Public Consultation on The Family in Bunreacht na hÉireann

Yoda

From an advertisement on page 9 of today's Irish Times:

THE ALL-PARTY OIREACHTAS COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
The Family
The Committee invites written submissions

Bunreacht na hÉireann (the Constitution of Ireland) contains its main provisions in relation to the family in Articles 41, 42 and 40.3.

Following the enactment of the Constitution, legislation relating to the family has been developed in line with those Articles and elucidated by the courts in a substantial body of case law.

The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, which is charged with reviewing the Constitution in its entirety, is now examining these Articles to ascertain the extent to which they are serving the good of individuals and the community, with a view to deciding whether changes in them would bring about a greater balance between the two.

The Committee wishes to invite individuals and groups to make written submissions to it, whether in general terms or in terms of specific issues such as:

* how should the family be defined?

* how should one strike the balance between the rights of the family as a unit and the rights of individual members?

* is it possible to give constitutional protection to families other than those based on marriage?

* should gay couples be allowed to marry?

* is the Constitution's reference to woman's 'life within the home' a dated one that should be changed?

* should the rights of a natural mother have express constitutional protection?

* what rights should a natural father have, and how should they be protected?

* should the rights of the child be given an expanded constitutional protection?

* does the Constitution need to be changed in view of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Submissions should reach the Committee at the address below before 31 January 2005

The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution
Fourth Floor, Phoenix House
7-9 South Leinster Street
Dublin 2

Fax: 01 662 5581
Email: info@apocc.irlgov.ie

damien

Posted this on the UCC LGB site, the USI website and the CIT LGb site.

Everyone needs to reply to this consultation. EVERYONE.

Get off your apathetic homosexual asses and respond or your future will be decided without your input.

Yoda

After I typed this in (at 14:14) and posted it here I sent a note, in Irish, to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee asking for the text of the ad in Irish. They sent it to me at 15:37. Now that's the kind of government service I like.

Damien, did you post it to the GCN LGB discussion list?

I think we could do with some discussion of each of the points on this forum, to help us consider the issues.

damien

I don't take part in that forum, so no. I might have an old login though.

Yoda

The GCN forum is down right now anyway.

Rredwell

Will there be a referendum(a) after this public consultation?

Yoda

One would imagine so, if recommendations suggest that it would be sensible.

Yoda

1. 1° 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.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that

i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,

ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,

iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and

iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.

Yoda

1. The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2. Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3. 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4. The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

5. In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

Yoda

1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

3. 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

FranknFurter

damien.m wrote:

Everyone needs to reply to this consultation. EVERYONE.
Get off your apathetic homosexual asses and respond or your future will be decided without your input.

Personally, and iv seen this so often, one of the main reasons people fail to participate in these things is the feeling they do not *entirely* understand the mixture of issues involved, and may only feel that they only want to respond to a single part, ie: the gay marraige issue, just as an example.

I dunno, perhaps if there was a general template response drawn up for each issue and another for the entire paper, more people would feel they can have their say.

Iv seen that work so often in community development related issues over the years

*shrug*

Yoda

The public consultation does NOT require a response to all of the questions, or even more than one of the questions. Important as father's rights are, for instance, I have no experience with the matter and will not be responding to that part in my submission. Perhaps it would help to discuss each point in turn on this list?

Stark

Okay I'm pretty clueless when it comes to issues of law, but here's my draft reply for submission:

How should the family be defined?
The family should be defined as a unit consisting of adult guardians and children where the guardians are morally and legally responsible for the children.

how should one strike the balance between the rights of the family as a unit and the rights of individual members?
(not sure)

is it possible to give constitutional protection to families other than those based on marriage?
Yes. Base family definition on the legal concept of “guardians” as opposed to parents.

should gay couples be allowed to marry?
Yes, under separation of Church and state rules, all loving couples of legal age, intellect etc. should be allowed marry, regardless of gender. The Churches arguments for disallowing gay marriage are pretty flaky to begin with and have been shown to be based on bigotry rather than doctrine. It's the state's duty to protect minorities from this kind of mindset.

is the Constitution's reference to woman's 'life within the home' a dated one that should be changed?
Yes, but protection should remain so that parents get to spend enough time with their children. Tax breaks should be improved for guardians of children (changes in taxation schemes in recent years have worked against couples raising children).

should the rights of a natural mother have express constitutional protection?
Yes. They should be allowed contact with their offspring, but not at the expense of adoptive parents’rights.

what rights should a natural father have, and how should they be protected?
Natural father should have all the same rights as a natural mother. In the case of custody disputes in traditional family situation, father should not be discriminated against.

should the rights of the child be given an expanded constitutional protection?
unsure.

does the Constitution need to be changed in view of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
unsure.

qwertyphobia

One point I feel our submission should be making is that we don't need a constitutional change to give co-habating couples the same rights as married couples. There is no way in hell that a constitutional amendment will be passed.


Your submission don't have to be all leagl speak either that side will hopefully be covered they can be as simple as letters stating your circumstance and how you are left more vurnable or disenfranchised by the current system

fozzle

I've posted this in the NUIG LGB forum.

Flukey

There is a common misconception that gays and lesbians can't marry. Lots of gay men have wives and lots of Lesbians have husbands, which disproves this assertion.

falteringstar

my draft is including my opinion that a constitutional amendment is not necessary to achieve gay marriage, marriage is not defined in the constitution. therefore gay marriage can be brought about through the legislative process. (but i could be wrong)
but what im feeling they want to do is define marriage in the constitution, and that if this is the case it should be defined as 2 consenting adults and not man and woman.

falteringstar

Should we all rush to support this?
After all at present the constitution contains absolutely no definition of marriage or of what constitutes a married couple. These are currently defined in legislation then, which can be changed without a referendum. This lack of a constitutional definition may eventually work to our advantage.
Of course the possible outcome of this committee is that they will define marriage in the constitution and it may not be to our advantage. We could get some rights by getting constitutional recognition in civil unions, but these may not be full rights and certainly would not be fully equal.
I think we need to be aware of the possibility that this process could go either way for us really, and reflect this in our submissions by demanding (is this too strong a word) full equality, through recognition in marriage.

What’s everyone else think, I am being too paranoid?

Annasopra

Flukey wrote:

There is a common misconception that gays and lesbians can't marry. Lots of gay men have wives and lots of Lesbians have husbands, which disproves this assertion.

Is that meant to be funny or just plain damn stupid?

Personally I'm not sure if Marriage should be defined in the constitution because this could create situations where changing evolving social situations will necessitate Referenda. I think that the marriage word needs to be taken out of this debate and it needs to focus on "Equal Partnership Rights" because lets face the word's gay marriage conjure images in some peoples minds of 2 hairy six foot five rugby players in fairy dresses

Annasopra

I was looking for some more information on this cause I was going to make a submission and I came accross this link

http://www.family-men.com/Parental%20Rights%20Irl%202004.htm

I am nearly getting physically sick at reading about this group called the national mens council of Ireland (I didn't even know it existed!!)

Yoda

They do seem a bit peculiar. I've been looking through their stuff. The essay "How Does Marriage Benefit the Civil Society?" is rather flawed.

Marriage is not simply a contractual relationship between two people or a government-sanctioned form of intimate partnership. It is also a central institution in the civil society.* As such, marriage performs certain critical social tasks and produces certain social goods that are valuable to the community and far harder to achieve through individual action, private enterprise, public programs or through alternative institutions.

But of course, it is simply a contractual relationship. "Marriage is a childrearing instutution" they claim. But this is not true. Many marriages are childless. We must redefine this: "Marriage is a nurturing institution."

Yoda

Thinking wickedly:

Dear sirs, I am a gay Irish man interested in securing equality under the law with regard to my choice to marry whom I wish. May I assume that the National Men's Council of Ireland will represent my needs and interests? They may be orthogonal to the rights of fathers, but it seems plain that a National Men's Council should represent all of a country's men.

Yoda

Hmm Messiah, does your post belong in this thread?

MrOrdinary

perhaps we should start getting out of our little section here because at the end of the day the majority of people in here have the same view(preaching to the converted). How about taking it to another section, outside of the LGBT and hearing the general publics opinion? :eek:

Yoda

What each of us needs to do (as we are Irish citizens) is to make our views on the Family in our Constitution known to the people who are asking us our opinions.

MrOrdinary

thats what I did, I just emailed them my opinion.

Yoda

Do share it with us, if you wish.

damien

*bump*

Hmm_Messiah

PC froze at work and when back up was asked to log in to boards again, when i did it seemeed to have sent my post here for some reason !!

Sorry

I dunno how to move it

damien

A mod can split it and move it into the other thread.

Hmm_Messiah

Regarding consultation on changes to the constitution it might be worth repeating somethign mentioned in anothe rpost.

Some people may have an opinion but be struggling to formulate it, or in some other way feel intimadated by the eloquent or precise terms used by others.

In that case posting their "opinion" here might give the the benefit of seeign how it comes across etc,

BUT equally important they should feel free just to submit how they feel as best they can, their opinion is as valid as that of any more learned or eloquent person, and as also mentioned there is no need to respond to anythign, if any word mentioned in the ad triggers athought then just jot it down.

Personally I have a problem with constituional law as it does not allow easily for evolving society, each word is held somewhat sacresanct and changes necessite referenda etc. We are all aware of how beliefs and regulations can become outdated; while there is now an opportunity to bring our constitution into sync with this this time, it will within a short time need review again. I'd agree that the less definition of terms the beter, a constitution should embody the spirit of a nation's will, and allow leglisation then reflect the needs/common good at any time.

reading through the post so far I appluad how well some people have framed their words and thoughts.

In short (well short for me ) I think personally, looking at terms like society, family, marriage, institution, parental rights etc the thing I would wish stated and protected by Our constitution is simply

"All persons are equal notwithstanding their sexual orientation , identity or gender. All adults will be consider equal under the law."

We can the define marriage as a rship between two adults, withoutreference to gender and so on

MrOrdinary

should gay couples be allowed to marry?
Yes, Church and state should have seperate rules, all
loving couples of legal age, intellect etc. should be
allowed marry, regardless of gender or sexual identity. The Churches
arguments for disallowing gay marriage are not based on any logic or fact to begin with and have been shown to be based
purely on bigotry. It's the state's duty
to protect minorities from this kind of discrmination.
It should be a union, exactly the same as marriage in
the eyes of the state and law, not the church.

There was more, cheers

damien

Here's something to consider: Groups who are against the idea of gay marriage and want the enforcement of the "traditional" DeValera style definition of what a family is will be replying en masse to this. The more people who want a more inclusive family model that send in their comments the better.

We have been given the opportunity to give our views, lets not waste it.

Damien.

Yoda

Everyone, PLEASE -- paste the questions into your e-mail package, and go through them one by one. If you don't have an opinion on one of the questions, just delete it and move on to the next. This isn't a test. It's a request, from our representatives, for our views so that they can do what they can to represent us better, and to protect and augment our rights as citizens of Ireland. Everyone, PLEASE -- don't let this opportunity pass without your participation. The Constitution is the basis for all our law. This chance won't come again for a century.

Annasopra

Youth defence/The mother and child campaign are sending this submission to the all party committee on the constitution :

1. The Constitutional Family

The family is the fundamental social unit. Article 41.1.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann recognises the special position of the family and gives it inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law. Article 41.3.1 pledges the State to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack. The All Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution (APOCC) should not broaden this constitutional definition of the family.

2. How should one strike a balance between the rights of the family as a unit and the rights of individual members?

The Constitution already does this; firstly by Article 41 which contains the main provisions relating to family and secondly, by Article 40.3.1 which deals with personal rights. The identification of personal rights under Article 40.3.1 are common to all citizens. The rights of the family as a unit and the rights of the individual members of the family are complementary.

3. Is it possible to give constitutional protection to families other than those based on marriage?

Every individual, because of their inherent human dignity, must be protected by the State. The family based on marriage is guaranteed protection under the Constitution and this must remain. It is not possible to give constitutional protection to families other than those based on marriage because the family is a union of a man and woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage. Unions not based on marriage already have protection by the personal rights identified under Article 40.3. Where siblings or other family members reside together, some legal protection with regard to say, distribution of property etc, could be provided. The Constitution currently recognises that the family based on marriage offers the stability and security needed by society. This must not be weakened by affording the same status to other unions.

4. Who has the right to marry?

The legal right to marry should be restricted to one man and one woman, in the best interest of the nation's children and our society. The primary purpose of marriage is to rear children in a loving and secure environment. Children being adopted are entitled to an adoptive mother and an adoptive father, to fulfill the roles of a natural mother and father. Homosexual and lesbian unions should not be given the status of marriage.

5. Who has the right to adopt children?

Homosexual and lesbian couples should never have the right to adopt children. They cannot provide the secure and loving best environment that children require. Parents of Irish children would be horrified to think that their children could, in the event of their deaths, be adopted by homosexuals or lesbians.

6. Is the Constitution's reference to a woman's life within the home a dated one that should be changed?

Absolutely not. It is an important provision and one that reflects the desire of the majority of Irish women, as shown in many surveys, to stay at home and rear their children. Mothers who make many sacrifices to rear their children at home do the State an inestimable and unrewarded service. Article 41.2 should not be changed - instead the APOCC should recommend to the State that it fulfills its obligations to protect mothers at home.

7. What are the rights of Natural mothers and Natural fathers?

The rights of the natural mother are already protected under Article 40 of the Constitution. A natural father's rights should have the same recognition as those of a natural mother.

8. Should the rights of the child be given an expanded constitutional protection, and should the Constitution be changed in view of the UN Convention on the rights of the child?

The child already enjoys Constitutional protection which must be upheld by the State and the Constitution should not be amended to reflect the UN Convention on the rights of the child, or any other extra-territorial conventions.

9. The State and the Family

Despite the Constitutional protection afforded to the family based on marriage, the State continues to fail in its duty to protect and support the family, and has introduced a blatantly anti-family tax measure - tax individualisation - which actively discriminates against single-income families. The APOCC should urge the State to reverse that policy immediately.

10. Bunreacht na hÉireann

The rights of the Family under the Constitution should not be interfered with. Articles 41, 42 and 40.3 reflect the opinions of the majority of Irish people and the best practice for our nation, our children and our society.




Here are other submissions

http://www.family-men.com/submission%20Mothers%20in%20the%20Home.htm

http://www.family-men.com/submission%20Mothers%20and%20Child%20Campaign%20Letter.htm

http://www.family-men.com/submission%20OSullivan%20Bantry.htm

http://www.family-men.com/submission%20Ferry%20John%20Sligo.htm

http://www.family-men.com/submission.htm

Yoda

Here is a copy of my submission to the Committee.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to make this submission to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. Our Constitution guides the life of our nation and its communities. Because, in some of its provisions, our Constitution fails to foster inclusiveness and justice, it must be altered in favour of the goal of building such an inclusive and just society.

How should the family be defined?
The family should be defined in functional terms, because what a family is is irrelevant in comparison with what a family does. A family nurtures. A family protects. A family loves and supports and comforts. A family may be made up of a man and a woman, or of a man and a man, or of a woman and a woman. A family may – or may not – be concerned with the raising of children, whether of the birth-children of one or both or either of the partners, or of children brought into the family by adoption or fosterage.

The meaning of the term “Family” in the Constitution should be made clear, in a way which will allow progressive and inclusive provision and protection of all of Ireland’s families in law. A new clause should be added to section 1 of Article 41:

41. 1. 3° (proposed). The State acknowledges that the functions of the Family are for its members to nurture, to love, to comfort, to support, and to protect one another, and guarantees in its laws to ensure that all of its citizens have the right to found a family and to encourage its citizens in their expression of family life.

How should one strike the balance between the rights of the family as a unit and the rights of individual members?
It is hard to see what this question is about. The two people who found a family should be considered equal partners; they would be responsible for the minor children in their care until the children reach the age of majority. Apart from that I don’t know what provisions of the Constitution this question refers to.

Is it possible to give constitutional protection to families other than those based on marriage?
Article 41. 3. 1° states that the “Family” is founded upon “Marriage”. An inclusive interpretation of both of these terms would make the question asked here unnecessary.

A Family is a functional grouping within society. People who form a family may choose to breed their own or to raise other people’s children, but a family need not have children in it in order to be considered a family. Irish law allows people past breeding age to marry, and Irish law does not require people who marry to have or to raise children. Marriage, accordingly, is not an institution chiefly designed to create a stable environment for children: it is chiefly to provide rights and protections to the people who choose each other as life partners.

At the most basic reading of the text of the Constitution, Marriage is the act by which two people signal to the State that they wish to be considered a Family by the State. What follows on from that is law, which specifies the rights and responsibilities the two partners have toward one another and toward the State, and which the State bears toward the two partners.

The word “marriage” and the various meanings people ascribe to it is the problem. Some people believe that marriage is a “sacrament” or “covenant” – a public declaration of two people within a religious or cultural tradition which “blesses” the choice they have made to found a family together. That is all very well and good, but such beliefs really have nothing to do with a Constitution, which is a legal instrument designed to frame and define the range of a State’s powers and the rights and responsibilities it and its citizens have toward one another.

“Marriage” in a constitutional sense should be understood to refer to the public contract the State offers to any two people who choose to form a family recognized by the State. It would appear that the question here “can the Constitution protect families other than married families” presupposes that the Irish people would fear and oppose a functional definition of Family and a contractual definition of Marriage. But the Irish people are not so backward, despite what some conservatives maintain.

If Marriage and Family were treated contractually and functionally in the Constitution, then there would be no need to discuss a two-tiered system including “marriage” between a man and a woman on the one hand, and “civil partnership” between a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman on the other. Indeed, the Constitution as written might consider “civil partnership” to be an “attack” on Marriage, preventing (at least) a man and a woman from entering into it.

The State should decouple Civil Marriage from religious ceremony. In Catholic Mexico, all couples who marry must do so before a civil authority, normally in a small family ceremony. It is after they do that, that they are married in the eyes of the State. The big public church wedding generally takes place the following day; the Church’s blessing is separate from the civil contract.

I beg the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution: Be bold. Be strong. Trust the Irish people. Define Civil Marriage contractually, for all. The Netherlands have done this, as have a number of Canadian Provinces and other jurisdictions. It is simple, it is inclusive, and it is just. I propose the following amendment to Article 41. 3. 1°:

41. 3. 1° (proposed) The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack. It is by Marriage that two people demonstrate their willingness to found a Family, to take on responsibility for caring for one another and for children which they may have, and to enjoy certain rights the State may offer in support of their Family.

Should gay couples be allowed to marry?
With all due respect to the All-Party Committee, the very phrasing of this question shows how deeply-ingrained prejudice against gay people still pervades our society. “Should mixed-race couples be allowed to marry?” “Should Protestants and Catholics be allowed to marry?” It is not long ago that those questions could be asked easily – yet now we consider these to be abhorrent and offensive.

In Ireland last year the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Mary Coughlan, stated publicly that “Ireland was not ready for gay marriage”. Of course, if Ireland were not ready, its gay citizens would not be asking for it.

But Ms Coughlan subsequently published a bill, enacted in law as the Civil Registration Act 2004, which for the first time stated specifically in Irish law that there is an impediment to a marriage “if both parties are of the same sex” (Section 2.-(2)(e)). Previously this institutional homophobia was merely a matter of Court interpretation; now it is a law which blatantly discriminates against Irish citizens on the basis of sexual orientation.

A review of Irish practices should be undertaken with regard to Article 9 of Chapter II “Freedom”, and Article 21 of Chapter III “Equality” of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union. The latter prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but the former only grants the right to marry and found a family (which does not necessarily mean to breed children of the body) in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.

Irish marriage law discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. But the actual text of the Irish Constitution does not so discriminate, even as it stands: the sex of the people who marry to found a family is not specified, and what is not forbidden is allowed. The text I proposed for a new Article 41. 1. 3° and the text I proposed for addition to Article 41. 3. 1° above would clarify the inherent inclusiveness of the wording of the Constitution, enabling “gay marriage” to be no different from any other marriage in Ireland. Indeed, it could be argued that the Civil Registration Act 2004 is repugnant to the Constitution in introducing a distinction which is not specified there.

Bunreacht na hÉireann does not proscribe gay marriage.

“Gay marriage” poses no threat to anyone. It’s marriage.

Yoda

Part two...

Is the Constitution’s reference to woman’s ‘life within the home’ a dated one that should be changed?
A home need not have a woman in it in order to be a home, and a partner in a family who stays in the home may not be a woman. At a minimum the clauses in question should be amended thus:

41. 2. 1° (proposed) In particular, the State recognises that in families where one of the partners remains within the home, the home-maker gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

41. 2. 2° (proposed) The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that home-makers and care-givers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their responsibilities in the home.

Should the rights of a natural mother have express constitutional protection?
No. Such rights are proper to the realm of law. Article 40. 3. 3° contains provisions which attempted to “enshrine” the precious beliefs of some people in the Constitution. It led to the contradictory legal situation we have today. All of this should have been enacted in law, not inserted into the Constitution.

What rights should a natural father have, and how should they be protected?
A natural father should have the same rights with regard to access for care and nurturing that a natural mother does, without exception. A parent is a parent. The right of neither mother nor father should precede the other.

“Natural” parentage is not the only form of parental relationship, however, and the Constitution and the law should recognize this. A biological parent is not necessarily the best parent a child might have. Society must be flexible with regard to this question – Constitutional text should not unduly tie the hands of the Court in terms of custody or fosterage.

Should the rights of the child be given an expanded constitutional protection?
Vague and ill-defined terms such as “the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child” in Article 41. 5. should be replaced with unambiguous, well-defined terms and specified rights. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights should be consulted with regard to constitutional text regarding children.

Does the Constitution need to be changed in view of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
If any provision of the Constitution is at odds with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, it should be changed in order to bring the Irish provisions into accordance with the global requirements.

Respectfully,

damien

This is what I sent:

To the Committee:

Changing the constitution of this country is going to be a difficult and at times thankless task. The constitution needs to be updated to take into account a world we live in now that was not contemplated when the constitution first came into being. To change a constitution is a serious task and something that rarely happens. I would like to see changes made, as outlined below and it is my hope the new changes will ensure that it is another few decades before the constitution needs this area modified again.

No doubt there will be people sending in submissions who are afraid of change and want to still live in the land our grandparents grew up in, but that was a far different time with a very narrow view of the world and of life. Some decisions might prove controversial and may not be what the majority want, but enhancing the constitution is not just for the present people of Ireland but for future generations too. Sometimes in a democracy decisions need to be taken to protect a minority from groups that claim to represent a largely silent majority.

I wish to let the committee know that they have my support in their decision making process and I urge them to stay strong.


* how should the family be defined ?

Cultural change cannot be governed. Society's model of a family, like that of a Heraclitean Fire, is a constant succession of transitory states. Society changes and with it do families. This is a symbiotic relationship though and so changes in family structures will also change society. The traditionally defined family unit of mother, father and children is evolving into something more complex and interesting.

Families were never simple but they were simply defined. These binding definitions need to be re-examined and the flux-like nature of society and family needs to be catered for in order to future proof our constitution.

Just as the law criminalising homosexuality did not prevent homosexual acts but instead marginalised homosexuals, any law with strict rules for what a family is can only marginalise some families. The legislative framework surrounding the family is one that should be inclusive, rather than exclusive, it should act as a guide to the values that are important, while being flexible enough to encompass the diverse range of relationships that are part of our modern society.

* how should one strike the balance between the rights of the family as a unit and the rights of individual members ?

As much as possible all members of a family should be equal. Children too should be allowed a say and a voice.


* is it possible to give constitutional protection to families other than those based on marriage ?

In my answer to the first question above I stated that this new culture, almost 100 years more evolved than when the constitution was created, now has a different understanding of what a family is. All families should be protected whether some contain married couples or not. Families are very important in society and very beneficial to stability and social care. In return for this the state needs to provide a means to allow these families to continue and grow.

* should gay couples be allowed to marry ?

I am proud to say that Ireland allows it's citizens great freedoms and the government cares about the social needs of the people. However there are still some inequalities in this state and like Orwell's Animal Farm - some in Ireland are more equal than others. Same sex relationships are a reality and are not so uncommon or shocking anymore, as it should be.

With all the talk of catering for the needs of all these alternative relationships from various political parties it was only in the 2004 Civil Registrations Act that saw the first mention of same sex marriage in Irish law but it was to ban same-sex marriage. Political parties need to back up their words with deeds.

It's not a question of whether gay couples should marry, it's a question of whether the state should adapt and allow all it's citizens to be equal. In my view the state needs to make sure all citizens are equal.


* is the Constitution's reference to woman's 'life within the home' a dated one that should be changed ?

This is indeed outdated. The reference should be changed to provide for any spouse or partner or guardian. Any role that strengthens a family and makes it better needs to be recognized.


* should the rights of a natural mother have express constitutional protection ?

The rights of a parent/guardian and not just a natural mother need to have equal protection once it is deemed that these people are fit to associated with the child and to look after the child. In regards to cases of unborn children and abortion, the rights of a father need to be considered once he is deemed fit to be a parent. However the mothers well-being may be needed to be the deciding factor and she should have final say, but the father should be allowed to give testimony and have it on record.

* what rights should a natural father have, and how should they be protected ?

See answer to last question.

* should the rights of the child be given an expanded constitutional protection ?

See answer below.

* does the Constitution need to be changed in view of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ?

Ireland needs to adhere to this convention. It should have done a long time ago. This convention significantly improves the rights of children and gives them the ability to choose their future. I don't see why it might have to be enacted into the constitution though. As much as possible I think the constitution should remain unchanged, it is meant to be something that binds us through generations of change. The rights of a child need to be mentioned in the constitution but they should be defined in law.

damien

As predicted:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0311/2329178548HM1FAMILY.html

Thousands join call for no change in status of family

Thousands of people have written to an Oireachtas committee to argue against changing the constitutional status of the family.

The committee chairman, Fianna Fáil TD Denis O'Donovan, said that some 60 per cent of almost 6,000 submissions were opposed to any change in the constitutional definition of the family and against any form of recognition for gay relationships.

"I personally did not expect that number of submissions. We are not out with any particular agenda as part of the overall review," he said.

The committee is examining Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution, which deal with the family. It plans to invite up to 50 individuals and groups to make oral submissions to a two-week series of public hearings next month.

Many submissions are at odds with the position of the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who has indicated a willingness to recognise homosexual relationships for tax and inheritance purposes.

While Mr Ahern has said that marriage for gay couples is a long way off, he believes that same-sex couples should be treated more fairly within the tax and legal codes.

Other submissions argued for changes to protect the rights of fathers and the rights of unmarried parents. For example, the Dads Against Discrimination group said that the Constitution should place equal importance on both parents.

According to a summary of the submissions, the Conference of Religious in Ireland, which represents Catholic congregations, argued that the definition of the family should stay as it is and should be reserved to heterosexual unions.

The anti-abortion Mother and Child Campaign claims to have sent thousands of signed copies of its submission to the committee. Members of the Pro-Life Campaign and the Family Solidarity group also made submissions arguing against recognition for same-sex unions.

However, many individuals and groups argued for official recognition of such relationships.

Former taoiseach John Bruton made a submission in which he disagreed with the view that marriage was no longer the norm and that other types of partnerships should be recognised in the Constitution.

Mr Bruton said that the State should continue to promote marriage as the norm towards which people would aspire, but it should do so in a manner which respected other situations.

The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children said that the Constitution should be changed to grant equal status and rights to all natural parents and children, regardless of the marital status of the parents.

Yoda

This is most distressing.

rsynnott

However, it probably doesn't actually reflect the views of the population at home. The crazier of the "save-the-family" groups actively enouraged their members to send in submissions, and gave them form submissions to send in...

Hopefully the government will see it this way

damien

Yoda wrote:

This is most distressing.

I'm seeing it as 40% of people said yes. That 40% can be grown much larger with a bit of effort. Divorce got through when 50.1% of the population said yes. The 60% included the right wing nuts who just signed the youth defense leaflets at churches, which to me means the 60% is not a true percentage. Anyway, the Committee is there looking for viewpoints, it's not a competition and is not an election.

Annasopra

For a good laugh check out the NMCIs submission

http://www.family-men.com/submission.htm

fozzle

Our rallying cry must be:

“We shall not permit our Constitution to be stolen from us!”

yeah, those fecking homosexuals, taking our jobs and our women and our men..... :rolleyes:

rsynnott

Johnnymcg wrote:

For a good laugh check out the NMCIs submission

http://www.family-men.com/submission.htm

Ah, they want to make policy based on religious babble. And FUD about the "Liberal Agenda". Great. We're turning into America. Let's put the church back in the constitution!

EDIT: Ah, they also decry unlicensed procreation. I wonder do they favour compulsory useage of tablecloths, as well, since we're definitely veering into Victorian values here....