TERFs and the Irish referendum

You would be surprised just many people admire him.

I don't like him, I think he is vile as a human being but I admire what he has achieved, his determination to succeed.

Pity he isn't a nicer person. He reminds me of Andrew Tate, divisive.

I'd say more people loathe him than like him, would you not say so? I know there are many who feel disaffected and a subset of those admire him, but when you look at polling and who gets elected, Ireland leans heavily towards liberal.

Too many people vote a certain way because someone they dislike votes the other way, and I can see his stance making it harder for people to make the liberal case against the amendments. His opposition reinforces the idea that if you're progressive you should vote Yes/Yes.

I was glad when FLAC and the ICCL made criticisms because despite their flaws they can't be dismissed out of hand as right-wing.

Like or loathe CMG, he has a following and a lot of young men and women are influenced by him and others like him.

He is selling the message as stick it to the government. If they want yes, we say no.

That will resonate with a lot of disenfranchised people.

Oh can someone please say that to the ICCL, that would be hilarious.

Uh-oh - Conor McGregor and the Catholic hierarchy are backing No/No. Brace yourselves, fellow-terven, for
'So you're happy to align yourselves with misogynists like the bishops and McGregor??'

Anyone unfamiliar with MMA fighter McGregor's attitude to women can Google Conor McGregor and sexism. Or racism for that matter.
'Get your t*ts out for the lads' was how he marked International Women's Day, for example.

The wording removes women and mothers, who do almost all of the caring in a family. It also removes the unique idea of motherhood from the Constitution, leaving no place for women to be mentioned at all. Though the article has not been used its presence in the Constitution points out that women and mothers have distinct responsibilities not carried out by men, and that their ability to bear children should be reflected in policies for workers' rights, what is considered a living wage etc. Removing women and mothers and replacing them with 'people' removes this restraint. We need to work towards a society that centres women and their reproductive abilities rather than making male lives the default.

My Dad brought me to the post office to register to vote on my 18th birthday. Nerdy loser then, nerdy loser now.

I will register him tomorrow.

Unfortunately the deadline to register to be on the electoral register for this referendum was last week.

Maybe encourage him to still register even though he can't vote this time, he can make his voice heard at the Europeans and locals this summer , its easy and can be done online with a PPSN and an eircode here https://checktheregister.ie/en-IE/

Conor McGregor has it all over his social media vote No & No.

Basically saying anything government campaign yes for, don't do it.

He has a lot of followers and first time ever my DS asked how can he vote.

I've been trying for years to encourage him to register to vote and no.

Is there a way to apply online, does anyone know the cut off date?

I've been reading through the interview with ROG and I still have no idea what he is talking about with 'durable relationships' He mentions one parent families a few times but surely the relationship there is the one between the parent and the child. what is the durable relationship here that needs to be defined?

I think one-parent families have reason to fear this change, as having any sort of undefined relationship that may be claimed to be 'durable' could give another person 'decision making' rights over their children and inheiritance rights that were not intended. Tinder users beware!! :)

It's a bit ridiculous - on the one hand, they are saying hey it's no big deal, we're just updating the wording, it's not going to have an impact. Nothing to see here.

As well wouldn't any legislation that treats the people who are married and people who are in durable relationships differently become unconstitutional? We've just seen that in the O'Meara case

Also they aren't going to legislate for durable relationships, it is going to be left to the judges to decide

FFS, then what is the point of changing it Roderic, why bother?

It's a bit ridiculous - on the one hand, they are saying hey it's no big deal, we're just updating the wording, it's not going to have an impact. Nothing to see here.

But on the other hand the government clearly want these changes enough to throw millions at it, to tell charities they must support this, and to not disclose minutes of meetings discussing it's impact on other legislation.

I can't wait to get rid of this lot. Roll on the next general election.

Perhaps someone should tell Rodders about what has happened in the past when vague wording was left to the courts to interpret. We should tell him about how those same courts interpreted the 8th ammendment during the X case. The politicians were very adamant before that referendum in 1983 that no woman would be prevented from leaving the country. X was.

We were also told repeatedly that no woman would be let die as a result of a foetus being given equal right to life. Savita died because they would not terminate while there was a heartbeat as they were afraid how that right to life might be interpreted in a court

I think this might be the most arrogant interview I've ever read of a politican, so convinced hes right that he can't even entertain or argue against what other people are saying. FLAC are wrong, ICCL are wrong, Tom Clonan is wrong, Michael McDowell is wrong, etc

Also they aren't going to legislate for durable relationships, it is going to be left to the judges to decide what it encompasses because "we trust the courts because our courts have interpreted our Constitution for all of our nation’s history and have done that in a very respectful and rational way." but also Justice Marie Baker was wrong when she said what Catherine Martin said about women in the home was wrong.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/roderic-ogorman-referendum-critics-are-wrong-marriage-isnt-being-usurped/a562180917.html

And 'assisted dying' aka killing people, like the GRA, can be brought in without a referendum. We won't be given a chance to vote for or against it. If it is brought in, be warned, and never get ill, never get poor, never get old and dependent.

My reasons for fearing it are also personal. Based both on experience and observation (that Dutch girl, the things a HSE person said about my parents) and on reading about what is happening in both Canada and the Netherlands.

It is undoubtedly a useful way for a state to save money on housing and treating old, mentally ill or poor people. useful, but not good.

I'd have thought that suggesting that the gender recognition act would happen after the marriage referendum was a stretch. I'd actually have said there could be no possible connection between the two. I'd have been wrong.

I've read the information booklet carefully and I'm puzzled by this:
It says that if we vote YES to this amendment:

Article 41.1.1 ̊ “The State recognises the Family, whether founded
on marriage or on other durable relationship"

"The institution of Marriage will continue
to be recognised as an institution that the
State must guard with special care and
protect against attack."

Attack on the institution of Marriage-with-a-capital-M? What would that be? Maybe like somebody suggesting that other durable relationships are worthy of recognition in the constitution??

Daft.

BTW I understand 'any stigma to beat a dogma', but bringing in assisted dying as a reason to vote no is not only a stretch, but counterproductive: I'd vote yes please! in a referendum on assisted dying, for reasons that are not just ethical but also personal.

Recent times have shown polls are not a good indicator of what people are thinking.

Look at Brexit, polls appeared to be heavily in favour to remain side.

Hilary Clinton supposedly had a huge lead.

People are inclined to say what is most popular thing.

I'm surprised the polling is still so in favour of it, I assumed the statement by FLAC and the other NGO's who agreed would have moved the needle on the care ammendment somewhat

https://www.businesspost.ie/news/majority-of-voters-say-they-will-vote-yes-on-two-upcoming-referendums/

https://archive.ph/uEkqA

@StephanieSuperpowers

It will happen again, it's been proven to work and many people don't do any research,

If it s not headlines it's not there.

Yes, I know that. However, the Denton's document explains the link:

‘In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.’

The document that reveals the remarkable tactics of trans lobbyists | The Spectator

What concerns me is that this could easily happen again.

Self ID didn't need us to vote at all. It wasn't impeded by the Constitution and was introduced by legislation.

TDs didn't bother looking into the impact of Self-ID and just thought it was another unquestionably progressive step.

So yes we voted on ME, but we did not vote on self-ID. It was brought in totally separately.

Well that's for sure. We also didn't vote for gay marriage to get self id, but here we are.

I think a lot was learned from the Denton's playbook. We might not have full sight of what this is in aid of but can be fully sure that it's not for freeing women from the kitchen sink as that was done decades ago..