Yeah agreed. Let’s say mostly instead.
I think @Jahan has adressed my concerns on this more than adequately. An undefined term such as “durable relationship” should not be inserted into the constitution until we know the full legal implications of same.
8 Likes
Michael McDowell was the AG when one of the worst and most anti-women referendums in modern history was brought in 2002, it barred risk of suicide as a threat to the life of a pregnant mother. I don’t know why people look upon him as some sort of infallible authority without an agenda. His agenda is pretty neo-con and always has been.
1 Like
No
No
I have No faith in this government.
The Supreme Court will decide what a ‘durable relationship’ is. For Roderic O’Gorman to state emphatically that trouples won’t be covered if the referendum is passed is deliberately misleading. Nobody knows for certain.
Why take the chance and vote for something that could/will have serious knock on effects in a multitude of areas.
Do the sensible thing and Vote No.
2 Likes
Sin é
Why do you not trust the Supreme Court?
Why should single or unmarried parents be discriminated against merely because headbangers are fearmongering about people marrying their dogs, just like they did during the 2015 Marriage referendum?
McDowell being portrayed as a voice of reason is definitely a stretch. He was laughed out of office and has been crying for attention ever since.
3 Likes
Malcolm Byrne tried that same crap on Claire Byrne last week and got his arse handed back to him by Brenda Power when he tried to paint her as a god botherer.
Couldn’t explain “durable “ relationships either only the courts will explain it afterwards.
A cod.
3 Likes
I can see the word ‘chattel’ making a come-back…its so utilitarian and classless
Durable relationships will be used as a baton over the head to accelerate mass immigration and cut off any objections to it by reference to the new constitution. That’s the purpose.
1 Like
mcdowel is a prick mate
I like those odds. Lumped on now and will be campaining now.
That is irrelevant to him being an eminent legal mind is this country.
He played a key role in the defeat of the 30th and 32nd Amendments that were proposed, so I wouldn’t be so sure that his opinion holds little weight.
This appears to be along the lines of the other Yes voters here campaigning on the basis of matters not actually relevant to the debate. I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument and Michael McDowell getting harangued by a bunch of murderers in the RDS when he lost his Dáil seat isn’t convincing me either.
3 Likes
Well considering you can’t even spell his name I’m sure he won’t be too worried about your considerable legal acumen.
3 Likes
Vote no. Vote often.
8 Likes
The main argument from the No side here appears to be about housing.
It’s not really. He is just one conservative legal mind who couldn’t balance his ideologies with any sort of practicality and destroyed his party in doing so.
In this instance he’s not affected by either of the current articles in the constitution so he doesn’t want to change them. It’s just a selfish rationale really.
The green bin lawyers are circling.
Or perhaps he feels its his duty to present a case for voting NO?
3 Likes