A PANEL OF lawyers who advocate a Yes vote in the same-sex marriage referendum say the vote will not restrict the government’s ability to legislate for surrogacy.
The issue has been debated in recent days after posters from the Mothers and Fathers Matter group highlighted the issue of surrogacy ahead of the marriage vote.
Yes campaigners have argued that the two issues are completely separate and Lawyers for Yes have joined that chorus.
“Surrogacy is an extremely complex ethical issue, which will require careful regulation whether or not the referendum passes,” according to Mary O’Toole SC of Lawyers for Yes.
The law does not establish a constitutional right to access surrogacy for anyone. It is clear that the Oireachtas has full powers to restrict surrogacy in the best interests of children and will continue to have such powers regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
Keith Mills, a spokesperson for Mothers and Fathers Matter, says the group also availed of legal consultation before publishing the posters.
He has argued that people who think surrogacy is not a linked issue “don’t understand the full implications of what the referendum will do”.
“Not only will the referendum redefine marriage, it will redefine the family,” he told TheJournal.ie earlier this week.
Laws surrounding surrogacy were originally drafted as part of the Children and Family Relationships Bill but Health Minister Leo Varadkar said it made more sense for them to be part of a bill governing assisted human reproduction.
The Children and Family Relationships Bill was recently passed by the Oireachtas and, among other provisions, extended the right to jointly adopt to cohabiting couples and civil partners.
At the time the above bill was being published, Varadkar warned that the issues of same-sex marriage and surrogacy should not be mixed up.
“Most of the people who avail of assisted human reproduction or surrogacy, or most of the people who are in the family courts, are actually heterosexual couples. So to try and turn that into some sort of same-sex or gay issue I think is wrong,” he said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Mothers and fathers matter lets get a few facts clear the Virgin Mary was the first surrogate mother Jesus then had 2 Fathers so what are these people complaining about.
Amazing
This is the best comment on the issue I have heard so far!
The posters are not necessarily offensive, just deliberately misleading. Whether they realise it or not, those who take these posters at face value really have their gripe with the already-passed Children and Family Relationships Bill. The ‘no’ side are manipulating these people into believing the outcome of the marriage referendum will have some kind of bearing on these issues. The fact is, surrogacy is already available to same sex couples. Same sex couples already have children. The outcome of the referendum (whatever it may be) will have no bearing on these things. They will continue to happen regardless (if anything, all marriage equality will do is provide the children of same sex couples with the statutory protection they are currently denied). The referendum is about civil marriage equality. It simply asks if ‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex?’. Nothing more, nothing less. But it seems any old red herring will do for the ‘no’ campaigners (including invoking planning permission regulations against a mural).
Mary wasn’t a surrogate mother. She had her own child and kept it, even though it wasn’t her husband’s.
Neal – and how did she ‘allegedly’ get pregnant?
@Lloyd “Including invoking planning permission regulations against a mural” shock horror Irish citizens looking for planning regulations to be properly enforced….oh the humanity.
Ahh there you go the secular athiest bible, yes you’ll dip into your version of what you dont believe in, then quote passages like your the experts.
Nothing wrong with planning regulations, Top Cat. It’s more a comment on just how low the ‘no’ side will sink in trying any tactic at all, no matter how arbitrary, in trying to block two people (complete strangers to them no less!) from marrying each other.
Paul I don’t know but it definitely wasn’t me.
Lloyd the yes side started their whole campaign on a lie by stating that this is a vote on equality. It is not.
Vote Yes for Jobs , Vote yes for Stability bla bla bla
now that was misleading , yet I dont remember the Journal having a problem with those .
Neal – hmmmm, think we will have to get her on the Jeremy Kyle show, only way to sort they paternity out.
It’s exactly a vote on equality, Brendan. It’s about providing the legal and statutory protection civil marriage offers to all couples who want it, irrespective of sex. The referendum simply asks: ‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex’.
She was impregnated against her will. I’d call that rape.
If there is no distinction by which method of understanding will there no longer be any distinction.
@TheDoctor – Yup, rape. Although not so much against her will but without her explicit consent. The ideal christian family, it seems!
Why would you discuss this when you don’t believe any of it, how do you know she was unhappy about this event, I don’t believe that she was distraught, where as rape in the real world involves violence.
If you woke up in the morning and found out you were going to for unknown reasons have a litter if cats,you would have good reason to freak out, but the bible story is a very different sinario.
David, well why are you discussing surrogacy if you don’t believe in it?
Ha sinario, best Freudian slip ever.
Also rape is not always violent.
Do you think surrogacy was a thing 2000 years ago Lloyd.
Dave when is the act of rape not violence.
Does it matter, David? It was 2000 years ago. I prefer to believe in what’s real and relevant today over what was unreal and irrelevant 2000 years ago.
David Nolan – yes, surrogacy was in place two thousand years ago and before that. Babylonian laws allowed it and there are historical examples of wealthy women using others to provide children for them.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy
You believe in whats real, what a laugh.
What IS it a vote on, so? Enlighten us. Clearly we innocent sheep have been misled by a wayward shepherd.
Its the marriage equality referendum.
And although many people from the yes side have said it has nothing to do with children, there are some on the yes side who insist on posting links to peer reviewed articles, yet this according to them has nothing to do with children.
Interestingly enough the Journal did an article last week I think, and they were out in the streets, asking people about what they thought the other referendum was about, and some of those asked thought it had something to do with children.
David,
The only reason I, and I’m sure others, bring up those studies and anything to do with children is in response to those on the no-side who insist it has everything to do with children and claim same-sex couples cannot raise a decent well-adjusted child. They are always the first to bring it up.
Chris many times some people from the yes side have posted links to certain research, and it was done so as a rebuttal.
David – you are arguing against yourself, Chris stated it was in response to, thus a rebuttal.
I don’t know if anyone who was being truly honest would agree with you.
Watch the red thumbs.
Yes, David, that was what I said.
I don’t know what you’re getting at?
Those posters are so nasty
I actually took one down, it was on the lamppost right outside where I live, being a gay guy I didn’t want to have that crap onfront of my house
I plan to use it to make a base for a new indoor run I am making for my guinea pig
The yes side has shown nothing but contempt toward not only children’s rights but the rule of law and our constitution.
- Website hacking
- Vandalism of listed buildings
- Destruction of NO posters
- Politicising of our police force
- Racial abuse of polish NO canvasser
All deemed acceptable once it’s on the Yes side of the campaign.
Vote NO on May 22nd because children are not commodities.
Mate, I would advise interfering with a campaign poster like that.
On May 23rd, take as many as you want and lay them down the aisle at your wedding
Ewan I will forward your confession to relevant authorities.
The guinea pig deserves better me thinks =P
No you won’t you little chicken s-hit.
Rights of children will not change after May 22nd except for those children raised by same sex couples now having the same rights as others
Too cat or whatever log on you want to answer me with in light of the children and family bill how exactly does this vote have any impact on children’s rights in our constitution??
What about the no sides ;
-Complete use of 1/2 truths
-Influence from foreign funding bodies, e.g Iona gets most its money from Americans
-Deceptive posters
-Vandalising of murals
-Lobbying to remove Yes murals
-Attempts to silence criticism
-Completely homophobic abuse (i.e Iona)
-Making it about “Children” when the referendum isn’t anything to do with “Children”
-Offensive campaigning to Surrogate mothers, IVF kids etc.
Was in town Saturday evening and a no group had gathered at Dame St. with ‘god says no’ banners. All I could do was laugh.
Go on then
Technically the poster was actually in a car park for an apartment block away from a public road so it is private property
Think of the effect of these posters on a young widow or widower, or a young person who has just experienced marriage breakup …… So insensitive
Diarmaid,
Are you making “Marriage” compulsory for all gay couples with children?
Perhaps you’d like to rethink your generalisation, because there’s a possibility you agree with the No side – that it is about children and family.
Call me old fashioned but I don’t really want to see it outside of my bedroom window
Wayne,
SC has ruled that there is no such thing as a de facto marriage.
In other words, parents have to be married in order to acquire recognition as a Family.
Also I am not really that interested in getting married, its more equality I am interested in.
Ewan. As a gay guy you shouldn’t be allowed have a guinea pig. Sure you’ll only abuse it. And you shouldn’t be allowed have a house. Sure you’ll probably knock it to the ground. You also shouldn’t be allowed near a lamppost as you’d most likely blow the bulb. And definitely you shouldn’t be allowed outside. Sure you’ll probably turn that inside as well. Vote No! For ignorance.
With regards to surrogacy this also allows hetero couples to have a naturally born child of that of at least of one rhe parents the closest some women can get to their own natural child. As there is nothing like the longer for a child of your own especially when you’ve been through years of torture trying to conceive i couldn’t imagine saying to that parent after going through all that they weren’t a the childs mother that a donor was how cruel are mother & father matters trying to be
Ewan as a homosexual man you are no more entitled to break the law than any straight man. Nothing you listed above is criminal, everything I listed was that’s the difference between the two campaigns.
Jesus topcat, that sounds positively bitchy. I could crush a grape…
“Ewan I will forward your confession to relevant authorities”
Sorry Gerry but direct interference with our democratic process should be highlighted with the relevant authorities, we aren’t living in North Korea silencing of opponents is not acceptable here or at least it shouldn’t be.
Top Cat, whatever about the law, a person would have to be emotionally dead inside to be able to tolerate a poster outside your home that insults you and insinuates that you are a danger to children and society.
Poor Top Cat. So much hate.
Smelly cat smelly cat what are they feeding you …
That’s fine Neal but last time I checked this was still a democracy and there is a referendum in a months time, simply being upset by words on a piece of cardboard does not give wanton permission to break the law and interfere in the democratic process. We either want a democracy with diversity of opinion or we don’t.
I hear the DUP are recruiting Topcat. Have you been practicing your “no” chants?
So they should just shut up and take it because freedom.
I don’t want a democracy that encourages bigoted persecution.
Top Cat, you are entitled to an opinion. However, while possibly not illegal, running a campaign based on misleading the electorate is unethical and immoral. IMO the no posters should be removed due to the misleading nature of same. The no side are interfering with the outcome by misinforming people, yes side are removing the posters. If you want a fair debate, you gotta tell the truth!! Nothing to do with children here, this referendum is for granting constitutional protection of gay people who are married. So the protection of gay marriage cannot be removed by law, only referendum. The surrogacy Act (passed the legislature) deal with children etc.
I am on the yes side of the campaign but it doesnt mean I deem all of that to be acceptable. As with all other referendums and elections etc, there will always be a few on each side of the campaign who do the wrong thing and push things too far but remember that is on both sides. No campaigners arent angels either and the amount of homophobic abuse around is huge not to mention the utter insult most of the campaigning is against infertile couples and single parents. Children are not commodities yet they are being plastered all over no campaigners posters with utterly misleading statements on them.
Daughter of a lesbian raised in a FF relationship tells us why she is voting NO: This is a must read!
Discussing poster and completely relevant to the marriage equality referendum.
This discussing poster advocates a no vote in a vote on surrogacy when no such vote is taking place therefore the poster is littering.
That article more describes issues with divorce, and father abandonment, more-so than same-sex marriage.
At least post both articles, Top Cat:
Son of Two Lesbian mothers argues in favour of same-sex marriage:
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/head-to-head-a-son-with-two-mothers-argues-in-favour-of-same-sex-marriage-1.2186613
It’s worth noting that Keith Mills of Mothers and Fathers Matter has tweeted Colm O’Gorman of the the Yes campaign to explain that the actual reason the Surrogacy posters went up is because the M&FM group are annoyed that the Oireachtas passed the Child & Family Relationships Act almost unopposed. Ireland has never legislated for surrogacy and this referendum will not matter to surrogate couples one jot.
In fact, the same Keith Mills previously tweeted (a few months ago) acknowledging himself that surrogacy and marriage equality are totally unrelated.
M&FM are behaving in a way which is an affront to our democracy, by fooling people into believing that surrogacy issues will be impacted in any way whatsoever by the Marriage Referendum – whether Yes or No. They will not, and it is a deceit to suggest otherwise.
Writing something on a poster doesn’t make it the gospel truth.
So paul, if the referendum passes the only impact on children will be those of gay couples will be legally protected as a family
Yes Wayne and lgbt children and future lgbt children will grow up in a society that doesn’t legally discriminate against them simply because they are born lgbt. A yes majority in the referendum might go some way towards counteracting the homophobic insults being issued by the no campaign, while they cannot say how even one child will be directly helped by their campaign or by a majority no in the referendum.
Varadker?
Is there not a conflict of interest issue here?
To all YES voters – the message from the YesEquality team is LEAVE THE NO POSTERS ALONE! !!
Do not remove, do not deface no matter how despicable they are. Top Cat is right, it is illegal and denies an open exchange of messages.
Besides, the posters have been so inflammatory that donations to YesEquality have been flooding in which means more YES posters and the campaign bus which will reach rural areas of the country. So don’t get mad – DONATE at http://www.yesequality.ie .
Let’s beat the lies the LEGAL way.
Great Article Top Cat.
And very true.
No matter how selfish the “equalists” get,
2 ould blokes will never be equal to a babies mother and father.
(or 2 ould women for that matter)
Please Vote NO, for the Equality of Babies.
David i would also like to point out its the parents responsibility to ensure they child doesn’t feel they are “missing out” so to speak. Plenty of single parent (btw not at all a “broken home” as one poster described) can thrive while others can struggle been both parents. It depends on support of surrounding family members and if anything the article in Irish times doesn’t seem to answer the question why her father left her – could this be the reasoning behind her need for love to know her father freely walked away and did not stay and fight?
The ‘no’ side shot themselves in the foot when they based their anti-gay stance on the issue of children. The Children and Family Relationships Bill has addressed all the issues relating to family and children. Marriage Equality will have zero effect on that legislation. So, the Referendum will have no impact on children. The ‘no’ side are being disingenuous and their negative posturing has only served to harm their campaign.
Rationalise all you want Sharon but taking vulnerable newborn babies from their mother’s wombs/breast/heartbeat and forcing them into a life of being fatherless/motherless is so wrong.
@David
I don’t think anyone would disagree with you. Where is this happening?
Observe the way that young mothers get together and share their experiences and tips on succesful parenting,
these skills have been passed on mother to daughter generation to generation for hundreds of thousands of years.
Snatching newborn babies from their mother’s wombs/breasts/heartbast and Handing them over to 2 old blokes is wrong, so so wrong.
Where is the “equality” in that cruel act “yesers”???
Everyday George.
In SS couple surrogacy/”parenting”.
Guys, STOP FURTHERING THIS ARGUMENT!! That opinion is not held by any decent people. Either it’s a troll or an ignorant idiot!! Stop FURTHERING this person’s argument by trying to rationally debate with it.
Less of the low personal jibes please.
You must be in the wrong forum.
AskFM is that way.
@David
your gripe is with the Children and Family Relationships Bill NOT Marriage Equality. ME will not affect that legislation which has already been enacted.
Ewan Scott-Douglas
Have to agree, I tore down a ” Vote Yes ” poster outside my place, not being gay I found it offensive
that they put it where I was seeing it right outside my window, the people putting it up were also very belligerent about me removing it.
There is just no talking sense to some people, so I had to remove it.
Yes there is no talking sense to you and so you removed it, at least you are admitting that, it’s a big step.
DelI
I don’t want any posters outside my window.
Dell
It’s bad enough having to listen and read about these self righteous yes people, they are worse than the RCC, I wish they would pontificate somewhere else.
Yes how awful for you having to listen to people who want equal rights. Might I suggest you vote yes and then you won’t have to listen anymore.
Dell
I don’t vote, I have no wish to support a corrupt system, however I way make an exception this time, I’m just so pi$$ed off with people being fobbed off with this placebo when the people are being of this country are being destroyed.
Dell
We have equality here, of sorts, the hate spewing from the yes side is more than that equal to that from the no side, you won’t get any referendum to point out the obvious more than that.
Sometimes the truth hurts!
The God squad have swapped their ‘Hello divorce, bye bye Daddy’ tactic that almost worked for them during the divorce referendum, for ‘Hello Gay marriage, bye bye Mammy’ for the marriage equality referendum.
Conclusive proof that they have lost the argument on what the referendum is ACTUALLY about. Equal rights for gay people to marry the person they love and want to spend the srest of their lives with.
Hopefully we’ve matured enough as a society that we won’t fall for the ‘will somebody please think of the children’ crap.
They’ve not only lost the argument on what the referendum is actually about, but they seemed to have lost the argument on what they’re trying to make the referendum about too. There’s considerable backlash from single parents and adoptive parents on the tone of these posters, and schools have been contacting M&FM to remove posters in their vicinity.
I never understood the “bye bye mammy” stuff they spin.
I mean what about Lesbians ?
Until single parents see how they will be further marginalised if the Yes vote is successful.
How exactly will that happen, Paul?
Paul – can you detail One way in which the status of single parents will change should the referendum pass?
Nothing will change about the way the State discriminates against them in favour of married couples, Paul.
That’s the kind of equality you’ll end up with. Even less rights for unmarried fathers thanks to this referendum and the Child and Family Relationships Act.
Paul – so nothing changes and your original statement was false? At least the “No” side are consistent.
Did you not see “further marginalised” in my original comment?
Don’t mind Paul, he’s bitter from his messy divorce.
Paul – I am all for the rights of fathers, but you cannot blame homosexual marriage for all the potential ills in the world, time to build a bridge.
The fact that you admit Paul, that the State policy on single parents is discriminatory destroys your argument totally. The State discriminates against ALL single parents, men and women, straight or gay. However, singke stright people have the right to marry who they fall in love with and bring their family under the Constitutional interpretation and protection of the “family.” Gay men and women do NOT have that equal right.
Paul,
My issue is with the redefinition of Marriage. It’s a discriminatory tool used by the State to treat couples differently.
My experience with Irish Family Law Courts has opened my eyes.
Instead of putting redefined marriage in the constitution, we should be removing it – that actually would be a move towards equality.
That would remove the courts arbitrary distinction of what a family is.
Dublinguy,
If you can find any evidence that I was ever validly married, I’d have some respect for what you just tried on.
The “Paul Roche Referendum” as it is now called.
Barry,
How does your comment support equality?
@Barry:
Excellent point.
@Paul is calling for something much more radical – the abolition of civil marriage.
And he calls for this on the basis that he’s found himself in the middle of a very technical defect in the law which wasn’t foreseen by the Oireachtas – Paul “married” but yet he didn’t “marry” (we are all hopelessly confused by this, as is Paul – yet he refuses to challenge that law before the High Court, as is he right).
So what does @Paul do instead?
He spends vast amounts of energy railing against the extension of civil marriage to the tiny percentage of the population who are homosexual, when really – as we see above – he’s hostile to the entire institution of civil marriage, and all those who are married, in the first place.
Make sense to you? No, me neither.
Let’s move along.
Winding,
I did not call for the abolition of Civil Marriage. I am suggesting that the references to Family and Marriage be removed from the Constitution.
How would its removal amount to an abolition?
Yes but Paul also thinks homosexuality is unnatural and I think this may be a stronger reason for him to want the no vote to win.. He has also referred to gay couples as Ernie and Bert in a ridiculing manner which would lead one to believe that he may have his “unnatural” marital situation as a reason but also he just doesn’t have much time for gay people or their rights.
You might want to correct that, Dell.
It makes it easy for me to call you a liar.
I’m sorry Paul, which part did I get wrong?
You’re a liar, Dell.
You could not support what you have alleged with any proof.
But there’s no harm when you don’t think about what you say, is there?
You are a disgusting creature.
“This will make it easier for Bert and Ernie to get the baby they have always dreamed of.” paul roche Feb 22nd 2015… Who has not been thinking about what they say paul?
You’re obviously too stupid to understand the reference.
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cover-story-bert-and-ernies-moment-of-joy
and you are obviously too insensitive to care how offensive you were being using it. I do owe you an apology though paul, you didn’t say unnatural, you said it was not normal. Do you need me to go get that comment as well? Also calling me names is way up there with you deliberately misspelling other people’s names.
What value would you place on a qualified “apology” from an egg with 0 followers?
If you’re offended, you should have the courage to represent yourself and your offence. You and that other person choose a cowards form of debate.
You have no credibility.
Well the apology was given and it is your right to either accept it or not. funny though how you are not denying you said homosexuality is not normal.. for the record the thought of being held in any kind of favourable light by you, paul, given your views on pretty much everything I have ever seen your glib and often nasty comments on, would be a truly depressing one.
Your word is worth nothing, Egg.
Yet I’ll keep speaking it and there is nothing you can do about that… Must bug you, as you’re not a big fan of people being able to freely do what they want.
I am sick of seeing these posters from ” Mothers and Fathers Matter” , driving to work today there were hundreds of the things, only 4 designs seem to exist and they are all complete lies or 1/2 truths.
Well what do you expect from a group with David Quinn as one of its lead figures
Thought mothers n fathers was the Bopps ? , look them up …
Speaking of mothers n fathers mattering ,why don’t they acknowledge each other on TV debates ( Breda’s son ) or on radio Zebbediah whatever his name is Cat’s mum on the radio baning on about That mural , if theses bonds are ” sacrosanct ” each time you deny them an angel looses his wings ..
Can’t see how any single parents or children of single parents wouldn’t be insulted and angered by this type of no campaign. Except for Top Cat obviously who believes a no vote will cure death and stop parents from breaking up or divorcing.
Will they can hardly put VOTE NO because our god says being gay is wrong and we are homophobes on their posters now can they?
Many agnostics voting no also and homosexuals.
Tom cat, I don’t believe that many homosexuals will vote no. Who in their right mind would vote no in order to give themselves less equality? Keith mills from mothers and fathers matter will I believe be at the eurovision in Vienna. There is always paddy manning I guess. If you have stats to back up your nonsense then let us know.
Top Cat, would you care to give your source or basis for that assertion?
I would say some rather than many, relatively speaking of course.
Top Cat, I get the impression that you don’t actually know ANY gay people, so I’ll just refute that wierd idea of yours that homsexuals will vote against the bill. Every gay person I know is involved in the Yes campaign in some way – why would any gay person vote to continue discrimination against themselves??
Clown… its not a vote on equality. Its a vote to redefine marraige. So when you are bashing the no side for misleading info remember the yes side are also fudging the issue.
Oh I reckon he knows one gay man shauna.
It’s a vote on equality brendan. End of story.
What is the problem with redefining marriage? Marriage is currently defined in a disriminatory manner and this is what ‘Yes’ side says.
Do you crave for continuity so much that you’d rather continue with discrimination for the sake of not changing things rather than changing things for the sake of discontinuing discrimination?
All I can see from the ‘No’ side is fear from change.
According to the referendum commission marriage isn’t defined in the constitution besides as the foundational unit of society.
The courts have ruled that a marriage with or without children constitutes family as per article 41.
Besides which, we have redefined marriage many times. Women are no longer the property of their husband, spousal rape is now illegal, and divorce is legal. Marriage gets redefined quite frequently actually. Because it evolves alongside society.
Wayne O’Fathaigh
I doubt if anyone gives a damn what your god thinks, and if some or many people feel a discomfort around gay people, well that’s tough, there perception is their own business, once it is not a violent obsession I could not care less.
Even if it was included as part of the referendum, I’d still vote yes. I really don’t see the problem of two loving parents of any sex going through this process to bring a child into the world that is wanted and will be loved.
So would I. I wish it had been part of the referendum, though.
Vote YES
The no campaign sowing information again. Nothing wrong in misleading people apparently…
*misinformation
Lies
Simple facts are:
1) When SSM is introduced, there is a peak in demand for surrogacy.
2) In Canada between 2006-2012 there was an increase of 42% in the number of children been raised by same sex couples.
Marriage makes children, by whatever means is necessary. Surrogacy is an abuse of women, and an abuse of children.
People make children, and as you yourself acknowledged qill continue to do so irrespective of the referendum passing or not. And married people are family with or without children Paddy.
Will
So go and campaign for a referendum on surrogacy then Paddy. Interestingly, there is no link between point 1 and point 2 of your stats. I think, with my very basic knowledge of statistical analysis, that is what is referred to as a “fallacy”: “My cat has four legs. My dog also has four legs. Therefore my dog is a cat.”
Good on you for speaking up in the face of a PC railroading Paddy.
Whatever next?
Children’s school books being seized and replaced by the “Equality” police?
I’ll be glad when this PC “equality” propaganda farce is over, so that all the good LGBT people that I know will be allowed to speak for themselves again.
@David
We’ll all be able to speak for ourselves on May, 22nd. As we live in a democracy, we will all have to accept the outcome of that vote. Your issues are related to the Children and Family Relationships Bill. Marriage equality will have zero, nil, zilch impact on that Bill. We must now vote YES, so that ALL our children are protected equally? Surely, you want all children to have equal protection under the law?
Explain that to the new born babies who are taken from their mothers wombs/breasts/heartbeats and handed over to 2 old blokes.
David your gripe is with the Children and Family Relationships Bill NOT Marriage Equality. ME will not affect that legislation which has already been enacted.
Vote NO to give all our babies the best chance in life.
Vote YES to cherish them all equally!
for anyone in any doubt to who is correct here:
http://www.refcom2015.ie/marriage
Vote No crowd logic is that a child having an abusive father and drug addict mother would be acceptable.
Vote YES crowd logic is that a child having an abusive father and drug addict father would be acceptable.
OR
Vote YES crowd logic is that a child having an abusive mother and drug addict mother would be acceptable.
Ahren, gay couples would have to go through the system to have kids therefore they would be vetted. So that’s definitely not the YES logic. The NO logic does seem to be “any man and woman is better than a gay couple”
Loads in glasnevin/phibsboro yesterday covered with spraypaint and covered up
I don’t approve of vandalism but in this case….
Truly disgusting posters designed to make you think a no vote will ‘hurt’ the children. Yes it will hurt the children. It will hurt the children for generations to come if we don’t vote yes. Children gave a right to be who they want, marry who they want. They deserve equality and to live in a society free of stigma
So do it for the children, vote YES
http://www.dailyedge.ie/vote-with-us-brighid-and-paddy-1980931-Mar2015/
The No Campaign would have you believe that two people of the same sex cannot get married because they are not idea parent yet a convicted paedophile will still have every right to marry without intervention.
Utter bolox from the NO Campaign
Because only a heterosexual can be a convicted paedophile?
Irrelevant to the point, Paul
No Paul, but if you had your way an heterosexual pedophile could marry, but a gay one could not, because we must “think of the children”.
I don’t think there are heterosexual or homosexual paedophiles.
Being heterosexual means you want to sleep with consenting adults who are of a different gender. Homosexual means wanting to sleep with consenting adults of the same gender.
There are paedophiles who prefer boys and paedophiles who prefer girls but to equate this preference to either homosexuality/heteosexuality is wrong.
The point is that a convicted paedophile can get married despite being the worst possible situation for a child to grow up in and yet gay couples can’t marry because they are not ideal parents.
This clearly shows that the NO Campaign does not care about children but rather wants to restrict gay people from marriage because they are gay.
But what about lesbian couples who adopt? Those children will grow up with TWO mothers and therefore will be bigger, better and stronger than everyone else…so in theory, we should only allow lesbian couples to raise children as “normal” people are pretty much being abused by not getting that opportunity too.
#NoVoteLogic
‘You’ll notice also that the No campaign will mainly refer to a male couple when referencing SSM with a children as they wish to paint a more insidious picture of the two ‘gays’ up to their old tricks in front of the innocent neglected child they obviously stole from the arms of a good moral catholic couple to raise fabulously gay and of course in sin with them as is the gay agenda’s plan. Using the image of two respectable women as the couple can’t quite get the same unpleasant image mental image across for fear they come across as looking like two aunties and not child abusers.
So in Utah there is this group defending the idea that gay marriage will cause 900,000 abortions over the next 30 years. The reason? Gay marriage will reduce the number of heterosexual marriages (how? why? really?), this will, somehow cause more women to get pregnant outside marriage (since there are less heterosexual marriages, right?) and hence there will be more abortions.
How come they aren’t using THAT argument here? I mean, it is as logical and coherent as the ones they are using now, and damn we know how much does ABORTION scare some people in Ireland!
David Quinn is actually afraid of this, too.
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/04/17/david-quinns-facts-of-life/
“The referendum coming up is one of the most important we’ve ever faced and, actually, it’s connected, to my mind, with any possible abortion referendum.
If we lose this badly, I think they will have an abortion referendum in 2017. If we keep this close, or we manage to win, it’ll frighten them off an abortion referendum for years to come. So I think, actually, this is connected to protecting the 8th amendment of the constitution which is a pro-life amendment.
So the two issues are linked. If they can beat us badly on marriage, they’ll feel they can beat us on the abortion issue. So this is really, really an important battle – not for just what marriage and what the family is all about but for the pro-life section of the constitution, too.”
I think taking the posters down is a bad idea. It’s buying into their victim mentality. Far more positive to donate towards the yes for equality campaign or make posters yourself and put them above or below their posters with positive statements or ones that debunk the rubbish they have on theirs. I recommend some quotes from people on here to show what the no campaign is really about, I have found that quite effective in making people want to go out and vote yes. If they have no qualms posting their comments here, then they should have no problem with them being put on posters. Their utter lack of any kind of respect for other human beings makes decent folk want to stand up and be counted.
Absolutely right, Dell. Removing or defacing the posters only gives the No side (genuine) cause for complaint.
Besides which, they have been a fantastic fundraising tool for YesEquality! Donate at http://www.yesequality.ie to help bring marriage equality to Ireland.
The best thing to do would be to put a YES poster directly next to any NO poster, just to counterbalance the lies of the NO side
Exactly, don’t deface or remove – DONATE.
The yes campaign could do with some cash to put up some lovely yes posters beside or above / beneath these.
How can anyone on the no side expect to be respected, and think they deserve to be listened to when they base their whole argument on misinformation and lies.
And what really annoys me about the religious types on that side is how intolerant they are towards others with a different outlook on life. If they want their religion, go and have it somewhere private. However, until they can prove their God exists then stay out of public matters, and don’t expect an argument based on this religion to be taken serious.
You realise there’s religious types on the yes side as well don’t you ?
Hypoctite… the yes side started the lies. This is not a vote on equality.
*hypocrite*
“Until they can prove God exists then stay out of public matters”
What sort of stupid statement is that? Believe it or not, believing in a higher power still exists in this country. The new super-cool, trendy, raised on television, Modern Family told me it was ok, morally devalued Yes side wouldn’t understand. You hate religion, but you would like to take control of the word Marriage for yourselves which has historically involved religion, the church and the beginning of a family.
Marriage predates your religion. But nice try. More lies from the no side.
You’re just displaying a total ignorance of the history of marriage. Marriage existed in civil law long before the church co-opted it as money making exercise. The arrogance and ignorance behind the claim that marriage somehow belongs to religion is staggering.
Does the church of Scientology have a position ?
Did I say marriage belongs to religion? No. I said marriage has historically involved religion and the church in this country which is 100% true.
Yes Stephanie I do, but any religious people on the yes side would tend to be more tolerant towards those with a different outlook to theirs, and they would tend not to bring God and religion into debates in the public interest.
And thejynxeffect, personally I do hate religion, but I accept others believe and they are welcome to. However I don’t accept that anyone has a right to deny anyone else a right they themselves enjoy based on what is essentially a fairytale, and until someone can prove it is not a fairytale I will believe it to be. And religion has historically been involved with marriage in this Country, it may be true, but just because we have done things a certain way in the past does not mean we were wrong, or mean that we should blindly continue to do so.
Perhaps Mothers and Fathers Matter could share the legal advice they got before opting for these posters. It would be interesting to hear another perspective.
Keith Mills appears to have chosen his words carefully there, stating they sought legal consultation, which in all reality could mean anything.
They’re very fond of referencing their legal team (implication: “be careful what you say or we’ll sue you” – and they have previous form in this already). Its quite obvious that they didn’t get the opinion of an actual Constitutional lawyer on their surrogacy claims. I’d say they did try and got laughed out of court, metaphorically.
Their posters don’t even make sense. They’re horrible and also insulting to any one who was brought up in a single parent household and also to children who will be walking by those posters and seeing those statements. They shouldn’t be interferring in anyone elses happiness as it really has nothing to do with them
I was brought up by a single parent and am voting no so as no child be deliberately deprived of a mother or father by state design. These posters are not offensive to me as a child of a single parent.
Have you asked the same of your mother? Whos to say that father in your life would have impacted positively?
Topcat. Hypothetically speaking, if a scenario existed in which you would happily cast a yes vote in the referendum what would it be?
Well, she failed miserably.
Of course you were, Top Cat. Was that single parent Linda or Finbarr?
I was brought up by a single parent too. I got loved and everything I needed. And my mother did a great job despite me :D Top cat I think you should take your narrow minded bigoted views and crawl back into your cave and shove them up your jacksie!
I asked this to top cat before and like a coward he ran away without answering:
It is clear that you oppose same sex parenting because of your narrow world view. However, how do you reconcile the fact that gay couples will continue to adopt and raise kids regardless of the result?
Therefore since it seems to be gay parenting you oppose and not gay people committing to each other, no result in this vote will have the effect you want: preventing same sex parenting.
Either way, YES or NO, you lose.
Is he lying ..again ????
This is like hookers for Jesus !!!
Wow just wow , foul and low
If a yes vote wins there will be an increase in gay parenting. A yes vote is a vote saying gay parenting is acceptable. Its not the no voters that will lose, its the children purposely denied a mother or father.
Laughable Tony, just laughable!
I agree Thomas, men marrying men and raising babies is some joke alright.
That ship sailed over 10 years ago you complete ignoramus
How do you feel about two lesbians getting married, Tony? All your posts (or the vast majority) only seem to be against gay men marrying each other.
Tony, I would be very worried about the kids that are being raised by bigots, there is enough hate in this world.
Are 2 ould OAP blokes not “equal” to 2 young women in the strange new world of the “Equalist Yeser”???
(and “equal” to a heterosexual couple of child bearing age for that matter)
“Mustn’t discriminate now”
Tsk Tsk.
Think of the effect of these posters on a young widow or widower….. so insensitive
Interesting approach shown on the poster to encourage people to vote No … but why stop there?
Domestic Violence is a bad thing – Vote No
Child Abuse is a bad thing – Vote No
If you vote Yes the terrorists will win…Vote No
I’m more concerned with the mostly proven theory that by voting YES I will no longer be able to buy King Crisps or Crunche bars.
It’s very telling that the NO side hasn’t published their legal advice on why/how surrogacy is linked to this referendum in any way shape of form. The clear expert legal opinion is that the NO side claim that the constitution confers a right to surrogacy on married couples is utter and total nonsense.
Someone in the Bible Belt in the US is fixing the results of a report and publishing it before his peers can see it as we speak …
The NO side’s underlying assumption is faulty. Any idiot with functioning genitalia (and a co-conspirator of the opposite sex) can make a child. Parenting is a whole other ballgame and there’s no requirement for a good parent to be genetically linked to a child in order to be a good parent. And this still has nothing to do with the upcoming referendum.
“Keith Mills argued that people who do not think it (surrogacy) is a linked issue ” don’t understand the full implications of what the referendum will do”"
Funny that he admitted on Twitter in an exchange with Colm O’Gorman then that surrogacy is a separate issue from the referendum.
https://mobile.twitter.com/colettebrowne/status/590490354895482880/photo/1
I was just looking for that.
Perfect example of the hypocrisy of this “Mothers and Fathers Matter” group.
What has Marriage got to do with children?
Not a thing and this is why I would have more respect for the NO side if they dropped the act that its about the kids and just owned up to their homophobia.
Nothing whatsoever. But the no campaigners are not in touch with reality.
So we should listen to Keith Mills who is lobbying for a no vote on this issue. The same Keith Mills who will not actually be bothering to vote himself, as he is off to the Eurovision instead! Riiiighhhht.
Who’s Keith Mills ?
From the article above: “Keith Mills, a spokesperson for Mothers and Fathers Matter says the group also availed of legal consultation before publishing the posters…”
They’ve sunk themselves with these posters. Leave them up. Point them out to people. Talk about them with your friends and work colleagues. Let them tie themselves to this mast. It’s so barmy and irrelevant.
But #1 thing to do: Register to vote AND turn out to vote. Because they sure will.
The poverty of the argument is underlined by the emotive nature of the poster.
The objective is to appeal to the lowest denominator and to not reason or to fact.
Keith Mills admitted that neither he nor Mothers and Fathers Matter availed of the consultation process on the Children and Family Relationships Bill
Here: https://twitter.com/Colmogorman/status/591169543092965376
He also admitted that Surrogacy has nothing to do with the Marriage Equality Referendum
Here: https://twitter.com/Colmogorman/status/591167868835889152/photo/1
Mothers and Fathers together are a shambolic front organisation for the Iona Institute.
And here’s another member of Mothers and Fathers Matter admitting that this referendum has nothing to do with Surrogacy
https://twitter.com/kehbayhoody/status/591365324777385985
There’s a huge problem here with our cowed and timid media’s refusal to call out these lies that the NO campaign are *admitting* to but still repeating.
The people on the no side who made those posters are lower than a snakes belly
Still nearly a month to go. I’ll be disappointed if some ‘No’ campaigners don’t become desperate enough to tell us that passing the referendum will allow anyone to marry one woman, two men, three trees, a dog and a hamster. Vote no to polyamory and bestiality, and whatever the name is for marrying a plant!
BOTH sides have acted horrendously disrespectful to each other, these campaigns are nothing but farcical with lies perpetrated by both.
At the end of the day people are either for or against it, no amount of campaigning is going to change it. People have their own definitions of marriage so it’s a personal choice.
One thing I have a major issue with is that if someone is voting no they cannot say it in public without getting abused, belittled or shunned. I have seen it first hand. This to me is fundamentally undemocratic and highly hypocritical as if you’re saying you are for equal rights but then chastising somebody who thinks differently to you who has the same amount of votes as you?? It’s just wrong
I am just playing devils advocate here in case I get accused of anything, and will be voting yes. It’s mental that I have had to say that, which sums up the whole referendum for me.
Anto – i believe its because of their reasons for voting no are totally mislead people on yes said are very frustrated like myself about the mother and fathers matter saying they have a child best interests at heart. When really its only if that child is hetero and it also shows that its ok to belittle those family units that are not the traditional one.
Anto, I think you are confusing being entitled to think what you like and being entitled to have your view taken seriously. Everyone is entitled to think what they like, but they are absolutely not entitled to automatically have their view treated as a serious candidate for what’s right. There is nothing ‘undemocratic’ about debate. People are entitled to point out inaccuracies in another person’s argument.
Opinions are not rigid things. They constantly change based on the knowledge we gain on a topic. So I don’t believe everyone is ‘either for or against it’ already. Many of the No side are purely misinformed and many people have changed their opinions after learning more about the issue. If a person doesn’t have an underlying prejudice, then they will be happy that they have been provided with information that can help them update their opinion to a more informed one.
I think that if the referendum was just about ammending the legislation on civil partnership to give equal family definitions to all couples then it would pass 90%+ with no hassle, it’s the term “marriage” for traditionists is a Christian/Church term and think that it should remain that. It’s not homophobic or bigoted or anti equality it’s what they think what marriage is
I appreciate that you think that equal family definitions should be given to all couples. :)
But marriage isn’t just a Christian/Church term (we are talking about civil law here) and traditionalists don’t speak for everyone. Though many are for same sex marriage anyway. By differentiating heterosexual and homosexual couples by using different terminology for each you ARE treating them unequally. Why can’t we just use the same terminology for both? Why do you believe they both need to be separated from each other in law?
Many of the ‘traditional’ ways of life have been updated for modern times. You are writing these comments using a means which is not traditional, aren’t you? Being set in your views just because they are what is ‘traditional’ is not something to be proud of, so it’s time for Ireland to accept that and accept every person and every couple as equal.
The problem Anto, is that arguments about victimisation, group think and conscience clauses are being used by a substantial amount of No campaigners to mask their homophobia and fear of homosexuality. That is why, rightly but sadly, that many on the Yes side are so angry and vitriolic. I’m quite a fair person myself and a strong believer in democracy, tolerance, and an unemotive open debate of issues, and even I want to start climbing lampposts and tear down these nasty, misleading, offensive and unfair posters.
Anto.
If you gave gay couples all the same rights as marriage without it being marriage, it would be challenged in court as an attack on marriage.
The reason this needs to go into the constitution is to ensure that it can’t be challenged. Once the people speak, the law gets changed.
At present all it would take is one conservative government to dissolve every civil partnership in the state. They couldn’t do that to marriage because it’s constitutionally protected.
This is just one of the many reasons we need a yes vote. If we are truly equals, then our unions should not be subject to the whims of government.
Vote no and protect the children of this country, if passed over 50 existing laws protecting children will have to be changed. A no vote in both referendums will force a GE,as enda has lost 2 already. Send a message of no confidence in this government from the people,or continue suffering for another 13 months.
None of that is true IN ANY WAY. Stop lying and confusing the issue
So many lies, it’s a wonder that brothers and sisters matter haven’t put them on a poster yet.
Liar
The journal should have a system for removing comments when they contain only lies, especially when the topic is as important as this one.
Would you care to explain what these “50 existing laws” are and explain why a yes vote will require them to be changed. Could you also provide references and sources to your information please?
In the absence of an explanation and evidence, then we must take you at your word, and I’m afraid I can’t do that with a randomer online of whose biases I know nothing of.
That poster is laughing in the face of single parents! Just saying
Yes and their children who have to see them all over the place. But apparently the no side are protecting children. Funny way of doing it.
You know those posters are so horribly offensive and cruel
not to LGBT people but to single parents and people who have trouble conceiving. It’s such a kick in the teeth to single parents saying their kid needs both a mother and a father because you’re not doing a good enough job on your own. No side consists of terrible human beings plain and simple.
Ehh Not really.
Want to explain that or are you just going to continue to be vague?
I wouldn’t go as far as to say they are terrible human beings. Yes there are some who are complete and utter homophobes, but there are also some who just have a genuine misguided concern that may not necessarily be malicious.
We don’t have to respect their opinions, but we must respect their right to have those opinions.
I agree that the posters are incredibly offensive to both LGBT people, and anybody who does not conform to their neat little idea of what a family should be. However, the offensiveness of those posters works in favour of the Yes side. The arguments they pose are faulty and not well thought out. Most people can and will see through them. And for those who become offended, those posters will be a further incitement to vote yes.
The No side are essentially shooting themselves in the foot with them.
I’m fascinated by the degree of outrage from the Yes side, as much as the No side, to the removal of the dishonest “No posters” but the relative acceptance and resignation of the Irish media and many in the Irish public to violent assaults on and harassment and abuse of gay people for the mere reason that they happen to be gay.
Homophobia is treated in Ireland as “freedom of expression”. Anti homophobia is treated as infringement of freedom of expression.
Ireland has a through the looking glass quality about it.
I’m sure your law firm has a problem with that Anthony??
David, I’m pleased that you have absorbed and accepted the point.
But enda says state (catholic) schools will be required to teach that parents are any 2 people with a child. Where will these kids come from??
@ToI
You really don’t know where children come from? Do your mummies know you’re on this site?
Keep children front and center to the debate on this unnecessary referendum redefining marriage. It will help to persuade the soft yes to vote NO. The silent,decent majority can defeat this odious referendum. VOTE NO.
Thanks for spelling that out for us nicholas, using children as a means to deny others rights, now that is od
How to get lost love back even if you made some mistakes
Am here to testify what this great spell caster done for me. i never believe in spell casting, until when i was was tempted to try it. i and my husband have been having a lot of problem living together, he will always not make me happy because he have fallen in love with another lady outside our relationship, i tried my best to make sure that my husband leave this woman but the more i talk to him the more he makes me fell sad, so my marriage is now leading to divorce because he no longer gives me attention. so with all this pain and agony, i decided to contact this spell caster to see if things can work out between me and my husband again. this spell caster who was a woman told me that my husband is really under a great spell that he have been charm by some magic, so she told me that she was going to make all things normal back. she did the spell on my husband and after 5 days my husband changed completely he even apologize with the way he treated me that he was not him self, i really thank this woman her name is Dr Aluta she have bring back my husband back to me i want you all to contact her who are having any problem related to marriage issue and relationship problem she will solve it for you. her email is traditionalspellhospital@gmail.com she is a woman and she is great. wish you good time.
He cast spells for different purposes like
(1) If you want your ex back.
(2) if you always have bad dream
(3) You want to be promoted in your office.
(4) You want women/men to run after you.
(5) If you want a child.
(6) You want to be rich.
(7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
(8) If you need financial assistance.
(9) HIV/AIDS CURE
(10) is the only answer to that your problem of winning the lottery
Contact him today on: traditionalspellhospital@gmail.com
have your say