From some other beginning’s end.

It’s been a grand half-decade, hasn’t it? We’ve covered off quite a bit I think. Giant grannies stomping through Limerick, incredibly sexy new toys, elections both local and presidential, global affairs, domestic affairs, naughty websites and powerful professions. There’s even been a bit of helpful advice. We’ve covered the big stuff, the usual stuff, the foreign stuff and the ridiculously local stuff. Somewhere along the way a couple of ideas managed to slip in under the radar too.


Enough of all that. Five years is long enough to do anything, I think. Thankfully I’m lucky enough to be part of a new group of writers whose skills far surpass my own. You can have a look at what we’re up to here: . I don’t do guarantees, but I promise more of the good stuff and less of the silly stuff.

Massive thanks to fellow contributors Calliope Mansfield, ContributorX, and Boutros-Butress Galling for showing that there may actually be a few like-minded ranters out there that are up for a new challenge.

Incalculably large thanks also to my tiny editor, not least for having to hear the frequently unedited verbal ranting long before it gets anywhere near a keyboard.

And most of all, thank you all for reading, liking, sharing, discussing, commenting, refuting, correcting, arguing and provoking. It’s been superb fun for me, and I hope you’ve enjoyed yourselves as much as I have.

Nighty-night, dolls


From some other beginning’s end.

No Moratoria apply to Blogs

You know those times where you think of the perfect response to an argument five minutes after walking away from the person you were arguing with?

Well, it wasn’t an argument, but that happened to me yesterday, and I don’t think I’ll top it for a long time.

Yesterday, I met the Taoiseach.

He was campaigning for a Yes vote in tomorrow’s Marriage Equality referendum (while quietly ignoring the Age of Presidential Candidates one, a matter I’ve made my views more than clear on).

The Taoiseach, who I have to admit was very polite, saw me standing there with my as yet un-sipped coffee in my hand, offered his hand and said “Hello, what’d your name?”

For the purpose of this article my name was Contributor X, and the conversation went like this¹:

Taoiseach: Hello, what’s your name?

X: Good morning Taoiseach, Contributor X.

*At this point I realised that opportunities like this don’t come along every day so an admittedly half-formed question came blurting out of my mouth.*

X: Taoiseach, is there any chance of making it illegal to put up lies and propaganda posters for future elections and referenda?

Taoiseach: Freedom of expression is important.

X: Yes, but people are putting up posters that are deliberately misleading the public as to what the referendum is actually about.

Taoiseach: I believe the truth will win out in the end.

X: Well… I hope so.

At this point I would like to say that I believe the early and unexpected nature of this meeting, coupled with my uncaffeinated state is why the conversation went like that, instead of like this:

Taoiseach: Freedom of expression is important.

X: If freedom of expression is so important, does that mean that your Government has plans to repeal the Blasphemy Law?

(Imaginary Random Bystander: Awww snap!)

I am kicking myself a little that I didn’t think of turning the conversation that way. But I am buoyed by the fact that just an hour ago I was speaking to a Fine Gael source, a TD actually, who shall remain nameless since I didn’t let him know at the beginning of our conversation that this article was likely to be written.

Naturally, I put this scenario to the TD¹:

X: I was speaking to the Taoiseach yesterday morning and I suggested that perhaps putting up posters that were wrong or misleading should be made illegal for campaigns like this in the future. The Taoiseach said that freedom of expression wouldn’t allow that.

TD: You see the problem with that is it all comes down to interpretation. If we say “if you say anything that’s factually incorrect, you’re going to prison” someone might say something that’s then interpreted the wrong way and they’re punished.

X: If freedom of expression is that important, do you think the Government should repeal the Blasphemy Law?

TD: Yes. We should get rid of the Blasphemy Law, in my opinion it should have been the second referendum along with the Marriage Equality one tomorrow as opposed to the Presidential one.

X: The No campaign are obviously well funded and have a lot of legal advice behind them; because a lot of their posters and what they’re saying is veering dangerously close to Incitement to Hatred but stopping just short of hitting the nail on the head.

TD: Yes, I actually agree.

X: Personally I just think it’s a little ridiculous that I can put up a poster that implies that single-parent families aren’t legitimate families, or that deliberately tries to mislead the electorate on an amendment to the constitution and nothing happens to me; but if I stub my toe against the wall getting down from putting that poster up and shout “Jesus Christ!” when I do I can be legally punished.

It obviously hadn’t been put to him this way before because at this point the TD actually started (justifiably) laughing. While presented as a joke, this situation is entirely factual, and it’s entirely laughable.

The TD also said that while he is in favour of a Yes for the Age of Presidential Candidates referendum tomorrow they (the Government, Fine Gael, or people like myself who are strongly in favour of passing the amendment – take your pick) are “going to be decimated”.

I’ve already mentioned that he would have liked the Blasphemy Law to be the second referendum tomorrow, but he hopes it’s the next one on the table.

When asked if there would be another referendum before next April (the latest date the current Government can remain in power until) he said he doesn’t see it happening.

Which is really too bad. I’ve been advocating a yes vote on both referenda since the beginning, but as unusual as it may be for a contributor to this site to agree with any member of the Government on anything, he has a valid point.

Regarding Marriage Equality, the strong Yes-s were always going to vote yes, and the strong No-s were always going to vote no. All the hate and vitriol you’re seeing posted up everywhere and the confusion and fear mongering you’re hearing on broadcast media, aren’t aimed at changing a yes to a no, it’s aimed and swinging the Undecided-s.

And a I don’t think I would be entirely incorrect to say that the vast majority of it is paid for by Conservative Christian Special Interest groups.

If the Blasphemy Law was the other issue tomorrow, then the Yes side would have most of the current strong Yes-s, anyone in favour of free speech, and anyone who wants the Catholic Church to loosen it’s grip on Ireland and Irish politics.

While the No side would have most of the current strong No-s, but would have to split their funding between saying that homosexuality is the work of the devil and saying that thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain.

Picture the scene:

An undecided voter is approached on the street by a No campaigner.
Said campaigner goes to great lengths to confuse the voter, by talking about adoption, surrogacy, and any number of irrelevant things in an effort to convince our Undecided to vote against civil marriage equality.

After ten minutes or so our Undecided voter seems fairly convinced and the No campaigner leaves.

At this point a Yes campaigner approaches the voter and simply says “Y’know, that’s the same side that says you should be imprisoned, fined, or both, if you say ‘God damn it!’ after accidentally locking yourself out of the house. Do you really think they’re the people you should be listening to?”

That really seems like a landslide victory in both referenda to me.

Unfortunately that isn’t the case tomorrow, so for the last time on this site before polls open (from 7am to 10pm tomorrow), I once again urge you:

Please vote.

Please vote Yes.

Please do it twice.


¹. Neither of these conversations were recorded and are reproduced here from memory. To that extent I cannot claim them to be quotes but rather paraphrased to the utmost of my recollection.

No Moratoria apply to Blogs

Can we repeat the original question please?

It’s all been said at this point really, hasn’t it? The country’s losing the run of itself. The No camp are letting the masks slip with increasing frequency, sending horrific abuse in every direction (including, in bed-shitting style, their own). The Yes camp are motivated, mobilised, and beyond terrified of defeat.

I could have spent plenty of my paragraphs and your time extolling the importance of equality and progressing the nation, but I won’t.

I could rant for a while about the clear lies and misdirections being thrown at you all year by the Ionas, but I won’t.

I’ll make this really, really simple.

They’re our friends.

LGBTQ people across the country are our friends, our coworkers, and our family. They’re a part of this country just like everyone else, except that the institution of marriage isn’t available to them simply because of who they love.

They’re being told on a daily basis that they’re bad parents, lesser people, and unworthy of equality in our country. They’re being told this by homophobes, bigots, religious demagogues and utter, utter bastards that want to return us all to a time when Ireland was a “catholic country”. Children at the hands of deviants, unmarried mothers sent to slave camps, that kind of jazz. And these bastards say our friends aren’t worth defending, that they must remain second class citizens.

To which I say very simply : fuck yourselves.

They’re our friends, and they need our help. They don’t have the numbers to win this alone. And so, it falls to us to help them. We must vote. We must not be too hungover, too lazy, in the wrong place, not really bothered, or unregistered. We cannot lose this. The rest of the world is watching, fully aware of the Ireland we’ve emerged form over the past 3 decades. They’re watching and they’re cheering us on, pleading with us to get this right for the sake of progress everywhere.

They’re our friends, and they’re relying on us. You and me and everyone else that can think for themselves and realise that the question is simply one of marriage equality, and all the shit that’s been thrown is merely a distraction.

They’re our friends, and they need us.

Don’t let them down tomorrow.

Vote yes.

Can we repeat the original question please?

D’you who grinds my gears? You, No side (by Boutros-Butress Galling)

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.

D’you who grinds my gears? You, No side (by Boutros-Butress Galling)

Op-ed: The Presidential Referendum

I recognise this isn’t necessarily going to be the most popular viewpoint. In fact I recognise that this viewpoint might not even be shared with the other contributors to this blog.

I feel there’s a more obvious socially expected standpoint when it comes to the Marriage referendum than the Presidential one, it is after all the Same Sexier of the two debates.

I promise that was the last pun of this article.

Now that we’re closer to polling day, people seem to be finally paying attention to the fact that there are two referenda to be voted on.

While I’ve already mentioned my feelings on the subject, let me reiterate:

I think if you feel like a candidate is unsuitable, do what you do with every other candidate you feel is unsuitable and don’t vote for them.

A lot of people seem to be using the “a younger president wouldn’t be mature/experienced enough” line as a reason to vote No.

The fact is, younger candidacy doesn’t automatically equal a younger President. Currently you have to be 35 to run but our youngest presidents to take office were both 46 (Robinson and McAleese).

You’re entitled to feel a President should be older, and hence not vote for someone younger, but voting No in this referendum is vetoing any chance of a wider candidate field.

The other argument is the “boy band argument” where lowering the age of candidates will immediately transform a presidential election into a Pop Idol style popularity contest.

All credit to 1 Direction, I don’t think Niall Horan is poised to be the next President of Ireland.

More importantly, I don’t think the number of registered 1D fans outnumber the number of registered voters that wouldn’t vote for a member of a boy band.

That said, if the people of Ireland do want to vote a member of a boy band into the office of the President, then while I feel that’d be a sad day for the state of Irish politics, it would be a worse day for democracy if the people were denied the candidate they wanted despite their votes.

The people intending to vote No in this referendum, whether they realise it or not, are in my opinion using democracy to veto democracy.

Your vote is as powerful as anyone else’s. Just as a younger registered voter’s is as powerful as yours.

If you’re that worried about a younger candidate then canvass and vote against them, involve yourself in the process, don’t veto their chance to involve themselves.

A lot of us, myself included have been urging younger voters to get involved with the democratic process on the 22nd in order to show that we feel people shouldn’t be denied rights because of their sexuality.

Let’s not turn around to those same young voters two minutes later and tell them they should be denied the same rights as the rest of the electorate because of their age.


Op-ed: The Presidential Referendum

How did Hitler and Stalin get brought into the Marriage Referendum debate?

I’m attempting to remain rational, coherent and as always, see at least two sides to an argument.

I’ve failed. Miserably. And I don’t care.

As my colleagues here have already posted; there is a referendum (two actually but I’m focusing on one for now) looming, lurking, skulking like an angry bear with a hangover on the horizon. We’re all entitled to our opinion, to vote as is our want, such is benefit of living in a democratic society. One important point to bear in mind: there is only one way to vote. It has three letters.

I’ve toyed with how to compose my reasoning for this and it’s ranged from the short, “just vote yes for Christ’s sake” to a long winded, rambling discussion. What finally tipped me over the edge to take fingers to keyboard?

THIS….. opinion piece penned in the Irish Times earlier today. (My points in bold italics).

Written: D. Vincent Twomey SVD author of The End of Irish Catholicism?, Moral Theology after Humanae Vitae

Published: Irish Times, 1st May 2015.

The marriage referendum is about changing marriage from a union of a man and a woman into the union of two adults regardless of gender who desire a lifelong commitment. (Anyone who is sure enough of their commitment to chosen partner should be allowed to celebrate it in whatever way they chose. I’m a firm believer in as much choice for people as possible even if I don’t necessarily agree with it).

Up to a few decades ago, the meaning of marriage as the union of two complementary sexes open to procreation has been unquestioned. (Why do people insist on equating marriage with procreating? Fine, the Church’s position is exactly that: no sex before marriage, sex is for procreating only and thou shalt not enjoy a second of the procreating. This viewpoint should have been questioned before now. Can anyone definitively prove to me that Neanderthal Man have marriage? Prove it? My point? They still procreated. Otherwise you wouldn’t be seated in front of your computer screen reading this. Marriage and procreating are not mutually exclusive. Hell, look at the birth statistics of the children born *gasp* out of wedlock) In four weeks’ time, it will be voted on and a majority opinion will determine whether one of the most natural aspects of humanity (Natural? Who decided what’s natural? Maybe it was natural. Lot’s of things that were considered natural or normal are no longer accepted as being natural. We’re human. We’ve evolved from what we once were, this vote, this changing of what’s considered natural, is merely us evolving again. If we don’t evolve we remain stagnant and remaining stagnant will lead to decay, not now but in decades of society as a whole) is going to be changed to suit a certain interpretation of equality. (Everything can be left open to interpretation why do you think we have courts of law? Prosecution and Defence? So both sides can interpret what is already there and build on it. Improve it if needs be).  

As a people, we generally tend to be gentle, humane and loving. (I’m taking it you’ve never read a history book or opened a newspaper in the last 6 months. Or today. Go look up a court case in Edinburgh involving a day old baby. Yes, people are generally gentle and human. Fuck it, go back to last summer and Goggle Tuam, Mass Grave and see where that gets you).  It is to this national characteristic, (funny, I thought we were a country who enjoyed a drink and can’t manage our money) nurtured (not the word I would have chosen to describe my interactions with the Church in primary school) by its underlying Christian ethos, that the current political and media establishment is appealing.

The ‘Yes’ campaign, led by the Government and urged on by the media (while the media is generally meant to remain impartial, in this case the more they urge a yes vote the better) , is appealing to our emotions. (“We’re people, we generally tend to be gentle, humane and loving” remember? Emotions generally come as part of the package. Unless you’re a sociopath) The presentation of equality (you make it sound like equality a front, a face, a mere notion on paperwork and not real)  for persons  (people, not persons. Persons make it sound like you are attempting to dehumanise homosexuals)  who are gay touches the heartstrings of all (sip of condescension anyone?), but especially the older generation. In this writer’s opinion, this has had at least one positive result. It has helped to counter negative attitudes to same-sex people as persons of inherent dignity. Empathy is replacing what was at best nervous distance, at worse real homophobia. And that is good and welcome. (Really? Are you sure you mean that? It doesn’t read as if you do).

But there is an unpleasant undercurrent, that of intimidation. People who, in their heart of hearts, cannot equate same-sex unions with marriage fear being accused of homophobia. The few who dare to express their views in public have experienced an onslaught in social media. (It’s social media, people are allowed to express their opinion. If you don’t want to get feedback, either good or bad, then don’t post to social media). The most intimidated of all seem to be our elected representatives. It is incredible that the political parties have imposed the whip to get their members to support the “Yes” vote. All but one Senator submitted. (You know what, he’s right, people shouldn’t be intimidated. They should stand up for themselves. BUT, wait for it. Our elected representatives are exactly that: OUR elected representatives. We put them there because we thought they would make the best possible decisions for us, our society, our community, our country as a whole. Not just part of it. Not just the bit they liked, or the bit the Bible says is right, or what their conservative highly religious grandmother, grandaunt or father says is right. They are supposed to make decisions that will help us, the country, the community evolve. Right now, that decision is to ensure that every citizen has the right to marriage. If they can’t make that decision, fine, but expect and accept the inevitable consequences).

Is the Catholic hierarchy also intimidated? (They should be)The bishops will be anxious not to turn the referendum into a Church-State issue (too late) or to cause more offence to those most affected (also too late, I want to take a can of spray paint to some of the posters). Some bishops and priests are addressing their faithful directly in church; that is their right and duty. (Grand, I don’t go to Church so I don’t have to hear it) But Church encompasses more than the hierarchy, namely the laity. (Is there more to this point? If there is, where is it? How is or how has the Church so far decided to communicate with the laity?)

Irish people resent being bullied by either Church or State. (I think most people would resent being bullied by anyone but I’ll let this go) Yet, ordinary citizens are being intimidated into voting “Yes”. For over a year, the campaign waged by the Government urged on by the media has been relentless. (Has it? Seriously? Has it been relentless? I’ve only noticed an increase since January) In the final weeks, reason may triumph over emotion (I refer back to my earlier point, we’re a gentle people, emotions rule us even when we don’t want them to) . As they prepare to vote, people will ask, reasonably: what are we being asked to change? The simple answer is: human nature. (Where? Where does it say that allowing two people of the same sex to marry is changing human nature? Eh? The Greeks and Roman’s both indulged broadly speaking, in same sex relationships. I’m also going to repeat a point I wrote earlier: human nature changes. That’s the whole point. We’re not the same as we were 50 years ago, a hundred years ago. We need to change and evolve. This, allowing two people regardless of the sexual preference to marry, to declare that they are more than willingly, nay desire, to be bound together until death is everyone’s right. Who are who to deny that? Who is anyone? What gives you the right to sit behind a keyboard and pontificate as to what human nature truly is?)

This referendum touches the very source of our humanity. (Here we go again, why do I feel we should be engaging in a philosophical debate on what humanity is?) Human rights are at the heart of the Constitution. (Which is what we want to change, that’s why we’re having a referendum) Article 41 recognises the family, based on marriage, as the fundamental unit group in Society. (Keep up, that is the article we want to change to include ALL of society) As such it has rights which are intrinsic to it, which the State is obliged to recognise and protect. (Which the State has done. And in protecting those rights, the State has recognised a flaw, that same sex couples are excluded, they are not recognised and protected. The referendum aims to change that) In other words, the family, which existed before either Church or State existed, not only has a real autonomy within society: it is the ultimate source of society. (Ok, fine family has been the nucleus of society; fly in your argument; if I remember it was a village that raised children. The entire community has a say in past generations, eras as to the instilling of morals and values in a child) . Past and future converge in the family. Through marriage, future generations come into being. (Here we go again. Marriage producing children was the ideal of generations past. You honestly expect me to believe that there was never a bastard child born before? The production of future generations (that sounds so clinical) is truly the preserve of married couples?)  A nation’s culture is passed on primarily through the family. (I would argue that the assimilation into the actual culture of the nation helps to reinforce it and pass it onto future, married produced, generations)  Since the dawn of time, the union (what definition of union) of man and woman was simply assumed (never assume, and never use assumptions in your arguments) to be the origin of the family.  This is what we are being asked to change.

This is not only Church teaching. It is in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, art. 16.3: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” (What is the UN Declaration of “family”) That Declaration was drawn up against the background of two totalitarian regimes: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union. (Hitler? Stalin? You’re actually mentioning these two in an attempt to reinforce your argument? You’re obviously not aware of the accepted conceit that once Hitler is mentioned in a discussion on the internet, the discussion is over) In the Soviet Union in particular, Marxist socialism tried to eliminate the family. This trend in Marxism — condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 — was radicalised in Communist China in their “one family, one child” policy.  The family has to be destroyed in order to exercise complete control over the people. The autonomy of the family is one of the bulwarks against every State’s innate tendency to become totalitarian, our own State included. (So the State, through the referendum, is attempting to destroy the current definition of family in order to exert total control over us? That’s a bit extreme isn’t it?)

Though it is not primarily the State that is seeking to redefine marriage and thus the family, our Government is proposing that we introduce a profound contradiction into the heart of the Constitution. Instead of the Constitution’s recognition of the family as having “inalienable and imperceptible rights, (Read the fine print, the courts have also decided that these rights are not absolute) antecedent and superior to all positive law”, the family based on marriage is being made subservient to the State. The notion of inalienable rights is often interpreted in legal circles as rights which one cannot oneself give up but they are in fact rights which are not given by the State; the State is under obligation to protect them. These non-negotiable rights are the measure of all positive law — legislative or constitutional – because they arise from our common human nature, created by God. This is recognised by Article 6 of the Irish Constitution, which states that “All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people”. The moral demands of our common human nature are known through conscience, the voice of God in our heart of hearts, if we but listen to it.

Just vote “yes”.

How did Hitler and Stalin get brought into the Marriage Referendum debate?