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 .

Yoda

I would marry my partner. But do I want to be a poster-child for Gay Marriage in Ireland?

I suspect there are many other people who think this. I don't defend it necessarily. But I can see why people are happy to lay all of it on the feet of David Norris.

falteringstar

Marriage is perhaps predominatly a religious institution, but gay people are religious too! Civil marriage is provided by the state for those not wishing to have a religious wedding but, those of us who are religious (whatever denomination) could always have our own private religious ceremony (its not unheard of preists giving relationship blessings to same sex couples) and then have it legally recognised by having a civil marriage (or perhaps combining the two!).

We mustn't blame the Catholic church as a whole, not all of them are homophobic or antigay, just quite a lot of old and conservative people at the top! So for those of us who would like to have a religious ceremony and commit in front of our god or gods, it is possible, and without us necessarily taking our 'custom' else where.

If I have made any sense at all!?!

falteringstar

I dont think its fair of us to leave it all up to David Norris, Yoda. For all we know thats just how everyone has been thinking all these years, that someone else will do it, is it any wonder then that aren't allowed to marry, etc! I think its time that everyone, gay, lesbian, bi, trans and friendly got up and did something, anything. Its unfair to leave it all in one mans hands!

If i had a partner i for one would go into dublin this week and apply for a marriage! I think if alot of people did so the government would have to stand up and take notice.

yellum

(Okay I'm not attacking anyone personally, this is a general rant)

It makes me so fucking mad that gay people are so fucking content with their lot.

What's their lot ?

To live in their isolated communities hiding away from the rest of the world ?

Afraid to hold hands, kiss and be themselves apart from indoors in certain places ?

Afraid to speak about going for a meal with their boyfriend at work because they're not out ?

To not be able to marry their loved one ?

To know that if your partner gets sick they have no visitation rights to see their partner ?

To know if their partner dies they can be evicted from the house they shared etc. etc.

What we have right now is substandard, we should not be content. The attitude of "it doesn't affect me" is too prevalent in the LGB community.

The fact that some people only think about themselves in these matters is disgusting. Just because some of us are not going to get married next week doesn't mean we shouldn't care about those that do. We are doing this for the future, for the greater good of the community NOW.

I was talking to a guy tonight who didn't know who Davis Norris was. I explained that he should be thanking David Norris daily. If it wasn't for Norris a short few years ago taking the Irish Government to the European Human Rights Court we would all be classed as criminals.

We's still be in underground pubs and clubs getting raided by bigoted Gardai who can act like bullies knowing we can't complain because its us thats doing wrong not them. We'd have none of the (limted) rights we have now.

This time round with the Civil rights bill its Norris is doing all the work AGAIN, not because he's some glory hound but because he is the only one who seems to give a damn and is brave enough to go "No, its not enough".

I don't want to get married now (even though I have agreed with someone I'll marry him in the future) but I do want marriage now. I want to have the right to go to a registry office and marry the guy I love.

[end rant]

Damien.

falteringstar

Yellum, Im in complete agreement with you! Im only 20, no way in hell i wanna get married now or even in the next 5 or so years, but i do some day. But I want the right to do so now!

I didnt know who David Norris was either until I read about him on this forum a few weeks ago, and I felt like that was something I really should know, in fact i wonder how i didnt know? But i feel sick that upto and including now the gay community has left everthing in his hands. Its time we all did something even if its only something small, like all of us sending a email, or a letter to the minister of equality and justice, questioning our tds on their opinions and demanding they do something, Rory Quinn said in a 2001 interview in GI he was so surprised we havent yet stood up and asked for marriage!

yellum

Well this activism thread covers areas some of feel need to be tackled. I'd appreciate your input too.

Heh, I like Ruairi Quinns statement, but did he too just leave it up to someone else ?

falteringstar

er.. i dunno, but it cant help not being in power!!

Um he said he has alot of gay friends who wish to marry, however more recently he said he'd give his support to non marital partnerships. Which (sorry its just my opinion) ill never be happy with, its just not enough for me!

Ill check out your activism thread 2m im tired now!

yellum

[falteringstar - Check your Private Messages in the User CP ]


I'm not knocking the guy and maybe he has a heart of gold but they all state they'd support it, even McDowell said that but a letter that he sent to Yoda, printed at the start of the thread was a little different.

Support is good but it depends on the support. Support at the start is much better than when the battle is pretyt much won anyway.

But thats why we need to get people motivated to do something, and as Dr_M said in another thread, not just the LGB community but the heterosexual community too. It needs to involved everyone.

yellum

FF TDs differ on legal status for gay couples
Arthur Beesley, Political Reporter

Fianna Fáil TDs have expressed resistance to the concept of State recognition for gay couples but a number said they would support such recognition if it did not have the same legal standing as marriage.

The divergent views on the subject followed remarks by the Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, who said at the weekend that "right across the Government I sense the view that there will have to be some sort of recognition for civil partnerships". But he said such recognition should not be on a par with marriage.

While a spokesman for Mr McDowell said the Minister was signalling that the matter would have to be addressed, the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, said yesterday that there was no proposal before Government. "If he brings it forward it will be discussed but it hasn't been discussed," Mr Ahern said.

With some sources claiming there was little appetite at Cabinet level to address the issue, some TDs in Fianna Fáil were quick to state that the issue should not be a priority for the Government. However, the two Fianna Fáil European election candidates in Dublin were among those who expressed support for the recognition of civil partnerships.

Mr Eoin Ryan TD said he supported the concept of recognition for inheritance and tax purposes and this stance was backed by the Equality Authority. He had reservations about the granting of marital status to gay couples.

The Dublin Lord Mayor, Mr Royston Brady, said he would be "on the same page" as Mr McDowell on the issue of civil partnerships. He said the discussion should be informed by a sense of equality.

Many of the other Fianna Fáil figures contacted by The Irish Times expressed resistance to the concept of civil partnerships.

The Dublin TD Mr Jim Glennon said he had not come across the matter as TD and he did not know "how far up the priority list it should be". Mr Glennon added: "I don't have a closed mind on the issue but I'd need to be persuaded of the requirement."

The Tipperary South TD Mr Noel Davern said it was open to any gay person to leave their property to their partner "if they have no other commitments" to children or a previous spouse in marriage. But Mr Davern said he had "grave reservations" with suggestions that the State should provide legal recognition similar to marriage to gay couples and said the matter was not a priority for the Government at this time.

The Carlow TD, Mr M.J. Nolan, said: "I don't see any urgency to introduce amending legislation in order to recognise same sex unions. I don't know of any individuals or organisations who are campaigning for such legislation. My own view is that I don't see this as a priority for the Government at this time. There are far more pressing issues."

Those supporting the concept of civil unions included the Dublin TD Mr Michael Mulcahy. He said: "I think the State should assist gay couples to be able to transfer and share property in the normal way."

The Cork TD Mr John Dennehy said he would not have a problem with enshrining inheritance and social welfare rights in legislation. "I would have a concern about calling it marriage, equating it with traditional marriage," he added.




© The Irish Times

yellum

Originally said by Dept of Justice
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.

The Law Reform Commission states:

Cohabitees, Rights and Duties of

In its Consultation Paper to be published in 2004, the Commission is examining the law in relation to the rights and duties of cohabitees, that is, persons who are not married but live together. According to the 1996 Census, at that time there were about 30,000 such couples. The question (which has already been faced in some particular areas, like tax and welfare) is whether the law should recognise this relationship.

The issue has various legal implications in the field of: the rights to and transfer of property; enduring powers of attorney; life assurance; succession rights; and provision for children.

A central feature of this work is firstly the definition of cohabitation to be recommended and secondly how the existence of any particular relationship is to be ratified or recognised.

Yoda

Yellum,

What you quoted above from Fianna Fáil says to me that we're going to have a tough, bitter fight ahead of us to achieve full equality in terms of partnership rights. It is clear that at least some members of Fianna Fáil do not believe that homosexuals should be treated equally with heterosexuals.

yellum

Nobody ever said it was ever going to be easy.

My family put a lot of work into John Dennehy's campaign. I think I shall be having a word.

qwertyphobia

"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" "

Ok this got me thinking and i got some leagl opinion on this

It's a non-starter leagl wise. The equality authority has no right to take action against Statutes. A recent example is the issue of social welfare entitlments it was not law that was blocking LGBT's getting their bus passes just policy so the equality Authority could act on that, once the minister makes it law as she is doing the Equality Authority can't touch it.

I still think it should be raised in the media because it's a usefull way to highlight the double standards but it won't go anywhere leagly. It would also go some way to clearly showing that all the rights enshrined in marrige have nothing to do with the church but to do with the civil cermoney. Which in this state unfortunetly is hidden a bit by the fact that the church also acts in that role for most weddings in Ireland

Yoda

This assumes that there is actually a statute saying that two people who marry must be of opposite sex. The Constitution doesn't say so. The forms you fill out for a marriage licence don't ask your sex. Currently I have a query in to the Registrar General asking for the specific statute. If there is one, it is that which will have to be overturned. McDowell has said that there are "constitutional problems" with the idea of same-sex marriage. I have a query in to him asking him to be specific as to what they are. I have also asked a friend who is an expert on the Constitution if he thinks it (in itself) bans same-sex marriage. He says he does not think that it does.

yellum

McDowell is a weasel. He passed the buck to the Law Reform Commission when Yoda mailed him about Same-sex Marriage stating:

"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."

Well the paper is out:

http://www.lawreform.ie/Cohabitees%20CP%20%20April%202004.pdf

This bit is worth noting:

This Consultation Paper concentrates on the rights and duties of cohabitees and does not analyse whether a form of partnership registration scheme should be introduced. The Consultation Paper states that this issue involves complex policy matters which merits separate discussion, though it notes that any such scheme, such as recently proposed by the British government, would also include the specific issues dealt with in this Consultation Paper

Oh look, let's have ANOTHER report. *sigh* At least it's getting there and if we gear ourselves up they might actually ask us to consult. Full text of press release:

This Consultation Paper makes substantial recommendations for reform of the law concerning cohabitees. The reforms being proposed would apply to ‘qualified cohabitees,’ defined as persons who live together in a ‘marriage like’ relationship for a continuous period of three years or, where there is a child of the relationship, for two years. This includes relationships between same-sex or opposite-sex couples, neither of whom are married to each other or to any other person. The Commission argues that the exclusion of any person who is married is necessitated by Article 41 of the Constitution, which deals with the provisions in respect of the Family. Other forms of domestic relationship, such as that which exists between friends or family members who cohabit, are also excluded from the definition.

This Consultation Paper deals with the rights and duties of cohabitees under a number of headings, including property rights, succession, maintenance, social welfare, pensions, taxation, health care, and domestic violence. In addition, the Paper recommends that cohabitees should be encouraged to regulate their financial and property affairs by means of co-ownership agreements.

This Consultation Paper concentrates on the rights and duties of cohabitees and does not analyse whether a form of partnership registration scheme should be introduced. The Consultation Paper states that this issue involves complex policy matters which merits separate discussion, though it notes that any such scheme, such as recently proposed by the British government, would also include the specific issues dealt with in this Consultation Paper.

The Commission proposes that ‘qualified cohabitees’ should be given the right to apply to Court for certain rights and financial reliefs following the termination of the cohabiting relationship. Among the specific provisional recommendations are:

* the right to apply for a property adjustment order in exceptional circumstances;

* the right to apply for relief under succession law where provision has not been made in the will of the deceased or under the intestacy rules;

* the right to apply for a maintenance order in exceptional circumstances;

* The extension of the definition of cohabitation in social welfare legislation to include those in same-sex relationships;

* that a relationship of ‘qualified cohabitees’ should be recognised by the taxation code;

* that ‘qualified cohabitees’ should be notice parties for the purposes of an Enduring Power of Attorney;

* that ‘qualified cohabitees’ be given greater recognition in the context of health care situations and decision-making;

* that ‘qualified cohabitees’ be included within the definition of dependants for the purposes of the legislation dealing with civil actions for wrongful death.

In addition, the Paper proposes a number of changes to the Domestic Violence Act 1996. Among the specific recommendations are:

* That the residency requirement in respect of barring orders for cohabiting couples of 6 out of the previous 9 months should be reduced to 3 out of the previous 12 months;

* That the residency requirement be removed for cohabitees seeking a barring order where they have the sole ownership or tenancy in the property;

* That the residency requirement in respect of safety orders should be abolished.

In order that the Commission’s Report may be made available as soon as possible, those who wish to make their submissions are requested to do so in writing or by e-mail to the Commission by 30 September 2004. Make a Submission

Memnoch

you guys should start a group,
like ireland offline, but for gays.

I guess there are probably already gay rights groups out there,

but being able to use boards.ie as a discussion base and using the internet to spread awareness, discussion and activisim might go a long way towards furthering your cause?

again i appologise in advance for my blatent ignorance on this issue...
just saying if it hasn't already been done, might be a good idea?

ixoy

Here's an article from today's Irish Independent about the Church's latest response to marriage proposals URL=http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1174801&issue_id=10815]link[/URL:

Church-State clash looms on gay unions law

THE Catholic hierarchy has put itself on a possible collision course with both the State and the legal establishment yesterday when it criticised proposals to legalise gay unions and to give cohabiting couples many of the same rights as married couples.

Dr Sean Brady, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, also expressed "surprise" at comments by Social and Family Affairs Minister Mary Coughlan that the State should not favour marriage over other family forms.

This was the first major intervention by the bishops in the family policy debate for some years.

Delivering the keynote address at yesterday's conference called "Supporting Marriage and Family Life", Archbishop Brady said that the Church "has both a duty and a right to teach and act in defence of the primacy of the natural institutions of marriage and the family".

He added: "It is also for this reason that it cannot and should not apologise for insisting that other forms of relationship are not of the same nature and status as that of marriage and the family. The looming debate about the level of recognition that is appropriate for what are called 'de facto' unions makes this an important and urgent issue."

Responding to questions at the end of the seminar, the archbishop admitted he was "surprised" that Ms Coughlan had said that no special treatment should be given to marriage.

"This is very strange coming from a Government minister, especially given the Constitution, which is very clear on the special status of marriage. We need to debate and discuss the value of the family."

In his speech, Dr Brady noted that "so called 'de facto' unions have been taking on special importance in recent years".

Without explicitly referring to last week's proposal by the Law Reform Commission to put cohabitation, including relationships involving gay couples, on a more equal footing with marriage, he said: "Some recent initiatives propose the institutional recognition of 'de facto' unions and even their equivalences to families, which have their origin in a marriage commitment.

"It is important to draw attention to the damage that such recognition would represent for the identity of marriage as traditionally understood."

Turning to gay unions, Archbishop Brady stated: "The question of recognition of same-sex unions has also been raised. The Catholic Church remains committed to advocating and promoting the common good of everyone in our society and to giving practical expression to our pastoral concern for homosexual people both within and beyond the Catholic Church.

"The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual people are to be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. The Church condemns all forms of violence or abuse directed against people who are homosexual."

He then indicated that the Church now supports extending anti-discrimination laws to homosexuals: "In recent years, there has been significant changes to the law to remove discrimination against people on grounds of their sexuality. These changes have removed injustices, without creating any parallel legal institution to marriage.

"It is essential when considering future legislation concerning marriage and the family, to acknowledge the vital distinction between private homosexual behaviour between consenting adults, and formalising that behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point when it becomes an institution in the legal structure."

He also stated the opposition of the bishops to allowing gay couples adopt children. "What is at stake here is the natural right of children to the presence normally of a mother and father in their lives."

The conference, in Buswell's Hotel, Dublin, was addressed by a number of other speakers, including teacher and columnist, Breda O'Brien, who spoke about how work and family life might be balanced.

Stephen Cummins of Accord spoke about the work the Church agency does to help families.

Journalist Colm Rapple took as his topic Government policy towards the family, while Filipino nurse Arlene Diaz spoke about the difficulties foreign nationals on work permits have settling into life in Ireland.

David Quinn
Religious Affairs Correspondent

The highlighted paragraph is, by Catholic Church standards, almost enlightened. It barely touches on decrying homosexuality as aberrant behavior (which has always been one of their arguments). Naturally it's not going to favour unions on a par with marriage, but I actually found the commments more heartening than a typical Church statement.

Yoda

Apparently the minister for Family Affairs said that "Ireland was not ready for gay adoption". In Thursday or Friday's Examiner, perhaps. Did anyone see this?

Annasopra

Reminder: the deadlines for submission to the LRC on cohabitation are September 30th

see http://www.lawreform.ie/

also according to some in the know (on GCN) this might be a big fudge

http://www.gcn.ie/newgcn/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3714