from certain shadows. I think that is why so many of liberal- and fair-minded heteros (I include myself in that) have gotten so far behind it to the level that it has become a kind of cause celebré.

        2. rotide

          AhJayszus, As has been said, no-one is voting to ban anything.

          I understand how uncomfortable it is but did you think it would be any different? In fairness, no-one is (openly) debating homosexuality itself, just how it relates to marriage. Yes a lot of it might be guff and bigoted but not all of it is. You’ve got to allow people to have a voice.

          You say it would be a crushing experience if it doesn’t pass. Will it leave a sour taste in your mouth if it passes by 100 votes?

          1. ahjayzis

            No, they’re voting to deny something, despite there being no evidence that I have seen anywhere that shows how my getting wed will impact them or anyone else but the couple involved.

            I really haven’t heard anything, and I think I’m being as open-eared as I can be, that isn’t total guff. Debates featuring no gay people focusing 80% on issues predominantly affecting straight couples, like surrogacy and adoption, constant appeals about how to argue with someone opposing me is to silence them. I haven’t silenced anyone or denied them a voice, that does not mean I’m not going to fire back at them. To do otherwise is to be really silenced. To hold an unpopular opinion and be called on it is not censorship.

            It’ll leave a sour taste if it passes by 95% rotide.

    2. Graham Kavanagh

      You’ll have to excuse me if I’m not effusive with gratitude that my country doesn’t want me to be stoned to death, tossed of a high building or simply chemically castrated. And you’ll have to forgive me if tolerating my mere existence, while relegating me to the status of second class citizen isn’t good enough.

  5. JimmytheHead

    Joe / Toolbag / Smith

    anonymous trolls for hire if anyones interested! would love to track your IP address and share the results with a copy of your postal address, but Im guessing thats probably illegal…

    1. joe

      And just why would you want to do that? Nobody said anything offensive here. I just posted a link and expressed concerns over balance and the overall discourse of things.

      Thanks for dressing me down. I’ll be so courteous to not do the same to you. But I will say you don’t strike me as someone who can handle a sincere and open conversation and that’s what’s missing in all this.

Comments are closed.