D’you who grinds my gears? You, No side.

So, this is where we find ourselves, the only clear debate on the marriage referendum so far, took place on the Late Late show. Super. A saccharine chat show was the only debate that maintained a semblance of discipline. It was the utter antithesis to the cacophony of Dunphyesque screams on Primetime and the Vincent Browne Hit Parade. What has become obvious is that the No side have clearly employed Bernard Hopkins as their strategist. They set out to spoil the fight from the outset and will cry foul at the ref when it isn’t going their way. ‘BULLY’, ‘I’M NOT A HOMOPHOBE YOU FAGGOT’ and so on. The trend continued on Tuesday’s Primetime. Instead of touching gloves and throwing a few range finders, the Iona Golgothan threw a dummy and much like the flies in a Trocaire ad, went straight after the children.
Like many a commentator I was vexed at the tautological bile oozing from the No camp. So much so, that I was reduced to head-butting a child that I purchased from a Monaghan girl. Sure, why not buy local I said to myself.
So, let’s do it to it. The No side are right. This battle does not have anything to do with marriage. Gasp! This is a battle for equality and the slow agonising death of catholic hegemony and discrimination. I don’t give a shit about the children, fuck em, what have they done for me lately? The Monaghan gurgle factory that I head-butted crumpled with no fight at all sure. Little fuck.
I have heard the No side argument twice this week and I am at an utter loss as to why they want to persist with it as a tactic. Quinn, Sinott, Finegan, Waters and King were unanimous in their prescient dread of a hypothetical regressive judge who cannot hypothetically discriminate against a same sex couple from adopting a hypothetical child because of the new law. That’s a tough one to put on a poster alright. They are openly campaigning to keep discrimination at the core of our justice system. Do they not know that there will always be an underclass to demonise?
The No side cannot but run with their: ‘Please, won’t somebody think about the children’ ploy, because there are only so many ways of saying that they just don’t like queers playing happy families. It is this fear of not being allowed to say what they think, that has reportedly forced many No voters to operate an underground railway. If there is a large cohort of No voters keeping schtum, then these people are far worse than the vocal No voters. If a person wants to vote No, but is too ashamed to say it publicly, then they must intrinsically know that, they are being discriminatory just for the sake of it. So please, spare me the cries of bullying you cowards. As for those of you who are voting No because you’re angry at Enda or pissed at a vocal Yes voter, get off my planet.
I accept that a few of the Yes side advocates are smug, loud and too educated for their own good, but their hearts are in the right place, even if some of their mouths have been swapped with their posteriors. The yes side shock-troops need to pick their battles. There are a lot of well-meaning, but confused older voters who just don’t know where they’re at. Biting their heads off for their indecisiveness and insulting their religion is no way to win them over. All of us on the Yes side must respect those who have seen and felt the church at its strongest but still have the minerals to question everything they have been taught. They need to be coaxed gently and not have their religious beliefs scoffed at. It is they who have paved the way for this irreverent generation.
Before I sign off and buy some more children, I just have to have to point out a couple more things to the No lads. You do not have any right to discuss biological imperatives or use the word fact as a preface to any bullshit you espouse. Your objections are based upon the internalised doctrine of an organisation that denied evolution (1). The No side are also constantly referring to article 41 in their arguments: The state recognises the family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law. There is no mention of what the family unit actually comprises of. There is no caveat stating that ‘de gays can’t play’. Waters kept referring to the word ‘natural’ in the article as if it was some sort of code from stargazing homophobes, who knew that their ideal parchment was going to be sullied in future times. On a banal level the No argument is based on a blind allegiance to heteronormativity. On a deliberate level, the No argument is the spiteful ideology of an arrogant cabal who have decided that they know what’s best for hypothetical children and who are really pissed off that the gays want to play with their toys. Oh, if you noticed that little (1) next to an aul sentence in the above text it’s for the No lads, it is an acknowledgement that I cited something from an article that has been peer reviewed. You know, fact checked and widely endorsed.
Oh fuck, forgot, I was reading a passage from a secondary school history book and I interpreted from the text that Lemass and De Valera said: ‘Vote Yes’ Prove otherwise, g’wan. They also said that as a nation we have allowed the abuses in the church, forced adoptions, laundries, Haughey and Bertie. Don’t be the generation that denies citizens their rights.
Betts, J.R (1959) ‘DARWINISM, EVOLUTION AND AMERICAN CATHOLIC THOUGHT, 1860-1900’, Catholic Historical Review, 45(2)161-185, Historical Abstracts.


(originally posted at Blumpkine)







Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *