“So anyone who vote against the right of gays to marry is in my opinion an inconsiderate narrow minded person with no compassion to all the loving gay couples who want to be legally together”

This kind of attitude annoys me and it’s something that the pro-SSM/Yes side would do well to avoid. Mud-Slinging such as the above only serves to alienate the middle-ground voters. Concentrate on the positives….

Just for the record, I’m still on the fence on the issue..

@DJ Moore, I was concentrating on the positive. When 2 people love each other society should not stand in their way. I fail to understand how you can be “on the fence” as it won’t affect you at all if gays are allowed same rights as heterosexual. Show some compassion , show some love.

Voting yes is for those who enthusiastically embrace full equality before the law and wish same sex couples the same opportunity of recognition of their commitment that straight couples enjoy under Irish civil law.

The fence sitters will eventually vote no and that is their democratic choice. No is the default choice of the ambivalent.

I’m on the fence because it’s a referendum, it’s nine months away, and I haven’t decided how I am going to vote yet.

Attacking those who oppose you as “inconsiderate narrow minded person with no compassion” is not the way to convince swing voters such as myself. Sell me the positives.

Ditto goes for those on the No side.

Surely this will affect us all. Married couples have different tax benefits. Won’t it therefore put more money into the pockets of these married couples. Also there’s widow’s and widowers pension. In general single people pay more tax and get less back than married couples.
Have you ever wondered why people want to get married in the first place? Tradition and religion maybe…but maybe not.

The SSM issue will succeed or fail on the adoption issue. Though separate issues in reality in many respects (single gay people can already adopt as is) I don’t believe it is separate in the public consciousness. IMO, this will be the battle ground, and it’s shaky ground right now for the pro SSM campaigners.

I say that due to a prime time special a few month back. They carried out research, in conjunction with one of the Sunday papers. they found though support for SSM was high (up in the 70%+ bracket), it dropped dramatically when those sampled were asked about gay couples childrearing. It dropped closer to 50% if memory serves me right. Therefore, they concluded about 25% of support for ssm was in fact soft support.

It is not a foregone conclusion by any means. It’ll be up to the pro ssm and anti campaigners to get that 25% firmly on side.

Agree Steve. I dont think we should even have the right to vote on someones happiness especially when it wont affect us. But if i have to i will vote yes as everyone deserves this right!

Jack, some of the tax and social welfare benefits you refer to are already available to gay couples through civil partnership, so the financial effect of marriage probably won’t be an pronounced as you may think.

Regardless of the tax issue, it should be brought in. At the very core it is an equality issue and homosexual, bisexual and transgender people deserve the same marital rights as their heterosexual counterparts. To vote no is to actively discriminate.

Well said Steve

Very true Brian. I forgot about that.

I’m definitely voting yes because I believe in equality and fairness.

Why are you on the fence? Just curious as to why you’d think it could possibly be a bad thing?

We’ll I’m a big eejit…. I just didn’t bother reading ahead!

@ Steve Watson , I don’t think the issue is people against a civil partnership between any couples same sex or not … The question is whether or not you believe that
“The rights of children trump the right to children,”
People that question this legislation like myself have absolutely nothing against same sex people enjoying all the same legal entitlements that a married coupe enjoy …… However that’s never highlighted by the media … Instead people that are concerned about the rights of children are branded homophobic and somehow backwards …… I’m presuming u think the same ….what is not highlighted by media certainly here is the number of gay activists that oppose this legislation on the grounds that shouid cause most people concern …namely Xavier Bongibault, an atheist homosexual and prominent spokesman against same sex marriage in France .. . “In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. French marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families,” the most serious study done so far . . . demonstrates quite clearly that a child has trouble being raised by gay parents.”……. Now I’m quoting directly from a gay activists who’s issues really shouldn’t be overlooked ….:):)

Can that study be linked?

I’m genuinely enthused to read the study debunking all other studies.

I don’t see how being “married” is going to specifically affect the upbringing of a child?

Surely it’s the fact your parent are gay that would be the difficulty (I’m gay and skeptical, BTW) not the fact they are married.

Kids or no kids, gay people will still want to be married

It’s not about compassion it’s there god dam right to get married if they want to,

Yeah and that Xavier guy is a 21 year old business man.

Just it’s worth mentioning: just because you are gay does not, by default, make you some kind of philosophical, guru-like authority with an infallible opinion on gay marriage just by virtue of being gay.
He is literally just a gay person not interested in gay marriage. There’s a hell of a lot more who are.

It’s also lucky that this is Ireland and not France with all these horrible, child-centric laws that seem to provide incentive to oppose gay marriage. What are they, exactly?

@ Mary ….. One thing for sure is that u weren’t .. Like all the rest of us weren’t born to or raised by same sex parents …. & I’m not sure about you , but Any legislation effecting children with no voice and as vulnerable as they are should not be overlooked …to favour same sex couples that want to express their love for each other ….

Absolutely correct, Ailbhe. It boils down to whether we want our marriage law to be based on equality or apartheid? Do we regard all citizens irrespective of orientation as equal before the law and entitled to the same rights, or do we believe that heterosexual citizens should have more rights and a higher status than LGBTI citizens? For me it is a no brainer. All citizens should be equal, whether they are male or female, heterosexual or LGBTI. Discrimination should not exist in 21st century Ireland.

So Gary, what you’re saying is that because one atheist, gay person in France is against same sex-marriage, gay people shouldn’t be allowed get married? If Mr. Bongibault is against SSM, that’s fine, what I don’t understand is why he would deprive that right to other gay people who do want to get married. Repeating a catchphrase isn’t an argument by the way.

Also Gary, you say people like you have no issue with same-sex couples enjoying the same rights as married couples, yet every time there’s an article on The Journal about anything relating to LGBT you’re all over it like a sneering rash.

@ Mary …. The issue at its core …. Unlike the cohabiting act …. Which in my opinion was well overdue …..once the status of marriage is achieved … Then the adoption of children is automatic…….. Which is the only reason why a number of thoughtful gay activists are opposed to the legislation ……

In a democracy, DJ, your right to hold an opinion and express it should be respected. It is up to us who support marriage equality to convince you of its merits. Name calling and showing you disrespect should play no part in the campaign.

How are you so sure I wasn’t raised by same sex parents? Would my grammer be spelling be off if I was? Would it really be THAT obvious? The answer is conclusively: No. How do I know that? Every scientifically approved study (and before you talk I am a scientist so yes, I am somewhat knowledgable) has proven time and time again children raised by same sex parents do just as well as their heterosexually-raised counterparts. Fact.

Children aren’t being overlooked and you’re still assuming all gay couples want kids. They don’t. Even if I never have a child I want to be my partners next of kin. Hopefully I won’t ever have to but I want my questions answered about my partners health if that should ever unfortunately arise.

Stop playing the child card, it is not the Trump you think it is.

@ Jim Duffy ……. It’s not …. It’s whether it not u believe … ” the right to children trumps the right of children “…. The cohabiting act covered the legalities of same sex couples , in te event of a death … Or one dumps the other ….. So any opposition to this is strictly on the basis of children ….

@DJ Moore – I disagree – while you may consider yourself on the middle group actually over 70% of the public said they would vote for SSM. So if you think people will change their mind and vote against it because they feel bullied in some way, well that’s just ridiculous. How anyone could be on the fence on this matter at this stage is beyond me – the arguments have been well versed.

@Gary
Again, not every gay couple has/wants kids and I don’t see why that should stop them being allowed to marry.
So what your saying is that kids of gay people in gay marriages have lots of rights extended to them? Eh… Good.

Also this conversation needs seasoning in the form of a link to that holy grail of a study for same-sex marriage opponents.

*and spelling

Face palm

@ Gaius ….. U don’t get it do you ? or the point that most people , gay activists included …… Question this because on the basis …. ” do the rights of children trump the rights to children “…. Am I correct in saying …. You believe in… “the rights to children as opposed to the rights of children “…. And that’s the fundamental question that shouid be asked …

@ Mary , is it’s not about children … Them why in earth do u think gay people want to subscribe to an outdated catholic ritual ??? As opposed to a civil partnership Already In Place since the cohabiting act was rightly introduced ……

Gary, the adoption issue is being dealt with before the referendum, this has been repeated by government on numerous occasions. The referendum is only about equality of marriage. Nothing more

@gary

What on Earth? “Do the rights of children trump the rights to children?” What does this even mean?

In what way are children being overlooked here?
This is clearly just a veiled “Children need a mum and a dad” Iona-esque argument.

It is meaningless.

@gary

I believe you are confusing Holy Matrimony with State Marriage.

I don’t care to have my relationship regarded by a magic alien in the sky. I do however want the state to recognise my partner and I as a unit and I wish to have my family adequately protected should I be lucky enough to have one. Outdated? Maybe. The laws are very current however.

Marriage Vs Civil Partnership http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

@Jim Duffy

Apartheid?! Are you for real?!

Homosexuals are not being forced to use different toilet blocks or different swimming pools from everyone else.

Having something other than marriage for gay people clearly bolsters the idea in a lot of minds as gay people being “the other” and Ok perhaps apartheid is (a tiny bit) stron but non-ecclesiastical schism perhaps is more to you liking?

Gary, for someone supposedly exercised about the rights and welfare of children, you’re remarkably uninformed on the basics of family law.

Marriage doesn’t confer a “right to children”. The Supreme Court has ruled on that some time back. And it certainly doesn’t bring with it automatic adoption. If that was the case then the idea of assessments of suitability would be pointless because every married couple would be able to demand to adopt.

Opposing marriage because you’re opposed to gay people raising children is pointless and counter productive, because the bar on marriage doesn’t stop gay couples raising children. All it will mean is that the gay couples raising children will be unmarried instead of married.

How are you going to vote and why David H.?
Give us a chance to call you stupid. I doubt you know how to express opinions without insults.

Gary.
Perhaps before you start spouting nonsense as you invariably do, you should learn a little about the subject at hand.

Adoption is ALWAYS carried out with the best interests of the children as a priority. People who seek to adopt a child because they cannot have their own have to jump through countless hoops for this very reason – if a gay couple are selected to become parents it will be because they were assessed as the best and most appropriate match.
This is regulated by The Hague Convention of 1993 which we formally ratified – so please take your straw men outside and set them alight, midsummer has passed.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/fergus-finlay/we-cant-let-fear-get-in-the-way-of-backing-same-sex-marriage-258279.html

Are you a little sensative jack maybe a bit of a closet thing going on attack being the best form of defence and all that

@Shanti

Just to say: before I ever started commenting here I used to read your comments. They usually kick ass. As you were :)

@ Brian O Sullivan ..”Irish adoption law currently only allows for applications to adopt children by married couples or single applicants. It is therefore not possible for a gay couple to jointly apply to adopt, but a single gay person or one partner of a couple may apply. Even though joint-adoption by a gay couple is not possible, a same-sex couple may submit a joint application to foster children. Additionally, lesbian couples can get access to IVF and assisted insemination treatment. In January 2014, Government Minister for Justice and Equality Alan Shatter announced that the government intends bringing in laws by the end of the year to extend guardianship, custody, and access rights to the non-biological parents of children in same-sex relationships and children born through surrogacy and sperm and egg donation”

@Gary

Why don’t you wanna play any more? :(

@ Shanti ….. Ah you’ve arisen and are back with your usual tolerant tone !

Mary, Shanti showed up. She usually wipes the floor with him.

Gary…..as…..usual…..you….are….so….ill….informed….and….incapable….of….constructing….sentences….

Gary, I’m aware of the current laws around adoption and the proposed changes. None of those changes will mean that marriage confers a “right to children” or grants an automatic right to adopt, as you claim.

@ Mary , I truth a head gasket in one of my vehicles has broken and there is oil all over the place …. And my partner is about to arrive back from the airport & I’d rather be berated by you lot than her !!

@Ailbhe

I know!! What is this…. All about…..?

So… many… cliffhanger… sentences….

Well Gary, I could hardly leave the level of utter tripe you were posting unchallenged could I?

You don’t understand what you are talking about, as per usual – yet you insist upon commenting as though you are an authority on the subject.

Ever considered adoption? Do you have any idea the amount of assessments and background checks and red tape you have to go through just to get on a maybe list? After that it’s all about whether you are compatible with the child’s needs and background – again, this is all done with the idea of accommodating the child – it’s not like the mother and baby homes where the children were a commodity to be sold off to the highest bidder.

And Mary, thank you.. It is nice to make your acquaintance :)

@Gary

Actually that made me laugh! Proceed! Haha

Gary…. Is….. The… Secret – off – spring… Of… Captain… Kirk… !!!!

‘Apartheid’ literally means ‘separateness’. That separation can be physical or rights-based, and based on race (in South Africa), gender, orientation, class or other reasons. Denying some citizens access to rights available to others is apartheid. So are other forms.

Oh….my….god….Shanti….u…r….right. a….captain….kirk….that….can’t….spell….type….or….articulate….properly….at….all

If Gary bothered to read the article, it quite clearly states that the adoption legislation for same sex couples will be in place before the marriage equality referendum. Gary, the referendum will only be for marriage equality and nothing else.

Quick everyone – SHATNER!

Ian, Gary has massive reading comprehension skills, he seemed to think that because the average age of people entering into civil partnerships the year it was introduced her was in the 40s that this meant only gay people in their 40s wanted to get married.

Also – that incomplete figures for that year were indicative of demand in comparison to the heterosexual community (of which there are many more than there are homosexuals)..

This is obviously why he seems to think you show up at the adoption agency, look at some photos and say “that one please!” and they hand you a baby, as well as missing the point that you have just made..

Although, trying to decipher his comments it’s easy to see where these mistaken assumptions come from.

@ Mary Doherty………….for 1 reason …. I’m generally replying from an I phone and the icons are just 2 small for my finger tips and the preemptive texts illuminate the fact that I don’t have much patience :-).

@ Mary Doherty …….Shanti must feel like a pancake having syrup poured over her after that dare i say grovelling comment :-) , :-)

You have enough patience to hit the full stop button…………lots of times. Once is enough, then you start a new sentence. Like this. Then, if you wish, you can add commas. Try it, it’s great.

@Gary

“Illuminate” I don’t like that word there. Illustrate maybe? Pedantic, sorry. I digress.

Meh, was still funny. I obviously still don’t agree with you but damn it, the LOL’s are my kryptonite.
You must get tired of all the logical berating you get? Why bother?

@Gary

Dude, grovelling?
Captain’s log Stardate: 431567.1 You get your ass handed to you every time. It’s…. Impressive……

Oh Mary, ya craic me up!

Thank you Ailbhe, this purposefully generic, Irish pseudonym runs deep

Shanti…… Given your stance on such noble causes as abortion & euthanasia U could be the secret love child of hitler or a student of Goebbels :-), or Ernest Rohm :-), all of which were into eugenics , all of which were Bisexual :-)

Hmm, how does a pancake feel having syrup dripped on it? I would imagine apprehensive – if it were sentient and had any feelings at all surely the syrup would signify impending doom?

Mary’s comment didn’t make me feel like that in the slightest. I don’t sense impending doom, the possibility of being eaten OR the sticky nastiness involved in being covered in syrup.. It was a poor analogy to be fair..

In fairness Jim Duffy no disrespect was shown to me personally.

And we have a Godwin!!

I support people having the right to decide what happens to them, in their lives, without the interference of busy bodies who wish to enforce their ideals upon all and sundry.

I support freedom – the people you list did not. In fact, they were more of the forcing their ideals on other people category.

I support freedom of choice. Be that the choice to not become a mother, the choice to not live out the remainder of your days in agony or lost because your mind has snapped, the choice to marry the person you love, freedom of personal belief or lack of same, the choice to consume drugs if you wish – FREEDOM. Get it?

What I don’t support is people being denied that freedom, or trying to use their beliefs as something to try and deny others their freedom with.

You’re the one content to force your ideals upon others and deny them the freedom to make their own choices and decisions, and that’s a lot closer to what you are trying to accuse me of than I am.

Gary Godwinned. It was inevitable. Frustrations of a beaten commentor

So, Shanti. On the basis of your post. Would you also support the right not to become a father?

@ Shanti…. For somebody who talks about freedom and choice your dead set about denying the most vulnerable of them. Just because a persons minds beginning to slip and incapable of very rational thought , do you assume they think they are better off dead ? and not entitled to or want care ?, what about a person that suffers from depression, when they tell you they want to die do you say well you can have a word with a doctor who’ll have you out of this misery with a single dignified injection ? and you don’t think a system like that will be abused ? what about a perfectly viable baby do you not think they have any rights , especially when they pose no threat to the life of the mother that happens to be carrying it?. the problem with a number of items you leave flowery comments on is this , there not original as abortion, eutheasia are forms of eugenics , I’m not sure how these have gained traction again and especially under the umbrella of womens rights etc,. these forms of eugenics were legitimized at the turn of the century under the medical specialty known as ‘Psychiatric Genetics’,… Lenin introduced legal abortion that saw 50% of all babies aborted , The Nazis drew up the sterilization programme, and then the t4 unit produced the ‘right to die’ film …. that filmed the mentally challenged smiling at the thoughts of themselves being put out f their misery !! so they are the reasons i don’t agree with most if not all of what you seem to champion because these ideas have been around before & looks like they are making a serious come back :-)

Sure that’s easy, use a condom!

To echo Kelly Niall, that’s a very simple way to elect not to become a father and I would also advocate that those women who don’t wish to become mothers use contraception too.

Sadly, it’s a lot easier for a man to walk away from a child than the woman who must carry it. If he gets to walk away surely she should have the same option?

And Gary..

Midsummer has passed, those straw men should have been burned already..
You seem to be ignoring the core of what I said.. CONSENT.

If you are making the decision for yourself, without the interference of busy bodies then it is your choice is it not?

I have never advocated forced abortion, in fact I oppose that as much as I oppose forced pregnancy, because it denies the woman the choice over what happens to her body.
Your examples of eugenics and forced sterilisation are irrelevant as I would oppose that too.. It denies the choice.

I do not think that people in their later years are worthless, and you trying to accuse me of same merely shows how weak your argument is. If a person is diagnosed with a degenerative disease and make their OWN decision to end their life then it should be THEIR CHOICE. Not mine, not yours and not the states. It shouldn’t be forced on them, and I would oppose it being forced on them.

As for an embryo, it’s not capable of making a decision owing to it not yet having a functioning brain, so the concept of it’s choice is moot.

And if you worry about abuse of the system. Please show me any instances of such abuse in those countries that respect the right to die.

And as for your 50% abortion rate – I don’t suppose you have factored in the availability of contraceptives at the time have you? (I doubt it, that would be the rational thing to do). Most women prefer prevention of pregnancy over abortion believe it or not..

@Kelly, but would you say that to a woman seeking abortion?.

I look at this through the eyes of a very happy stay at home father to a 2.5 year old in 2014. Not, Shanti, a guy that walks away – like so many. I find it utterly despicable that anyone(primarily fathers) could walk away from a child and wash their hands of both contact and fiscal responsibility. That, to me., is the ultimate anathema in many respects.

I think there’s much more room for equality in many respects.

Not to get bogged down and off topic, and I am off topic, but a woman has the option of adoption post birth (or out of jurisdiction, an abortion). A man has neither. So – against a backdrop of that – not have the option of signing a waiver early in the pregnancy for example, and walking away.

Last I heard, it takes two to get pregnant – not one – and condoms do fail (as is often said by pro choice people). So, why is it right that a guy’s life should and could be determined by whether or not she wants to keep the child, when she has adoption open to her, and he has nothing open to him except her wishes?

It is after all, his life too? Should he have no say in it? I don’t see the equality in that.

Shanti … Your nose is getting longer :), come on now… U oppose eugenics , like abortion and euthanasia doesn’t effect the poorest communities and the vulnerable the most :-)

Shanti . Open to abuse ?? You clearly haven’t witnessed the Demise of somebody addicted to drugs , the other nobel cause you champion the liberalisation of

Gary.
Why does abortion affect the poorest most?
Is it because abortion is available or because they are poor? You seem to be bogged down in the symptom there rather than addressing the cause – they shouldn’t be living in poverty.
Personally I reckon that if a woman chooses to keep her pregnancy she should be supported in that choice, I think it’s a terrible state of affairs that economics should ever factor into that decision. But it’s not the fault of abortion – it the fault of failed social policy.

As for the “demise of those addicted to drugs” you know why that is? Illegal drugs have no quality control, you can never know what you are getting and the illegality pushes it underground where dangerous practices such as sharing needles and poor hygiene are rampant. All of this leads in turn to a higher incidence of overdose and infections which invariably increase the risk of death.
A legal and regulated market would mean that people could be confident in their source, know the strength and administer in a safe and protected setting. All available evidence shows that prescribing heroin for example is a far more effective strategy of managing the problem than methadone or abstinence approaches – which funnily enough, led to the increase in heroin usage..
http://www.badscience.net/2006/11/methadone-and-heroin/
Perhaps you should read up on it. Get educated, because education is another factor that needs to be combined with this approach.

Niall, I’d advocate to everyone to use contraception if they’re going to be sexually active.
If a man wants to take responsibility for his own reproduction and be sure that he has done everything in his power to prevent fatherhood then he should use condoms.
Many men are only too happy to allow the woman to shoulder the responsibility of contraception as they don’t want to wear condoms, how often have we heard men complain that it ‘doesn’t feel as good’ ?
I’m just saying that if a man is certain he doesn’t want to be a father at that particular time, that he should use a condom no matter what contraception the woman is or isn’t using.
No contraception is 100% effective but it is women who get pregnant and take on all the risks and difficulties of pregnancy so therefore the final decision must be theirs.
I’m not sure what you’re advocating, are you saying that in the case of a pregnancy a man should have the option to force the woman to stay pregnant if he wants a child but she doesn’t? I’m not sure how you would go about that short of imprisonment and that would be violating her human rights.
Often couples make the decision together but the final say has to belong to the woman as she is the one who is pregnant, it’s her body and you don’t get the right to make that decision for her. You’re right in that it does take two to make a baby and if a pregnancy is unplanned/ unwanted and both parents are at odds then the final say has to be the woman’s as she has to carry it, that’s just biology.
If the final decision were the man’s then that would essentially give men the right to either force a woman to stay pregnant or force her to have an abortion. Do you think a man should get to make a decision that a woman should have an abortion if he doesn’t want the pregnancy to go ahead but she does?
This impacts much more on women than on men, women carry pregnancies and in most cases still do the lion’s share of child rearing. I know that most men don’t but they CAN just walk away, a woman can’t do that unless she can have an abortion.That’s why it has to be the woman’s decision in the end.

But often couples, mature, educated and responsible couples – or simply responsible couples regardless – make an agreement very early on if she/they had an unexpected pregnancy then they would have previously agreed, that they didn’t want kids til they were in their 30′s for example. Yet, they use protection. But, it doesn’t always work. hence an unexpected pregnancy.

This, to me, is the height of responsibility and maturity, and despite precautions taken, a crisis pregnancy arises. So, a recap, he didn’t get her pregnant (common terminology) – they both engaged in sex.

Now, I’m not talking about forcing anyone to stay pregnant, Kelly. I’m talking about a guy that feels he’s too young to be a father, and cannot provide for a child, and has a career ahead of him too, or is in early/ mid career. He doesn’t feel ready to be a father, and is not ready to be a father.

The question I asked you, is whether he should be forced to be a father, when he doesn’t want to be? And, would you give the same response were it an unwilling mother that felt the same way?

Again, she has options post birth, and that is adoption. He has no right to put his child up for adoption. Is that right in your eyes, and if so, why?

Glad to hear that, DJ. In campaigns people can get heated. It is important for those of us passionately pro-marriage equality to remember that not everyone who is undecided or a No voters is anti-LGBTI. People are shaped by their time and place, so for some older people LGBTI equality is a hard concept to grasp as they grew up in a society where LGBTI people were automatically seen as inferior in status. There needs to be a respectful debate in which people are convinced on the arguments, not simply name-calling. I know of people who are passionately religious Catholics yet are pro-marriage equality, so it is a mistake to presume that every Catholic is anti-gay, or indeed that every liberal is pro-marriage equality. The reality is more complex. Name-calling won’t help the debate. Respect and a debate based on facts will.

Niall, are you surprised she didn’t answer?

Assume you mean Johns comment.

@Peter Richardson

“The Referendum will only be held if the Taoiseach sees electoral advantage.”

That makes no sense.

Kenny says the referendum will be held next Spring. The next general election takes place in 2016. Therefore, the issue of electoral advantage doesn’t arise.

Electoral advantage does not just spring up magically in the weeks preceding a general election. Electoral support or lack of support is a cumulative process over time. It’s about voter appeal. The precise timing if the Referendum has not been announced and may be differed or not held at all depending on how the political advisers think that this issue will play out.

This is just a straw in the wind in order to gauge reaction. It does. Not mean that it will happen at all or that it will be held in the time period indicated.

Ah, it’ll be delivered on alright. Enda can’t back down on a promise like that.

And in fairness, I can’t see any reason why he would feel forced to.

It would cost Kenny nothing to defer the Referendum indefinitely if he thinks that FG might lose more votes than it would gain. Other priorities is the usual excuse.

I hope that I am wrong and I will be very happy to be proven wrong because I think that society as a whole would benefit from the recognition of marriage equality.

“Politicians lie with words”

Those are the worst lies of all

@Peter Richardson

I have never heard of a government of this country saying that a referendum will be held in a certain period and then decide not to hold the referendum.

Me too, great news! We’ve come such a long way.

Yes to love, Ireland!!

Peter you shouldn’t worry about that on this issue. SSM is something this government does want. It’s about the only thing they’ll promote enthusiastically. Makes me wonder what they’re getting out of it though, if there was no benefit for them to do it, they just wouldn’t do it. Make no mistake, this government doesn’t give two shits about our rights, gay or straight.

Absolute rubbish, Peter. The referendum is 100% certain to happen – no ifs, no buts. The only issues are the timetabling of the adoption bill and the practicalities of referendums. There are tons of bills going through at any one time. Every session government governments produce a legislative programme which is on the Department of the Taoiseach website. The process of law making is like one big conveyor belt, in which you have to find a gap to slot in a bill. The Family Relationships and Childrens Bill was on the A list (the list of bills where the heads of the bill have been approved by cabinet and you are down to the nitty gritty of writing it line by line) published in January, meaning that it is scheduled to be published by the recess in July. So a slot will be found for it by the whip’s office probably in September-October in the Dáil and then by Christmas by the Seanad, with it going to the President for signature in early 2015, with the question then of whether he refers it to the court or sign it into law. A referral by him could delay the referendum by 60 days as you wait for the court to rule.) Once that is out of the way, presuming the court clears it, the bill to hold the referendum is put through pretty quickly, and the timing of the referendum then is decided by practicalities: as schools are used as polling stations, do you hold it during term time or perhaps during the Easter holidays? (For example, you try to avoid the dates of mock exams and the Leaving and Junior Certs.) Are count venues available and if so for what dates? Are there any dates that for practical reasons can’t be used (e.g., bank holidays, days with major sports events, etc.)? So you find dates that don’t clash with anything, that suit schools, don’t clash with exams, that have venues available for counting and so book them and hold the referendum. ALL parties are committed to supporting the referendum on equal marriage, so there is not the slightest doubt but that it will happen. They will ALL be campaigning, and for the big parties that will mean spending circa €200k each on a campaign.) The only question is whether it is in March, April, May or June? (You try to avoid January and February in case of weather problems preventing people voting.) But holding it is a done deal, and everyone in politics knows that.

@Jim Duffy

“as schools are used as polling stations, do you hold it during term time or perhaps during the Easter holidays? (For example, you try to avoid the dates of mock exams and the Leaving and Junior Certs.) ”

As far as I know, no secondary schools are used as polling stations.

They are not. But campaigns cause disruption, noise sometimes with loudspeakers, interruptions with people canvassing in the evening, etc. So parties try to avoid campaigns at times when students are doing exams just to avoid causing any disruption or noise. If they hold an election during an exam they get irate people ringing up to complain. A lot of canvassers also are parents so they may want to be at home in the evenings with their exam-exhausted kids, and not knocking on doors. So in general they try to avoid holding campaigns during exams. Sometimes it can’t be helped, but on the whole if they can be avoided they tend to be.

I’ll be canvassing for a no vote

Why Linda?

I second that.

Why?

Third

Because it’s her opinion, however different from ours it may be!

No one’s disputing that it’s her opinion. They (and I) would like to know the rationale for her opinion.

I’m sure though het decision is not a result of eenie meanie miny moe. People are asking her because they are curious as to her motivation, which is not unreasonable.

Kenny faced down pro-lifers, including in his own party. Kenny’s personal support for marriage equality is well known within LGBTI organisations. He got his party to be the first party to commit to legal recognition of relationships, a decade ago. In the teeth of opposition he got recognition of relationships put into the 2007 and 2011 manifestos. He has worked well with the likes of GLEN for a decade on LGBTI issues. He applied a whip to get his party to support civil partnership. So Kenny is rock solid on equal marriage and everyone in politics knows that. His party had a large participation in Pride this year and has been marching in Pride for years. The party’s deputy leader and its Minister for Justice both marched in Pride this year (the first time a Justice Minister from any party took part in Pride, and something almost unprecedented internationally), as well as a number of its ministers and TDs, the vice-chair of its parliamentary party and a number of councillors. It elected a Lesbian councillor as Mayor of Mullingar some years ago. So the referendum is a done deal and everyone in politics knows it. They are already working out their budgets for the campaign. Labour in fact are surprised at just how committed Kenny is on the issue.

Jim,
I’m surprised that you expect Kenny to be in place when this referendum is due to take place.

Lol Aibhe?! You converted Martin Ryan?! Seriously?!

Already happening Conor, see above. I just don’t get it, 2 people in love, same sex or not, getting married will have no influence on my life (unless I am in love with one of them and then it is just a case of bad luck for me), the children via adoption or surrogacy issue is to be dealt with before the referendum so throwing that curve ball out there is just that, a curveball. Why would anyone object to 2 people getting married no matter what their orientation is. I just do not understand it.

Seriously

Lol.. Marriage is about love…. Seriously!

Paul is here to prove my point

Ailbhe,
You don’t have a point.
You have a position in favour of SSM but do not see any real legislative challenge to replace what you claim to be discrimination against LGBT by discrimination against natural parents. By all means, spend the next 9 months buddying up to garner support for your banner waving, but there are real and genuine challenges that have not yet been dealt with and the Labour Party will find it difficult to make us believe that their reforms are in our interests.
Anybody with a reason to mistrust the State should mistrust how they intend to introduce SSM.

Paranoid waffle. Nothing definitive. Just sheer paranoia…..you’re proving my point again

Which proves my point.
You cannot see anything wrong with what this government will do to get your vote. Sharpen up Ailbhe, there are real issues coming down the pike, and a promise from Enda Kenny to hold a referendum is not a reason to support him in office, which you do, of course.

Paul, you can’t articulate any certain problems with it, other than blind speculation and paranoid waffle. Your paranoid fantasies relate to adoption and parenting issues. These are to be addressed by seperate legislation. You issue is with this legislation, not my rights to marry. You pretend otherwise do that you can mask your aversion to equal rights as something legitimate. It’s not Paul, you just oppose equality. I’m tired of listening to your paranoid fantasies that have no basis on my rights to marry and no basis on reality. Go spout your crap elsewhere, get a blog that I can choose not to read.

Ailbhe,
Blind speculation?
Marriage is about Property, Children and Family – if there were no problems with those things this Government could easily legislate to introduce SSM because there is no constitutional barrier to it.
You want to raise a child (or a number of children) with your partner, fine. How are you going to get them and who’s going to pay?
Where’s daddy in all your family planning? Is it paranoid to be concerned about the rights of people you don’t really care about in your pursuit of your dream marriage?