Irish vote of gay marriage

[Derek Smith]

Eric Mc said:

A really odd outcome. Of course, if the border becomes a hard border, they might have to put border guards on the border checking to see if women travelling North to South who were pregnant on the way down are still pregnant on the way back.

And don't laugh. In the 1960s, women were arrested travelling from NI to the Republic because they had bought condoms in Belfast.

I worked in a factory in the late 60s and a bloke on honeymoon had his condoms confiscated at the airport. It was a petty move. All they did was drive north, cross the border and drive back.

Left a nasty taste in the mouth evidently.

[Eric Mc]

Derek Smith said:

I worked in a factory in the late 60s and a bloke on honeymoon had his condoms confiscated at the airport. It was a petty move. All they did was drive north, cross the border and drive back.

Left a nasty taste in the mouth evidently.

They didn't come in such variety back in those days.

[BlackLabel]

Another referendum for the Irish - this time on women's role in the home. I get that it’s a legal/constitutional thing however it’s strange that this one is going to a public vote - for starters it feels wrong that men should have a vote on whether or not women must shun employment and stay at home.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ir...

[Eric Mc]

BlackLabel said:

Another referendum for the Irish - this time on women's role in the home. I get that it’s a legal/constitutional thing however it’s strange that this one is going to a public vote - for starters it feels wrong that men should have a vote on whether or not women must shun employment and stay at home.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ir...

Only seems strange if you are ignorant of the Irish Constitution. For any changes to be made to the wording of the Constitution, only the PEOPLE (which, last time I looked, included both male and female) can make that change.

Of course, in the UK, since there is no written constitution there is therefore no legal definition of what a referendum is, so you could make one up any way you like.

[grantone]

BlackLabel said:

Another referendum for the Irish - this time on women's role in the home. I get that it’s a legal/constitutional thing however it’s strange that this one is going to a public vote - for starters it feels wrong that men should have a vote on whether or not women must shun employment and stay at home.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ir...

It seems like an odd clause to get rid of, why can't they just make it gender neutral instead?

[Eric Mc]

grantone said:

BlackLabel said:

Another referendum for the Irish - this time on women's role in the home. I get that it’s a legal/constitutional thing however it’s strange that this one is going to a public vote - for starters it feels wrong that men should have a vote on whether or not women must shun employment and stay at home.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ir...

It seems like an odd clause to get rid of, why can't they just make it gender neutral instead?

It should never have been put into the constitution in the first place. It reeks of 1930s rigid Catholic thinking and needs to be got rid of - pronto. In fact, the Irish Constitution has caused as many problems as it has ever solved.

The good thing is that it can be changed - and it has been changed many times. It just needs a referendum.

[grantone]

Eric Mc said:

It should never have been put into the constitution in the first place. It reeks of 1930s rigid Catholic thinking and needs to be got rid of - pronto. In fact, the Irish Constitution has caused as many problems as it has ever solved.

The good thing is that it can be changed - and it has been changed many times. It just needs a referendum.

Constitution excerpts as reported by Indy said:

...recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the state a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”.

A second clause obliges the state to “endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”.

The current language is certainly paternalistic, but if it was implemented in a way that meant the state endeavoured to make it possible to run a household on a single income and recognised that tax is not the only contribution citizens can make to the state it wouldn't be so bad would it?

[Eric Mc]

Just get rid of it.

[MC Bodge]

Post-independence, was there an attempt by some to form a sort of "Roman Catholic state"? Going further in that direction than would have been the case had they not been ruled over by the British for so long?

[Eric Mc]

MC Bodge said:

Post-independence, was there an attempt by some to form a sort of "Roman Catholic state"? Going further in that direction than would have been the case had they not been ruled over by the British for so long?

Good question.

The answer is, not at first. Indeed, Ireland's first ever President, Douglas Hyde, was a Protestant.

26 counties of Ireland received their independence in 1921/22. They remained part of the Commonwealth and were known as the Irish Free State. 6 counties remained part of the UK.

The party that was in control in the period 1922 to 1937 was Cumman na Gaedheal (pronounced "Nail"). This was the party made up of those who had supported the Treaty that ended the War of Independence from Britain. After Independence, there had been a Civil War because quite a few of those who had fought for independence did not approve of the Treaty because it involved having six counties (Northern Ireland) remaining part of the UK.

The leader of these rebels was Eamonn De Valera. He later formed a political party called Fianna Fáil and they won the 1932 General Election. It was at this point that the then new Irish Constitution was first drafted although it did not become law until 1937. De Valera was keen to make Ireland as Irish (i.e. unBritish) as possible and also as Catholic as possible (also a statement of "not being British"). That is why the 1937 Constitution was riddled with clauses that today do not sit well with how Ireland and the Irish feel about themselves.

Some of the ideas in the Constitution are fine - but some of the old archaic notions need to be ditched.

Edited by Eric Mc on Saturday 7th July 18:32

[MC Bodge]

Eric Mc said:

Good question.

The answer is, not at first. Indeed, Ireland's first ever President, Douglas Hyde, was a Protestant.

26 counties of Ireland received their independence in 1921/22. They remained part of the Commonwealth and were known as the Irish Free State. 6 counties remained part of the UK.

The party that was in control in the period 1922 to 1937 was Cumman na Gaedheal (pronounced "Nail"). This was the party made up of those who had supported the Treaty that ended the War of Independence from Britain. After Independence, there had been a Civil War because quite a few of those who had fought for independence did not approve of the Treaty because it involved having six counties (Northern Ireland) remaining part of the UK.

The leader of these rebels was Eamonn De Valera. He later formed a political party called Fianna Fáil and they won the 1932 General Election. It was at this point that the then new Irish Constitution was first drafted although it did not become law until 1937. De Valera was keen to make Ireland as Irish (i.e. unBritish) as possible and also as Catholic as possible (also a statement of "not being British"). That is why the 1937 Constitution was riddled with clauses that today do not sit well with how Ireland and the Irish feel about themselves.

Some of the ideas in the Constitution are fine - but some of the old archaic notions need to be ditched.

Edited by Eric Mc on Saturday 7th July 18:32

Cheers. I had known about the civil war, post independence, although I had forgotten.

It did appear to me that the strong Catholic-ness could have been in response to the previous Britishness.

[Eric Mc]

That was a factor. British rule in Ireland had been marked by very strong anti-Catholic legislation - especially in the 17th and into the 18th Centuries. However, by the mid 1800s it had mostly been revoked but it left much bad feeling.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

I popped in to this thread to see if the usual bks about Marriage Equality was being spouted, but instead found the usual bks about abortion.

However, the effect was much the same - the usual attitude from the antis that their beliefs somehow overrule the wishes and decisions of others.

On the subject of abortion, I categorically disagree that others should overrule a woman's decision as to whether she is pregnant or not. This is forced breeding akin to The Handmaid's Tale.

[FN2TypeR]

Derek Smith said:

Eric Mc said:

A really odd outcome. Of course, if the border becomes a hard border, they might have to put border guards on the border checking to see if women travelling North to South who were pregnant on the way down are still pregnant on the way back.

And don't laugh. In the 1960s, women were arrested travelling from NI to the Republic because they had bought condoms in Belfast.

I worked in a factory in the late 60s and a bloke on honeymoon had his condoms confiscated at the airport. It was a petty move. All they did was drive north, cross the border and drive back.

Left a nasty taste in the mouth evidently.

Changing your diet and staying well hydrated will sort that, given time.