TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 10 °C Saturday 18 May, 2013

Column: I’m not in a “same-sex marriage”. I’m in a marriage.

Small changes in language could make a world of difference at the Constitutional Convention, writes Senator Katherine Zappone – so let’s get it right.

Senator Katherine Zappone

WHEN I GOT married in Canada in 2003 to Dr Ann Louise Gilligan, I was not given a legal certificate for ‘same-sex marriage’; I was given a certificate for marriage.

I am not in a ‘gay marriage.’ Gay means man; lesbian means woman. I have nothing to say about gay marriage or same-sex marriage. I have a lot to say about marriage – and it is that institution that the Constitutional Convention should be examining and debating, and whether or not the institution of marriage ought to be open for same-sex couples as it is for opposite-sex couples, and whether or not the human right to marry can be exercised by everyone.

The enactment of civil partnership exclusively for same-sex couples has already created a separate and unequal institution; Ireland does not need another separate institution called ‘same-sex marriage’.

The Taoiseach and the Tanaiste have described the proposed Constitutional Convention as a “vehicle for profound social reform”. I believe that the Convention has the potential to do this but it cannot do so in its current form. The current proposals are limited in both vision and scope.

We need a more effective model of deliberative democracy and citizen engagement so that the resulting recommendations for constitutional reform will be ‘fit for purpose’ for all people. The process must have a genuine feeling of fairness, and it must reform our foundational legal document so that it provides Irish society with greater possibility for justice and truth to be practiced.

It is claimed that the Convention will be “broadly representative” of society in terms of gender, age, regional balance. The standard of ‘inclusiveness of those who are marginalised’ ought to augment the representative character of the 66 citizens invited to be members of this Convention. I have a profound belief in the need for this. Political theorists such as Anne Phillips and Iris Young argue convincingly that deliberative democracy will only arrive and right and just conclusions if those affected by the decisions get a chance to have be part of the decision-making and not simply part of those who are consulted.

Skewed results

Suppose the ‘representative’ sample is made up entirely of heterosexual people? Or that all of the sample would be a member of a world religion? Undoubtedly that would skew results for the debates on marriage and blasphemy.

The Convention should facilitate widespread and meaningful consultation. It should be a model of best practice of public participation in constitutional reform – as advocated by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and its partners. Civil society organisations should be named as key stakeholders within the context of the Convention. Members of these organisations are not simply ‘interest groups’. Again – language matters. They are people with expert knowledge.

As Jurgen Habermas and other authoritative political and social theorists posit, we all bring ‘knowledge-constitutive interests’ to matters of public debate – we all construct knowledge according to our commitments, interests, presuppositions including constitutional lawyers, academics & political theorists.

Twenty of our leading equality and human rights organisations, facilitated by Amnesty International, have called for economic, social and cultural rights to be considered by the Convention. A recent Red C poll identified significant public support for the Convention to look at the right to healthcare and the right to housing. Shouldn’t the citizens of this Convention have the opportunity to say whether or not everyone should have the right to the same quality of healthcare within the same time-period? Isn’t this integral to the Government’s plan for universal healthcare?

The Convention’s design, its membership, its operational procedures, its content and the use of its outcomes must incorporate the principles of a model of best practice for public participation in Constitutional reform if we are to maximise the possibility that this Convention could be a critical component in revitalising our Republic.

Senator Katherine Zappone is an independent member of the Seanad.

Read next:

Comments (115 Comments)

  • The same folk giving out about SSM now would have been on here giving out about uppity women back in the day, and uppity blacks before that.

    Equal marriage is coming to a screen near you soon. Get over it.

    Reply
    • Sorry Briain…where is same sex permitted at the moment?

      Reply
    • Spain, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands…

      Reply
    • Helen R 16/07/12 #

      Following on from Tony Kavanagh:

      full marriage equality is also available in Canada, South Africa, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina,and six states of the USA (Iowa, Vermont, New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Washington DC); and in Mexico city. The states of Washington and Maryland have also legislated for marriage but will be subject to referendum vote in November 2012.

      Francois Hollande has stated that full marriage equality will be brought to France in 2013.

      Reply
  • If you don’t agree with gay marriage then blame straight people. They’re the ones you keep having gay babies!!!! :-)

    Seriously do the bigots here think the world will end if gay people marry. This ridiculous argument of if will destroy the institution of marriage!! Could someone explain how exactly. How will it affect a straight couples marriage at all?? Can you not just be honest and say you’re a homophobe instead of making excuses. There are no logical arguments against equal marriage. And for the bible bashers religious marriage is totally separate to civil marriage do you can forget that one.

    Reply
    • Nice one!

      Reply
    • Davis I’m not in favour of gay marriage and I wonder how that makes me a bigot?
      I was totally in favour of Civil partnerships and the protections but gay marriage cannot be put on the same legal footing as heterosexual unions because they are simply not the same.

      Reply
    • How?

      Reply
    • How is wanting to enforce a system which creates a 2nd class of citizenship for a minority not bigoted. There are 169 differences between CP and marriage. Could you explain to me why 2 people of the same sex in an equally committed relationship is different to a straight couples relationship!!!! And explain to me also how it would affect you.

      Reply
    • AND explain how EXACTLY it would negatively affect the institution of marriage. Will straight couples still want to marry? Yes. Will straight couples still want to have kids? Yes. Will straight couple who are unhappy in their marriages possibly divorce? Yes. Is that because two men or two women married each other? No.

      Reply
    • Helen R 16/07/12 #

      @ Mick Collins – you said:

      “I was totally in favour of Civil partnerships and the protections but gay marriage cannot be put on the same legal footing as heterosexual unions because they are simply not the same.”

      A short while ago I googled ‘What does marriage mean to you’? Among the answers were:

      ‘Commitment and companionship’;

      ‘it is the union of two people that love and care for each other’;

      ‘Someone to stand by your side through the good times as well as the bad’;

      ‘Someone to share your hopes, dreams and deepest secrets. A lover and a cheerleader when you need one. A traveling companion. Someone to have long discussions with, to argue with on occasions. Then make up.’

      Please tell me which of these relates to the gender of the participants of a marriage? Or which would exclude same-sex couples from making such a commitment?

      Reply
  • I always love the comments from people who come on going “why is the journal printing all these stories? Every third article is on gay rights!!” A lot of people seem to not realise that The journal is staffed primarily by young, progressive, passionate journalists who in general have a very liberal outlook on social issues. If you don’t like it read something more your speed, like the Independent or something!

    Reply
  • Just reading through these comments, sometimes I wish I was gay, purely so I’d be part of the group of people that are irritating the hell out of the bigots up above :P

    Reply
  • Paul 15/07/12 #

    Glad to see the Journal keeping the issue of marriage equality for all in the public realm. I wish the other news media in this country would join in and the fundamental issue of equality for all citizens is addressed properly in this society. Those bitching and moaning about how much coverage this civil rights issue is getting obviously need a reality check and need to recognise that not everyone in Ireland gets treated fairly like they do.

    Reply
  • Who the bloody hell are any of you people to tell me how to live my life? If I want to marry my boyfriend I will, I shouldn’t have to fender bend to bigots! So basically it’s none of your business do stop making discriminating comments against decent human beings!

    Reply
  • Good piece by Katherine Zappone. Balanced and sensible.

    Reply
    • Paul 15/07/12 #

      Very sensible piece. Seems the govt are being very cautious letting go of any power: “you may only discuss x, y and z, and we’re putting politicians in there but not experts who have spent years working in their chosen fields, wouldn’t want to let ye get too many notions here”

      Reply
    • @Celtic Lady,

      Excellent article. I really don’t understand why it’s been called ‘same sex marriage’. As Katherine Zappone wrote, it’s ‘Marriage’! between two people. If this bill/law is called ‘same sex marriage’ it will continue to make homosexuals, males/females seem different from other people. They are no different!

      They are human beens, no different to others. Intelligent, normal, human beings. The only people that think and insist they are ‘different’ are religions and people with closed minds that refuse to open them. Not everything in life is black and white.

      Reply
  • This constitutional convention sounds like it’ll be a sham. 66 people, who selects them?

    Reply
  • One thing that strikes me in this ongoing debate, as anti-marriage equality advocates get more desperate is the rather cynical and destructive attempt to redefine what marriage is for the convenience of their own agenda.

    Marriage is quite simply a public commitment between two adults to love each other and maintain a relationship with each other from that point on. That’s what it’s always been, that’s what it’s always been understood to be.

    The only change since the writing of our constitution is not in the definition of marriage itself but in the now near universal acceptance that consensual relationships between homosexual adults are every bit as genuinely loving as any other. That’s it. No change to marriage itself, just to the understanding that same sex couples meet the definition that was already there.

    To me, this attempt by some quarters to redefine marriage as an agreement between a man and a woman to conceive and parent children together not only goes against the long traditions of history, but is ultimately destructive to the institution of marriage itself.

    Reply
    • Helen R 16/07/12 #

      “To me, this attempt by some quarters to redefine marriage as an agreement between a man and a woman to conceive and parent children together not only goes against the long traditions of history, but is ultimately destructive to the institution of marriage itself.”

      Absolutely right – I agree – the people who are fighting MOST for the validity of marriage are the gays and lesbians who understand just how important it is. Their struggle inspires and strengthens my own marriage.

      Not only that, your use of the term ‘redefine’ is the one that anti-gay marriage activists in the USA, the so-called National Organisation for Marriage, promotes on its website in ‘Marriage Talking Points’:

      I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:

      Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

      “Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
      they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

      This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

      Language to avoid at all costs: “Ban same-sex marriage.” Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”

      Source: http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm

      Reply
    • I do disagree with you, as I think this will be an evolution of marriage, but a positive one. Marriage evolved when women couldn’t legally be beaten or raped. Marriage evolved when skin colour became irrelevant. I’d like to think that the institution of marriage is become a better one over time.

      Reply
  • Some of the comments are so predicatable, the new discrimination seems to be ‘shut up about your lack of rights’?..so by that logic shelving the issue will give rise to equal marriage? Doubtful. Time to introduce same sex marriage in Ireland as there is absolutely the mandate for it.

    Reply
    • Agreed, and to be honest, the only thing that can come out of delaying it further is a lengthy debate from both sides! The sooner it’s passed the sooner we can all move on and the bigots can find something else to be intolerant towards!

      Reply
    • I find it a little amusing that in a response to an article the point of which was to talk of ‘marriage for same-sex couples’ rather than ‘same-sex marriage’, the latter is the term you use.

      Reply
  • “suck it up” please keep the puns out of this discussion. We who are serious see no humour in that.

    Reply
  • You are all blaming and posting negative comments about SSM but who in the end made those gay babies? You choosing everything what’s convenient for you from the Bible, instead of the important which is LOVE! and respect each other. Act of hate that some of the comments show just prove how truly, ‘Catholic’ you all are.

    Reply
  • Pesky equality.

    Reply
  • There seems to be a feature about ssm every two days inthe Journal. Is there nothing more interesting going on?

    Reply
    • It’s important.

      Reply
    • As long as you have simple minded people then you will have an audience for stories like gay marriage which are thankfully as illegal as abortion in this country. This is why this website continues to run the same old drivel every day!

      Reply
    • Paul 15/07/12 #

      It’s a column piece. If you have something interesting to say off with ya. They might even publish it. I hope they do just so that the rest of us can laugh at your flat earth, 6000 year old universe, he loves you but if you don’t do exactly what he says he’ll throw you in a pit of fire and torment for all eternity, love thy neighbour but spitting fire and venom at them if they’re different from you, self contradictory bs.

      Reply
    • You’re right, TheJournal should be posting more pieces about “Call Me Maybe” remixes and parodies instead of articles on important human rights issues

      Reply
    • “Waterford” twitter login looks like it was created to troll – already gone from twitter….

      Reply
    • Excellent point Darren. Seems ad if someone at the journal has an axe to grind on a limited number of issues. And by the way folks SSM is not the same as marriage and never will be.

      Reply
    • Cieran, can’t see in any way how SSM is an important issue. Homosexuality is recreative sex AKA a hobby. It has nothing to do with HR.

      Reply
    • Except if your are gay, because gay people are human too you know.. If love is just a recreational pursuit then why do we have marriage at all?

      Reply
    • Paul 15/07/12 #

      Obviously you are not one of the many second class citizens in this country subjected to descrimination because of the person you are.

      Reply
    • I think you should try a little harder to live by the first of the pieces of advice in your twitter avatar. Firstly, all sex is supposed to be recreational. If you’re not finding it is then you’re not doing it right. Secondly, in the words of Christopher Hitchens, “homosexuality isn’t just a form of sex, it’s a form of love and it deserves our respect for that reason”. Your initial comment looked like you were just tired of all the coverage of marriage equality but you showed your true colours in your follow-up: you have a problem not just with marriage equality but with gay people in general, evidenced by your pig-ignorant attempt to write their sexuality off as a “hobby”. 

      Reply
    • ROFL!!
      Your knowledge of physiology is quite amusing.. If sex was solely for procreation, as it is with the majority of the animal kingdom, women would go on heat. They would only be prepared to receive around the time of ovulation, and men would only feel the desire to have sex when the females were in oestrus.
      And for the majority of other creatures – sex is not a pleasant act, look at cats and ducks..

      Of course, we are not the only mammals who enjoy sex for pleasure, dolphins and some primates do too.

      When it comes to humans are you trying to say that for infertile couples their sex is purposeless? Because the argument about inability to procreate (like all other arguments against homosexuality – also present in the animal kingdom) has the massive gaping paradox of discriminating against infertile heterosexual couples too..

      Face it – all the arguments against homosexuality are this flawed, two consenting adults falling in love is a good thing no matter how many fallacious arguments you spew..

      Reply
    • Wow, is all I can say. I hope nobody reports your comment as it is a good representation of narrow minded homophobia.

      Reply
    • @Shanti
      I never said sex was only for procreation you have (deliberately?) misread me.
      Your comparison of homos with infertile heterosexual is interesting. Heterosexuals unable to procreate is an exception to the rule. Homosexuality is intrinsically morbid. Infertile heterosexuals experience their infertility as a tragedy and often seek treatment because individuals become infertile as a result of an illness or due to a a hormonal dysfunction. Are you saying that homosexuality is also a dysfunction and homos should undergo conversion therapy? (It’s a question).
      Pierce, thanks for proving my point: gay agenda supporters are often a shower of fascist pigs who ‘report’ or use name calling with anyone who happens to disagree with them.

      Reply
    • @ Darren Marcus

      “the miracle of life” – it’s not a miracle! it’s life! The fact that gay people can adopt children, who have been given away by heterosexual people is great. They give those children a life to remember, brings happiness to that child’s life and also an education!

      You have no right to judge anyone. Nobody knows everything about the world we live in. All we can do is be there for others and support them when needed.

      Reply
    • Your assertion that procreation is the first function ignores the deeper aspect to sex in us and a select few other mammals.
      It is also about deepening the bond between two people.

      To say that it is morbid because it cannot produce children is calling infertile couples morbid too, but perhaps you failed to recognise that as you have such twisted logic..

      I for one am happy to allow you to have your say, because it shows you up as you are. Intolerant and far too obsessed with other peoples private lives.

      Reply
    • Quite a journey you made in a short time. You’ve progressed from questioning why marriage equality is being reported on so much, right onto actual hate speech. “some homos are into bareback and help spread AIDS”? Homosexuality is “intrinsically morbid”? Disgusting slurs. But your language is interesting – you certainly have all the gay lingo: “into bareback”? you didn’t hear that at mass :-) Where did you hear that? There are studies which show clearly defined links between secret homosexual attraction and homophobia…

      You have sex and procreation backwards (as you have a lot of things). It’s pregnancy that’s the by-product, not the enjoyment. Are you telling us that as a hormone-crazed teenager you couldn’t wait to get out there and procreate, with sexual fulfilment as a mere side-order? There are remote tribes who have only recently learned the connection between sex and procreation.

      Marriage equality is coming Darren: the gays want it, the majority of straight people want it, even most religious people who I know want it. You might as well get used to it. You can come on here and spout your disgusting views if you like, but you can expect robust rebuttal.

      Reply
    • Wowser! Anyone else think Darren and Waterford should get together for a little homosexual procreation? I think they would produce a lovely individual…….sarah palin.

      Reply
    • Sheila, people judge me all the time by calling me a homophobe. Do you think that heterosexual couples should give away every second child they have in the name of equality?

      Shanti, of course infertility is morbid too. That’s why they get fertility treatment. Now should homos seek treatment too??? (again it’s a question).

      Mark, the fact you’re surprised that a Catholic should know about bareback just shows how much you have preconceived notions. We’re actually pretty intellectually open-minded. Jean Genet himself described homosexuality as morbid. Does it make him a ‘homophobe’?
      Furthermore, I am pretty sure am straight as I tried with a person of the same sex many years ago as a teenager. Don’t regret it but wouldn’t do it again. Now I wonder how many homosexuals share my open-mindedness and have tried with a person of the opposite sex. ;p
      I will ‘accept’ – the legality not the validity – of SSM the day the majority of Irish approve of it in a referendum. We can go back and forward till the cows come home so let’s ask for a referendum to see if the traditional conception of marriage (man+woman) is obsolete and if it should be extended to same sex couples. We are all democrats here right?

      Reply
    • Darren, you just called yourself open minded! You are NOT open minded! You are narrow minded!
      You are one sick individual and I’m delighted you are very much in the minority!

      Reply
    • Tony,
      ‘You are one sick individual and I’m delighted you are very much in the minority!’
      That the sort of thing that used to be hurled at homos. Is tolerance a one way thing with you lot?

      Reply
    • Darren, the volume of red thumbs you are accumulating should help show that it is you that is in the minority. Any recent survey shows that the people of Ireland want to make civil marriage a gender neutral institution.

      Here’s just a few:
      http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=CWIDGBEYCWOJ
      http://scripts.ireland.com/polls/breaking/index.cfm?fuseaction=yesnopoll&pollid=8376&subsiteid=356
      http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/OIReferendum-Report-Final-2003-corrected.pdf
      http://www.thejournal.ie/nearly-three-quarters-of-irish-people-in-favour-of-gay-marriage-2011-03/

      Regardless of public opinion, this isn’t about what the masses think, this is about granting civil rights to a minority group. The majority should never decide by popular vote the rights of a minority.

      Referring to some things you’ve been saying – granted, sex is an important part of any romantic relationship but why did you bring the argument there? This is about civil marriage, not sex. When I hear news of a heterosexual marriage my mind doesn’t instinctively go to the idea of that couple having sex

      Reply
    • By calling me and all homosexual individuals “homo” you are negating your own “tolerance” of us “homos”! IRONY!

      Now stop your hate preaching you troll!

      Reply
    • Tony,
      Homo is just the short for homosexual. Don’t be so sensitive.

      Reply
    • I know all this antipathy is like oxygen to you, but that can’t go unchallenged. Tolerance is certainly a one-way thing with you, Darren. You described homosexuality as “a hobby”, said it was “intrinsically morbid”, said some gays spread AIDS, said “gay agenda supporters” were a “shower of fascist pigs”. Then, you cried intolerance when someone called you a sick individual. I know you’re only parroting what the church tell you to think, but when people who think for themselves call you up on it, they’re not being intolerant. They’re refusing to let your intolerance go unchallenged.

      Reply
    • No Darren, Homo in the sense you’re using it is offensive!
      You are a very troubled individual!

      Reply
    • JayTee 15/07/12 #

      Darren. Get help.

      Reply
    • Anyone who challenges the Gay agenda is called a biggot and a homophobe so it’s only fair game to retaliate.

      Reply
    • JayTee 15/07/12 #

      errr no Darren, spending hours obsessing over and commenting on a subject which does not effect you in any way clearly qualifies you as in need of help.

      Reply
    • Darren – go out and get laid. You might learn a thing of two.

      Reply
  • Same sex marriage is term used to differentiate them from others because they need to be highlighted. Ie news story about marriage laws yesterday. We need to define what marriage laws they talking about so we say same sex marriage.

    It’s like saying Siberian tiger instead of tiger, and I don’t see the Siberian tiger moaning.

    Jesus some people love to complain, about time these people jordan off the equality bandwagon that they’re overfilling.

    Reply
  • As a big flaming gay myself I like the brand “ssm” we are gay, we are different, but so what.

    Reply
  • wonderful article, but the author should have stayed in the kitchen and got on with Sunday lunch, the washing, housekeeping etc. As the amazing James Brown would say ” Gettup an make mah dinner!” Clearly her husband is an understanding bloke. I expect green thumbs only.

    Reply
  • I married a motor cycle two years ago but to date we have been unable to produce children.

    Reply
  • Marriage is defined, at common law, as the “voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”: Hyde v Hyde (1866) L.R. 1 P and D at 133 (Lord Penzance). In Ireland, “Marriage as understood by the Constitution, by statute and by case law refers to a union by a biological man with a biological woman”: Foy v An tArd Chlaratheoir. Accordingly, for ‘gay marriage’ to be accorded the same status as (regular) marriage a constitutional referendum is required. It is a matter for a majority of citizens, not politicians and certainly not judges, to decide on this issue. Until such time as this happens, gay people just have to learn to accept and deal with the fact that Ireland does not recognise same sex marriage. The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 introduced the concept of civil partnership, which is broadly analogous to marriage, and accordingly what we are concerned with here is a semantical argument not actual discrimination against the gay community.

    Reply
    • I think the key word here is referendum. Let’s just organise one once and for all and move on with this red herring.

      Reply
    • “Civil Partnership is broadly analogous to marriage.” In excess of 160 differences is “broadly analogous”? Really? Those goddam gays will just have to suck it up, huh? You must have a PhD in being patronising. Go you.

      Reply
    • @ Chris. That’s right ‘suck it up’! We live in a democracy!

      Reply
    • I sincerely hope you’ll be taking your turn at sucking it up sooner rather than later.

      Reply
    • @ Chris. How mature of you. Instead of throwing the toys out of the pram, just because a sectional interest didn’t impose it’s minority view on the majority of people, why don’t you do something productive with your time. Run candidates who support gay marriage in the next general election. If enough get elected, gay marriage will become a political issue and a referendum will follow in due course. It’s called democracy.

      Reply
    • Pot and kettle there, Barry. Basically, I see red when some tries to sell the discrimination imposed on my son (and a myriad other decent human beings) as democracy. I think back people were equally patronized by equally obnoxious twerps during the civil rights movement they spearheaded in the 50s and 60s.

      Reply
    • Once more with better spelling/typing: I see red when someone tries to sell the discrimination imposed on my son (and a myriad other decent human beings) as democracy. I think black people were similarly patronized by equally obnoxious twerps during the civil rights movement they spearheaded in the 50s and 60s.

      Reply
    • You’re right Barry – we live in a democracy. One in this the majority are broadly supportive of equal marriage rights yet they have not been extended to all. Some democracy!

      Reply
    • You know society is up poop creek sans paddle when we have to *vote* for civil rights.

      Reply
    • @ Chris “Obnoxious twerps”? Really??? Your comparison to the plight of the African-American community in the USA is completely misguided. Gay people have never been denied the right to vote in Ireland. There just isn’t enough of them, or like- minded straight people, to change government policy. If you subscribe to the notion of democracy, you have to accept the will of the people, rightly or wrongly.

      Reply
    • Ah. So it’s a NUMBERS game. I agree: voting for civil rights is tragic. Democracy aside, Barry, what exactly is your beef with the notion of extending civil marriage rights to same sex couples?

      Reply
    • @ Tony. I have no problem with gay marriage. Some of my best friends are gay. I just don’t like minority interests attempting to dictate to the majority. If a majority of Irish people vote for gay marriage and the law is changed, I will respect that. Until then. I won’t. Having said that, I fully support equal treatment for same sex couples and I think the Cohabitees Act 2010 achieves that

      Reply
    • @ Chris. Glad to see you don’t let a good argument get in the way of subjecting others who don’t share your viewpoint to course vulgar abuse. Troll!

      Reply
    • Actually, Barry, I see it as a win/win situation: I get to childishly articulate how offensive I find your attempts to pass off bigotry as democracy* and you get to be all self-righteous about my puerile behavior. Two questions, though: 1 – which of those is the greater offense and, 2 – if the public has not yet voted on this issue, how can you chalk it up to democracy?

      Reply
    • Oh, and “some of my best friends are gay”? Please! My son is gay and I would deplore anyone claiming friendship who would seek to deny his rights like you do.

      Reply
    • @ Chris. I’m no bigot. As you can’t engage in this debate without resorting to your admittedly puerile behaviour I have no intention of indulging you further.

      Reply
    • Lol. Nothing like a dose of high dudgeon to let you off questions you can’t answer.

      Reply
    • @ Chris. The issue of gay marriage is not important enough to the majority of Irish people. If it was, it would have been an election issue during the last election. If it becomes sufficiently important, politicians will take stance on the issue. If enough politicians who support gay marriage are elected in the next general election, a constitutional referendum will follow to change to Article 41.3 to include same sex marriages. The fact this has not happened before now is indicative of a lack of a majority of public support for gay marriage. Now queue further abuse from Chris who can’t deal with this indisputable fact.

      Reply
    • Well, it’s in the *current* programme for Government and recent news would seem to indicate a healthy support among both Government and Opposition TDs. You say “The issue of gay marriage is not important enough to the majority of Irish people” and yet several polls seem to indicate that over 70% of people would support it. A little earlier you said “If a majority of Irish people vote for gay marriage and the law is changed, I will respect that. Until then. I won’t.” The last four words of that statement make me question the assertion that “some of your best friends are gay.”

      Reply
    • Barry, you’re appeal to ‘democracy’ is ill conceived.

      The only reason it wasn’t an ‘election issue’ at the last election was that EVERY MAJOR PARTY ALREADY SUPPORTED IT. It’s hard to have a good political debate that’s just them all up there at their podiums going “I agree with him, also”.

      The reality is that the VAST MAJORITY of Irish people at the last election voted for parties that had pledged to introduce marriage equality during the term of this government. The reality is that the great majority of Irish people want marriage equality introduced.

      The reality is that it’s you that are representing a minority lobbying group trying to frustrate the democratic will of the Irish people in pursuit of your own minority agenda.

      Reply
    • The one thing I think we all agree upon is the need for a referendum. However, if a majority vote ‘no’ will the gay community respect the decision of the electorate? I for one will, irrespective of the outcome

      Reply
    • I suspect that they would not accept a negative outcome. Much like the divorce referenda, if it fails on the first attempt, I would be surprised if the LGBT community, their families, friends, etc., simply threw their hands up and conceded defeat. Society is moving on. Ten years ago, this debate would be very different. Divorce was permitted and the sky didn’t fall. Civil Partnerships were legislated for and the sky didn’t fall. Equal access to civil marriage WILL be permitted and I promise you that the sky won’t fall. The institution of marriage won’t be negatively affected, children won’t be handed out wholesale to adoptive same-sex couples and people will probably start to wonder what the fuss was about.

      Reply
    • Again, Barry, you don’t seem to get how this democracy thing actually works. A referendum does not tie future generations forever to the result. That’s why we have referenda in the first place — to give the electorate an opportunity to have their say and overturn what was previously decided.

      So, yes, *whatever the result* of a referendum everyone involved has every right to try and continue to change the public’s mind and then have another referendum once there’s a reasonable expectation the public want change.

      If a referendum passes granting marriage equality, I’m perfectly happy for those who oppose equality to continue to try and persuade people of the righteousness of their arguments (as doomed to failure as that effort may be).But if, by some bizarre oddity, it shouldn’t pass (and with the overwhelming support from the Irish people, I don’t see how that could happen, honestly) – but IF it didn’t, then the effort to convince people of the need for true equality would simply continue.

      Reply
    • Barry, do you think that civil rights for African Americans or Catholics in the north of Ireland should have been put to referendums by the respective governments in the USA/NI to allow the majority have their say on the minority rights?

      And if those referendums had voted to continue to deny civil rights/equality to those minority groups, do you think it would have been right and proper in a democratic society that the majority’s say should be final and those minority happily continue in their second class citizenship?

      In a free democratic society, minority groups shouldn’t have to plead their case or convince people of their right to equality – it should be guaranteed and protected by law. The reason for constitutional protections on human rights is to ensure that the majority can’t gang up on minority groups to deny them in the first place.

      And it is certainly not clear cut that the constitution prohibits same sex marriage – see here: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0716/1224320203659.html

      I would very much agree with that analysis (coming from a legal background).

      PS – the comparison to the African American community is not misguided. Firstly, civil rights are civil rights, full stop. Secondly, one of the things African American’s were denied was the right to freely marry somebody they love – anti-miscegenation laws prohibited inter-racial marriage. Those laws were found to be unconstitutional in the US (for much the same reasons courts in Iowa, Massachusetts struck down marriage inequality laws as unconstitutional).

      Reply
  • there is an obvious distinction between same sex marriage and conventional marriage. I think it should be treated very carefully for all parties concerned and deserves considered debate.

    Reply
    • Besides the sex of the couples, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever. I’m often critical of the Senator but she is spot in with this. The Senator is in a marriage, a full marriage and nothing but a marriage!!!

      Reply
    • We already have civil partnerships, now we need to push full marriage that is the exact same in every legal way. There should be NO distinction between same sex and conventional marriage. I think someone mentioned on this website before that there is around 160 distinct advantages of marriage over civil partnership.

      I don’t even know any gay/lesbian people, I just think it’s ridiculous that 2 loving consentual adults can’t get married just because it’s not what some people like. 2 people are in love and you want to lessen what they have?? What a crock of sh**!

      Reply
    • And another note, when it finally is legalised fully (it really is a matter of when, not if), it will be grand.

      It’ll be like divorce or the smoking ban. People will complain, then it will just be another thing that we barely notice. We’ll think it’s weird then when we go on holidays and other counties don’t allow it, etc. etc.

      And guess what? The sun will continue to rise in east and fall in the west.

      Reply
  • Jesus! Go back to makin it illegal. Then you’ll have something to complain about. This is starting to get ridiculous.

    Reply
  • @Sheila Byrne. Sorry Sheila how are we in disagreement??? I don’t follow

    Reply
  • Adam and eve, not Adam and Steve. Bible, page 26, 5th sentence.

    Reply
    • So, law and society must bow to creationist views? Has Ireland turned into a redneck State from the deep south? Hot tip, Sam: those of a religious persuasion need not marry anyone of the same sex. I’m sure the most devout will be towing that line. Those of other relgions and no religion should not be subjected to the decree of one religion.

      Reply
    • “Those of other relgions and no religion should not be subjected to the decree of one religion.”

      Eh, so you’re in favour of muslim (or mormon) polygamy?
      Because at the moment that are indeed subject to the decrees of Christianity…

      Reply
    • Nope, SaintRuth, we’re not. We’re subject to the laws we, as citizens, elect our representatives to legislate for.

      Reply
    • @SaintRuth, personally I do not favour polygamy. Principally because it is based on inequality: where it’s permitted, men are allowed multiple wives but women are allowed only one husband. Plus, on an emotional/psychological level, I can’t see that the sharing of a spouse would be easy or desirable. Then again, I know of some people in “open” marriages (Christian – albeit non-practising and heterosexual, as it happens) and relationships that seem reasonably happy with their arrangement, so who am I to judge?

      Reply
    • Adam and Eve made Adam and Steve. So what’s your point?

      Reply
    • Here, Adam and Eve made Cain and Abel, Cain murdered Abel and went on to father children..
      With who exactly?

      We know that later in the bible they condemn men who lie with beasts and men who lie with men, so I guess if it’s your sister or your mother then it’s fine – you can marry and inbreed as much as you like – but you can’t have a loving relationship with a member of the same sex..

      Nice to know they’re on a solid moral footing when they toss their judgements around isn’t it?

      Reply
  • Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, that’s it. The senator can call her perversion of this institution what she wants but what she is part of most certainly isn’t a marriage.

    Reply
    • Helen R 16/07/12 #

      Mujaahid, that is in your opinion. Certainly you are entitled to it and I am sure some commentators on this post will echo your sentiments – but just as valid are the arguments of those who disagree with you, myself included.

      Reply
    • I’d call your fundamentalism a perversion dude, it makes average people trapped in the Abrahamic prison religions look bad..

      By all means, you are entitled to pick and choose whatever parts of your paradoxical scripture that you like to bolster your hatred for your fellow man – but that was never the overriding message of your prophets and you know it..

      Now, run along and keep your stones and judgement to yourself, may your god have mercy on you for the hatred you spew when the prophets told you to live in peace and love.

      Reply
    • Paul 17/07/12 #

      @Shanti, the prophet told them to live in peace but he also preached conquest.
      He preached peace when he was living in Mecca which was a very mixed city and he was very much in a minority so had some motivation to preach tolerance then. He eventually preached against paganism and they ran him out of the place. He went to Medina, got all hard line and militant, conquered the place and started preaching that there are 2 houses in the world: the house of peace (Muslim territory) and the house of war (where the Muslims are still trying to gain control).
      Someone spotted the contradiction and may have wondered why his all knowing all seeing god would change his mind since there is obviously nothing left for such a being to learn and therefore change his mind.
      Islam has a neat trick to square this circle: whatever he said most recently is the truth (yeah forget the previous lie, believe the new one) so they claim there are no contradictions in their perfect book but of course it’s full of them, they just have a rule about which one takes precedence when they conflict.
      Because he lived a military life later in his life, all his warmongering takes precedence over any peace-loving prophet some Muslims tell us about. While many Muslims believe this part of their faith (as many other religious people see only the good part of their faith), we live in the house of war, it is ok to lie to us with a clear conscience.
      Islam is a religion of conquest, not of peace, even their calendar starts when Mohammed conquered, not when he was born, or when he started hearing voices :) I know a lot of Muslims, have good working relations with them, have been witnesses on their behalf on citizenship, asylum etc. (on a personal level, not a professional one) and I do not have an axe to grind against anyone, but their religion is not one of peace. Peace is conditional on submission to Islamic rule and the end of the house of war.

      Reply
    • I doubt that’s exclusive to Islam.. If you look at Deuteronomy the instructions for the Jewish faith is to destroy anyone in their way.. The warmongering started as far back as the old testament with the “goyim”. There’s an element of us v them in Christianity too, hence why I call them prison religions – each one trumpets the same sort of superiority and elitism.. As a way to trap the followers into their servitude to something that they don’t even truly understand.. In short, only the secular ones have any hope of living truly in peace.. If you will worship a god who has a split personality (resolved by learning the true origins of genesis – Yahweh and Adonai were two different people, and neither of them were gods)

      Reply
    • In short, religion poisons everything.

      Reply

Add New Comment