Amendment court challenge

Hmm, so are they waiting until after the 28 days to issue the cert?

SpaceTime wrote: »

The process in the U.S. was different though. It was just legislated for in most of the state's that had it.

In Ireland all we've done so far is have a referendum to remove a possible constitutional ambiguity. The legislation still hasn't happened yet to actually implement it and this technical appeal is about the process of the referendum rather than the issue of same sex marriage.

Also because of when the referendum was held (May) there was always a risk of this running into the summer recess which is what's compounding it.

The main point is that the referendum passed..can we not just have the marriages straight away. The legislation should have been passed the week after the result - end of story in my view.

Daith wrote: »

So it seems there is no barrier to issue the cert. So my question still remains, are they just waiting for the 28 days to finish before issuing the cert? They don't have to though do they?

I suppose it doesn't make a whole pile of difference with the Dail being on break but it would be nice to just have it issued.

They don't have to, but they may think it wise to. As you point out, the Oireachtas is not sitting, so even if the cert were issued no progress could be made. And if the cert were issued, and then there were an appeal, it would look bad and possibly put them in a sticky spot. They wouldn't want to appear to try to sideline the courts, or anticipate their decision, or act in a way that might frustrate any decision the courts might eventually make.

I appreciate that there's a desire to complete this process and actually start celebrating weddings. But in the scheme of things, waiting for the 28-day limit to expire is not a big deal. This change was recommended to the Government by the Constitutional Convention in May 2013. It took the Government 7 months to consider that recommendation and commit to it. It took another 14 months before they introduced the necessary Bill into the Oireachtas. Another 2 months for the Oireachtas to pass it. 2 more months to organise the referendum. In the light of this fairly deliberate pace, a 28-day pause at a time when the Oireachtas isn't sitting anyway doesn't look like anything to get worked up about.

Daith wrote: »

So why would the Judge say at the Court of Appeals that the stay on issuing the cert can be lifted?

Because that's how it's done. If the objectors knew, at the time the CA judgement was handed down, that they would definitely appeal they would say so, and ask him not to lift the stay, and I think he would accede to that request. As that didn't happen, he lifted the stay. If the objectors then decide to appeal, they can go into the Supreme Court and ask it to re-impose the stay, which it would certainly do (if, of course, it agreed to take the appeal, which it doesn't have to).

Daith wrote: »

I fail to see how anyone could be in the wrong here for issuing the cert.

Nobody would be in the wrong, legally speaking. But nothing would be acheived by it and it could be made by the ignorant or malicious to look like an attempt to pre-empt any possible appeal. Why expose yourself to the hassle?

Daith wrote: »

My main issue is that we are coming into General Election season. We haven't implemented the Children and Family Act either and that was signed off in March/April.

This has all-party support and definitely won't be an election issue except for the kind of fringe party that will seek to make it an election issue no matter what happens or doesn't happen in the meantime. Besides, as already pointed out, cert or no cert the Dail can't progress this because they are not sitting until 22 September, so issuing the cert now rather than when the appeal deadline expires will make precisely zero difference to whatever risk there may be of this becoming an election issue.

Daith wrote: »

My understanding is that the Marriage Bill has already being debated and passed by the Dail and Seanad.

No - draft legislation has been prepared and shouldn't take too long to progress through the Dáil and Seanad, though I would expect some TDs and Senators (perhaps with an eye on the forthcoming election) will want to have their say.
The Oireachtas can't pass legislation prior to any referendum as that could be a waste of time, depending on the result.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I appreciate that there's a desire to complete this process and actually start celebrating weddings. But in the scheme of things, waiting for the 28-day limit to expire is not a big deal. This change was recommended to the Government by the Constitutional Convention in May 2013. It took the Government 7 months to consider that recommendation and commit to it. It took another 14 months before they introduced the necessary Bill into the Oireachtas. Another 2 months for the Oireachtas to pass it. 2 more months to organise the referendum. In the light of this fairly deliberate pace, a 28-day pause at a time when the Oireachtas isn't sitting anyway doesn't look like anything to get worked up about.

And don't forget that the campaign for marriage equality in Ireland is over 10 years old. Add that 10 year campaign to what you've listed above, and 28 days is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Compared to delays in the implementation of other referenda, this will be pretty short; eg divorce legislation was signed 7 months after the referendum.

Daith wrote: »

So why would the Judge say at the Court of Appeals that the stay on issuing the cert can be lifted? I fail to see how anyone could be in the wrong here for issuing the cert.

The judge gave an order that the stay could be lifted. But court standing orders allow an appeal against an order to be lodged within 28 days.

As I see it, they're within their rights to issue the cert, but they're likely be ultra cautious to make sure every i is dotted and t crossed. We've less than 2 weeks until they can issue the cert, and then the President can sign the referendum bill, and then we can all run out and buy our new Constitutions

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because that's how it's done. If the objectors knew, at the time the CA judgement was handed down, that they would definitely appeal they would say so, and ask him not to lift the stay, and I think he would accede to that request. As that didn't happen, he lifted the stay. If the objectors then decide to appeal, they can go into the Supreme Court and ask it to re-impose the stay, which it would certainly do (if, of course, it agreed to take the appeal, which it doesn't have to).

As an aside, when the judge mentioned he was lifting the stay, both of the objectors said they had no objection and indeed hadn't sought it in the first place (which they hadn't). Then again, this was the same time they heard there was an application for costs against them, so the idea of an appeal probably wasn't foremost in their mind at the time.

Daith wrote: »

Could somebody clarify something.

My understanding is that the Marriage Bill has already being debated and passed by the Dail and Seanad. Does it need to to be passed again?

Definitely not the Marriage Bill. Only the general outline of that has been seen and there's no point doing anything with it until the constitution has been amended. You might thinking about the referendum bill, which needs to be passed by both houses before going to the people.

Daith wrote: »

My main issue is that we are coming into General Election season.

Thats not an issue. Once the referendum comes into force the government is obliged to legislate because the wording is self executing


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/same-sex-marriage-referendum-a-legal-review-1.2074579

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yeah, I'm wondering if he, Fidelma, and Jimmy Walsh will try to filibuster it. Not that it'll do them any good whatsoever, but I'll be curious to see if they'll pipe up or if they'll just let it go through.

They'll try to introduce all sorts of conscience clauses into law for registrars and wedding cake suppliers.

L1011 wrote: »

Don't forget Fergal Quinn. He sold his middle class friendly supermarket before letting most of his customers know it'd have been worth boycotting

I thought is was well known that he was a Catholic conservative and a Knights of Columbanus member.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That's democracy - that there are checks and balances and legislation takes time to go through. I agree these cases were ridiculous and vexatious but I think it's completely healthy and a good thing that we have a democracy where such cases can be taken.

Many people would argue that these cases undermine democracy. I cannot see how these cases are healthy for democracy. They are a complete farce.