Same-sex marriage not under discussion by Irish government

Yoda

I have received a letter from the Private Secretary to the Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform, Mr Michael McDowell, TD:

The position is that there are no plans to legislate for same-sex marriage. However, the Law Reform Commission is preparing a Consultation Paper on the law on cohabitees and the Minister looks forward to the publication of this Paper.

yellum

Yoda,
What was it you asked of the Minister of Justice ?

dirty_latino

I support same sex marriage...but only if both chicks are hot!!

yellum

Strike two.

Big Ears

Thank God

joePC

Funny same sex mariages for women dont bother me but twos males ** shuders **

Yoda

Yellum, this is the text of the letter:

Dear Sir, or Madam,

I have written to my TD twice on the topic of legislation for same-sex unions.

Twice I have had a form letter from him stating that he had forwarded the letter on to the Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform.

Twice I have had a form letter from your department, with a rubber-stamp of the Minister's signature, stating that "This matter is receiving attention in my department."

This is not acceptable.

I ask again: What *specific* action is being taken to ensure that this section of the community may enjoy the same financial, property inheritance, and social rights and protections which the majority does? When -- and I mean by what date -- will this legislation be published? Which rights and protections will be conferred?

In other jurisdictions it has not been difficult to confer such rights and protections in a timely fashion.

People who marry (the married-with-children, the married-without-children, and the married-but-childless) are able to avail of a contract with the State which protects their rights in the even of the death of their partner; which allows them to avail of taxation, inheritance, and other benefits; which honours their commitment to live together as lifelong partners by conferring upon them not only rights but responsibilities.

People whose partnerships consist of two people of the same sex are currently not permitted these rights and responsibilities in Ireland, and this is needless and pernicious discrimination which causes harm to the people who are discriminated against. Surely that is against the aims of the State, which must needs care for all of its citizens.

Looking forward to your reply, I remain,

Yours faithfully,
ME

qwertyphobia

looks like there is at least informal disscussion with cabnet members


From Todays Irish Indo:

JUSTICE Minister Michael McDowell has indicated support for granting legal recognition to the union of gay couples.

He told the Progressive Democrats annual conference that the issue was not likely to go away and had to be addressed on the basis of equal rights.

However, it emerged last night that there is a reluctance among a number of the Fianna Fail Cabinet members to introducing such legislation. One senior party source said there was "anything but agreement" on the controversial issue.


THE prospect of gay unions being recognised in Irish law came a step closer yesterday when Justice, Equality and Law Reform Minister Michael McDowell indicated his support for such partnerships on the basis of equal rights.

However, it has emerged there is a reluctance among some Fianna Fail members of Cabinet to introducing legislation in this controversial area.

One senior party source said last night it was an exaggeration to say the matter had been discussed at Cabinet recently but was merely referred to when a decision was being made not to allow companion travel rights to partners in gay relationships where one partner had earned a free travel pass.

But Mr McDowell said at the PD annual conference that the issue was not going to go away and was "coming sharper into focus". He said that in Government, there was a clear understanding that this issue would not go away, could not be brushed aside, and had to be addressed.

There was lots of room for making Ireland "less discriminatory" and for "doing justice to people whether they are in homosexual or heterosexual, or completely non-sexual relationships", he said.

However the minister told Young PD delegates at the party's annual conference that the "very generous" tax regime for married couples would have to be looked at and might have to be reduced in order to bring in equality for those involved in gay unions.

He said the extension of the "very generous" tax regime to gay couples would have major implications for the Exchequer. But, he said, that was "a detail" and was not the principle.

The remarks follow a report from the Equality Authority which recommends that same-sex couples be given the same rights as married heterosexual couples on inheritance and taxation. Independent senator David Norris is to introduce his own Bill to the Seanad shortly which would give equal rights to gay couples.

Meanwhile, also dealing with equality issues in his speech to the full conference earlier, Mr McDowell said he was half-way through implementation of a seven-year programme for Equal Opportunity Childcare Programmes costing €460m.

And, he said, the Government would shortly publish a new Disability Bill.

yellum

Originally posted by qwertyphobia
l
From Todays Irish Indo:

He said the extension of the "very generous" tax regime to gay couples would have major implications for the Exchequer. But, he said, that was "a detail" and was not the principle.

That Article was posted in the other thread too.

I'm actually thinking all the papers have got the context wrong. The Civil Partnerships Bill if its like the one David Norris is trying to bring about won't give a damn if you are heterosexual or homosexual. A couple will register their relationship/union and they will get some benefits.

This will be open to unmarried hetero couples and gay couples. There are quite a lot of unmarried hetero couples out there who will suddenly have new benefits and so this will impact on the tax collectors. So I guess for the sake of equality and also keeping the balancesheet in order he'll reduce benefits married couples get but will give registered couple these benefits.

The way most papers have it sounds like its just because of gay couples. It most certainly would not.

Yoda

I suppose we have to see the legislation. But if civil union confers all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, what's the difference between a heterosexual couple civilly uniting vs marrying? Just the name, and the interest of the churches?

monument

Although I think (any sexually ordained) cohabitants should have rights, I also think cohabitants been given rights maybe being a half measure in some what an aim to quite down the people who want equal rights for all (ie for the law to be blind sexually ordained when it comes to marriage, adoption, etc).

qwertyphobia

The only time a politician mentions benfits it gives out as being "very generous" is close to an election or when it's about to be cut back.

You don't hear talk of giving more money to disabliities being done at the expense of some other group, I would have concern about the agenda behind Mc Dowells use of thoes words.

If he uses civil union rights being extended as the reason that "very generous" tax breaks to married copules get reduced you could find very quickly that people don't support civil union or more likely support a watered down version that gives the "easy" rights but not the more difficult ones like adoption/money

ciderandhavoc

YPDs leading equality campaign - Duggan

This is the speech that chairperson of the Young PDs, Diane Duggan, spoke from on Saturday at the PD Conference.

There was not one person (and I mean that), that spoke against equal rights for same-sex couples.

qwertyphobia

I am never that moved by what youth wings of party say, they are far removed from the policy decision that the main party makes

monument

Originally posted by ciderandhavoc
There was not one person (and I mean that), that spoke against equal rights for same-sex couples.

More importantly did anyone speek for equal rights for all?

Yoda

An anonymous UK lawyer gave this opinion to the BBC website:

Many people on this page have a misconception; The Bible is NOT part of the American legal system. "God's Laws" are merely guidelines for believers and have no legal relevance whatsoever. They defer to "Human Law" every time and without redress. Idealists within the church may not bully the state without consequences. Be sure the state will defend itself vigorously and the church will lose.

The PDs and other parties should take note: Ireland must extend all of the rights it gives to all of its citizens, or the fight will not end.

Doctor Funfrock

for once i support the government on something!

ixoy

Originally posted by Doctor Funfrock
for once i support the government on something!

Care to expand on that statement and explain your stance?

Doctor Funfrock

it is against gods creation

Yoda

Um, "God's creation" would include the Universe and everything in it, wouldn't it? In that case, as homosexuals are part of that Universe, it follows that homosexuals would be considered "God's creations".

:rolleyes:

Doctor Funfrock

it is not natural.

Yoda

Is it not? What is it? Artificial? Man-made? Imposed by alien mind-rays? Does it not occur in the universe? Is not a minority of up to ten percent of every human population? Hasn't it done so for centuries? Does that not suggest that it is a natural function of human evolution? Does it not occur in nature in other species as well?

Or is it "not natural" because it's not your preference? Or because you have a strong interest in breeding and can't understand people who think otherwise? Or because you think that certain texts which you think are important are normative with regard to how people "should" be as opposed to how they are?

monument

Originally posted by Doctor Funfrock
it is not natural.

Why not?

O, right, sorry! It's just not what you think of as natural.

Tiesto

"Same-sex marriage not under discussion by Irish government"


yeah i hope its kept that way for a long time

Yoda

Well, Tiesto, I guess you'll be sad to learn that the Irish government is in fact discussing it. Not particularly enthusiastically, but that's to be expected from FF and the PDs.

It is likely that civil union legislation will be introduced, available to male-male, male-female, and female-female partnerships. In the short term, only male-female partnerships will be able to enjoy the rights and responsibilities of "marriage".

How "civil union" will differ from "marriage" under Irish law in terms of the rights and responsibilities entailed by each is something we can't determine until draft legislation is made available.

It is a certainty, however, that you will be able to choose whichever form of civil union appeals to you, just as all of your fellow citizens will be able to do.

The snotty and obnoxious posturing in your little quip isn't very interesting. If you think that you should be rewarded for being heterosexual, and that people who don't share the same preference that you do should be punished, you are no better than the kind of person who believes that he or she should be rewarded for being white-skinned, and who believes that black-skinned people are inferior.

Why don't you have a think, hm? Equality for all isn't hard to understand, or to embrace. Give it a try.

Annasopra

I don't think Tiesto understands the meaning of the word equality.

I have complained about Tiestos bigoted remarks in LGB forums before and he was banned.

Yoda Tiesto is only trying to rile you and to be honest I wouldn't let him. It does scare me that people have views similar to that of Tiesto

Yoda

I'm not riled, JohnnyMcG; but neither do I think that homophobia should go unanswered. There's always the chance that ideas might waken a foolish person from sleep.

falteringstar

Hi to everyone

I’ve been following the topics on this forum with great interest for some time now, and thought it was about time that I made a contribution. I’ve especially been interested in the Gay Marriage debate. I’ve noticed, with much disappointment, that only three countries in the world recognise gay marriage, while others accept a downgraded civil union or partnership. I’ve been shocked at the reactions in America, especially the decision to ban gay marriage in a number of state constitutions, and grown hate Bush more than I thought I could have!

But I want to ask what everyone’s opinion of the gay civil unions are, do you think they are enough?

In my personal opinion they are not, and here are my reasons.

1) By refusing to acknowledge them as a marriage (and by that I mean calling them marriage), we are being denied the real ‘meaning’ I believe we are fighting for. Many will probably argue that marriage is just a word with no real meaning, and on those grounds I’d say why not let us marry then!? The word marriage does have meaning, a few meanings actually. Firstly it is the symbolic representation of two peoples’ commitment and love for each other, it is not simply a legal thing, and by only allowing us to have a civil union, we would be denied the special non legal meaning of marriage. Society is in effect refusing to recognise that two people of the same sex love eachother, by not allowing it to be called a marriage.

2) Marriage has for centuries been a special institution in society, throughout history it was pretty much the only way that young adults could be recognised as fully integrated members of society. By not calling a gay union a marriage, society are not allowing us to become fully integrated members of society, and saying (not necessarily consciously) that we do not have an important role to play.

So, personally I’m against Gay Civil Unions, or Partnerships, only because in my opinion they are not enough! Although, they are indeed a step in the right direction, but why bother settling for them now, when we CAN achieve marriage, now. The governement provides Civil Marriage (notice not civil union) to those non-religious people who do not wish to marry in a church, and based on very recent legislation it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexuality. The church will never change but the government are obliged to allow us to marry, civil marriage (not union) is already in place, otherwise they would be going against their own legislation.


I must apologise, that I am not very well informed on Irish Marriage law, or this situation at large, which also brings up a question Ive had for some time where exactly does the law define ‘Marriage’ as between a man and a woman (because it doesn’t in the constitution)?

So what are everyone else’s opinion on this?

Jpaulik

Originally posted by falteringstar
The governement provides Civil Marriage (notice not civil union) to those non-religious people who do not wish to marry in a church, and based on very recent legislation it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexuality. The church will never change but the government are obliged to allow us to marry, civil marriage (not union) is already in place, otherwise they would be going against their own legislation.

Actually this is a very valid point.

There is Civil Marriage and because it is non-religious it does not fall under the equality authorities exemption so it must follow the equality rulings.

But how do you challenge this ? Go to a registry office and attempt to marry your partner and then if refused take this to the Equality Authority ? I think they might only look at your case if you have gone to this trouble. They don't seem to be much on "theory"

Anyone know of a gay couple that want to marry but cannot ?

falteringstar

It is so funny that u just said that Jpaulik! Because I was going to suggest just that!

If a gay couple attempted to register for a civil marriage and were denied, they could take their case to court, and a court couldn't rule against them, without making the recent equality legislation null and void (Im not sure about marriage law, but maybe that too, if marriage is not specifically defined as between a man and a woman, Im looking into this) But read article 41 of Bunreacht Na hEireann, it mentions that the state will protect the institution of marriage from "attack", but it fails to define what marriage (or for that matter what the family) is!

So is there anyone here who would like to attempt registering for marriage with their partners?

The media attention of such a thing could be welcomed, and work much in our favour.

What does everyone think??

swiss

As soon as I get a partner that I want to marry (and who wants to marry me) I'll get right on it.

I have always viewed marraige as a religious rather than a secular insitution. While I do not condone those who would discriminate against Gay marraiges in the name of religion, I would also argue that if a religious belief has a certain doctrine that mitigates against homosexuals, then it would not be appropriate for gays to marry in that religious faith. However, this does not mean that gays should not enjoy exactly the same benefits as heterosexual marraiges in terms of state benefits if they so choose to commit themselves to each other in a similar manner to how heterosexual couples do so when marrying.

This may sound jaded, but if a business does not want my custom, then I will take it elsewhere. The same could be said for marraiges. If there is no appropriate religious outlet for a union such as a marraige for homosexuals, then I would see it as incumberant on the state to provide a secular alternative that enjoys exactly the same benefits as the religious alternative.

So in conclusion, thumbs up for civil marraiges .