The Zappone/Gilligan case

Yoda

I saw some of the Gilligan/Zappone reports in the Irish Times.Only saw arguments for that side, none against. It is hard to see how Ms Justice of the High Court could find against them.

Of course, whether they succeed or fail in the High Court it will certainly be appealed and go to the Supreme Court. If they win in the High Court, I can't see this government not appealling it, them being the way that they are.

If G & Z fail, of course they will appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court finds for them, all will be well.. if they do not, Europe will find for them, and shame on the Supreme Court.

The nice thing about their appeal is that they want their MARRIAGE accepted, which means Ireland won't really be able to wimp out and hand us partial civil partnership.

Yoda

Talliesin and I IM'd about this. He suggested I post the comments here. From Talliesin:

Naah, govt. won't appeal. It gets them into having gay marriage but it not being their fault - gay community's happy, conservatives can't complain. Some nutter or other might appeal the constitutionality of it though.

Yoda

Some nutter with money, perhaps.

But the Constitution does NOT explicitly say anything about the sex of the members of a family. It does not say that a home MUST have a woman in it to be a home, though it says nice things about women in homes.

Yoda

Talliesin said:

Yeah. Greens, Labour and SF would definitely like to just bring it in. FG would lean towards it heavily. FF wants to click its heals and go straight to being in a situation a few years down the line where we just have gay marriage and much of the controversy at a political level is gone. They're career politicians and people of the world. Few of them at high ranks really give a **** whether gays can get married or not and just want the issue to go away.

And if we can have gay and lesbian tourists coming here to get married all the better!

Yoda

Labour backpedalled on it being a priority recently...

Yoda

Talliesin said:

Yeah, they're faffing around the whole issue. There's not much in the way of strong feeling in the Dail or the Seanad. A minority really want it, a minority really don't, and most are just career politicians. The Greens are the only ones with a strong opinion.

Latest poll has 64% of voters supporting gay marriage. 64% is not something for any politician to ignore.

The_Minister

Yoda wrote:

Yeah. Greens, Labour and SF would definitely like to just bring it in.

You are forgetting the PDs. They were (one of?) the first parties to support gay marraige, and have repeatedly stated that they support it. I think its kinda a "cafe-bars" situation where FF won't let it happen.

Stark

So what's the story legal stance while with the case? Are they still hoping for a win in the High Court like I heard last time round?

Yoda

The_Minister wrote:

You are forgetting the PDs. They were (one of?) the first parties to support gay marraige, and have repeatedly stated that they support it. I think its kinda a "cafe-bars" situation where FF won't let it happen.

I find it hard to think that the current leader of the PDs has any interest in making progress on this issue whatsoever.

Yoda

Stark wrote:

So what's the story legal stance while with the case? Are they still hoping for a win in the High Court like I heard last time round?

I am sure they are, and as far as I can see the arguments for their case (as printed in the Irish Times) are surely very compelling. (I did not see the arguments against, if the Irish Times published them.)

I suggested that if they win in the High Court, it's likely that the Government will take it to the Supreme Court. Talliesin suggests that they would not, it being a way for them to allow same-sex marriage without doing it themselves.

Syth

Yoda wrote:

I saw some of the Gilligan/Zappone reports in the Irish Times.Only saw arguments for that side, none against. It is hard to see how Ms Justice of the High Court could find against them.

Has this case finished? It only started a few weeks ago. KALCase.org hasn't been updated in a few weeks. Maybe there are no arguments againsts because the other side haven't had their say yet?

Yoda

The Irish Times said it was over and that judgement was being reserved. (That means the justice retires and thinks about it and writes up a good long judgement.)

Annasopra

The_Minister wrote:

You are forgetting the PDs. They were (one of?) the first parties to support gay marraige, and have repeatedly stated that they support it. I think its kinda a "cafe-bars" situation where FF won't let it happen.

Sigh - The PDs do not support gay marriage

The only parties that do are SF and the Greens

Annasopra

The case finished about 2 weeks ago

Here are some reports about the defence

Professor questions 'rosy' reports on lesbian parents

Wednesday October 11th 2006
Irish Independent
A LEADING academic has questioned the methodology of studies showing that children's welfare is not adversely affected when lesbian parents raise them.

Patricia Casey, professor of psychiatry at UCD, told the High Court that she "could not draw any conclusions" from the studies because of certain techniques used and the small sample sizes.

She was giving evidence on behalf of the State in the action by Katherine Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Ann Louise Gilligan, an academic, against the Revenue Commissioners and the State.

"One has to be very cautious," she said in relation to the reports.

The couple claims that the failure by Irish authorities to recognise their Canadian marriage breaches their right to marry under the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms. The State denies the alleged breaches of rights. In response to counsel for the State Mr Donal O'Donnell, Prof Casey said that any long-term conclusions from existing studies as to the long term development of children raised by lesbians could not be relied on because "of the small samples used," and because of the methods used.

One of these include a technique known as 'snowballing'. This is where all those individuals used in a study might all belong to a similar social group or know each other.

The claims about the welfare of children raised in same sex families, on scientific grounds, could not be supported because nobody knows what the reality was, Prof Casey said.

She also pointed out that only one of the studies previously mentioned during this case was a longitudinal one, and while there had been work done in relation to lesbians couples, no study had ever been carried out about children raised by homosexual men.

"One has to be very cautious," she said in relation to the finds of these reports.

"We need more vigorous studies that what already exist," she said.

Under cross-examination from counsel for Dr Zappone and Dr Gilligan, Prof Casey said that the samples taken need to be big enough, because only then could one adapt them to the general population.

She did not agree with counsel that even if the individual studies were flawed, that the overall picture they form is correct.

The landmark case is in its second week of evidence. Evidence on behalf of the State was concluded yesterday and legal submissions are to be made today.

Ann O'Loughlin


Child welfare findings disputed in lesbian case

11/10/2006



Irish Times

A psychiatrist has described as "unreliable" the findings of a number of studies which indicate that the welfare of children is not adversely affected through being raised by a lesbian mother or by two lesbian partners.

Such findings could not be relied upon in relation to the long-term development of children because of the methodology used and the small samples involved, Prof Patricia Casey said.

The studies in question were outlined to the High Court last week by experts testifying on behalf of a lesbian couple, Dr Katherine Zappone and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan, who want the State to recognise their marriage in Canada as valid.

Yesterday, Prof Casey, professor of psychiatry at UCD, said she "could not draw any conclusions" from the studies because of certain techniques used and the small sample sizes involved.

More vigorous studies were needed, she said. She was giving evidence on behalf of the State in the action by Dr Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Dr Gilligan, an academic, who in proceedings against the Revenue Commissioners and the State, claim the failure by the authorities here to recognise their Canadian marriage as valid breaches their rights under the Irish Constitution, European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms. They also argue that, if their Canadian marriage is not recognised, they should have the right to marry within the State.

The defendants deny the alleged breaches of rights.

Yesterday, Prof Casey told Mr Donal O'Donnell SC, for the State, that any long-term conclusions from existing studies as to the long-term development of children raised by lesbians could not be relied on because "of the small samples used" and because of the methods used.

The claims about the welfare of children raised in same-sex families, on scientific grounds, could not be supported because nobody knows what the reality is, she said.

Only one of the studies mentioned during the case was a longitudinal one - which pursued children to the age of 25 - and while there had been work done in relation to lesbian couples, no study had ever been carried out about children raised by homosexual men, Prof Casey said.

Also yesterday, Prof Linda Waite, giving evidence from Chicago via video link, said she had carried out a study on the institution of heterosexual marriage which supported the conclusion that heterosexual marriage improves the physical and emotional health of the partners with benefits also accruing to children.


Constitution rules out same sex marriage, court told

12/10/2006



Irish Times
Marriage is an institution involving two people of the opposite sex given "special protection", under the Constitution but the Constitution does not give same sex couples the right to marry, lawyers for the State have argued before the High Court.

The right to marry does not apply to lesbians or gay couples because the Constitution's wording on marriage unambiguously refers to a man and a woman, Paul Gallagher SC said.

Donal O'Donnell SC, also for the State, said a lesbian couple who contend their Canadian marriage should be recognised here or that they should have the right to marry here were making a "bold claim" that would have consequences if upheld by court. There was no social change or public consensus that allows the courts to redefine what was meant by marriage, he said.

The Constitution's definition did not mean someone could simply "marry the person you love". If that were the case, then the definition set out in Article 41 would be "completely malleable".

Both counsel were making submissions for the State in the action by Dr Katherine Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan, an academic, against the Revenue Commissioners and the State.

They claim the State authorities' failure to recognise their Canadian marriage breaches their right to marry and to equality of treatment under the Constitution, European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms. They also argue that if their Canadian marriage, obtained in British Columbia in 2003, is not recognised here they should have the right to marry within the State.

The State denies the alleged breaches of rights.

Yesterday, Mr Gallagher said the Constitution's wording on marriage was "plain and unambiguous". There was nothing that would alter "the natural meaning of those words". Any interpretation that the Constitution provides same sex couples with the right to marry was incorrect, he said. There was no legal statute that allowed the concept of marriage to be radically changed, counsel argued. Marriage was an institution between two people of the opposite sex, given "special protection," under the Constitution.

Mr Gallagher said the State had not breached the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms, as the respective European courts had also defined marriage as something between a man and woman.

He rejected the couple's claims that the tax code had unfairly discriminated against them.

Counsel further denied claims that the Revenue had acted unlawfully by refusing to recognise the plaintiffs as married for tax purposes. The Revenue had, at all times, acted fairly and openly and were subject to "unjust criticism".

Since the State decriminalised sexual activity between homosexual men in 1993, a lot of legislation, including the Equal Status Act and the Unfair Dismissal Act, had been introduced to counter discrimination against people on grounds of sexual orientation, Mr Gallagher also submitted.

Mr O'Donnell said the understanding of marriage either in 1937 or in 2006 did not extend to same sex couples. For good or ill, marriage was defined as something between persons of the opposite sex and was given special protection in the Constitution on the grounds that it forms an important part of the family - the base unit of society. The plaintiffs claim was "unsustainable", he said.

Although the Constitution does not specifically state that marriage is between man and woman or include a ban on a same sex union, it was self evident that such unions were not contemplated when the Constitution was adopted, Mr O'Donnell said.

The only way the Constitution could be changed was by the people in a referendum and this was "a clearly identifiable route". The hearing continues today before Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne.





Same-sex pair 'have no right to marriage'

Thursday October 12th 2006
Irish Independent
SAME sex couples do not have the right to marry under the Irish Constitution, lawyers for the State told the High Court yesterday.

State Counsel Paul Gallagher SC said the wording in the Constitution that deals with marriage "clearly relates to a union between a man and a woman" and it was impossible to conclude that the term referred to relationships between people of the same sex.

Mr Gallagher was making submissions on behalf of the State in the continuing action, being heard by Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, by Dr Katherine Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan, an academic, against the Revenue Commissioners and the State.

The couple claim the failure by the authorities here to recognise their Canadian marriage as valid here breaches their right to marry under the Irish Constitution, European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms.

They also argue that if their Canadian marriage, obtained in the Province of British Columbia in 2003, is not recognised they should have the right to marry within the State.

The State denies the alleged breaches of rights.

Mr Gallagher said the wording of the Constitution in relation to marriage was "plain and unambiguous".

There was nothing that "would alter the natural meaning of those words".

When it came to interpreting the Constitution "plain words must be given a plain meaning".

He said that any interpretation the Constitution allows same-sex couples the right to marry is incorrect.

Marriage is an institution between two people of the opposite sex, which was given "special protection," under the Constitution, he said.

Counsel said the State had not breached the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms, as the respective European Courts had also defined marriage as something between a man and woman.

He said that the Tax code had not unfairly discriminated against them.

Donal O'Donnell SC, also representing the State, said that plaintiffs were making a "bold claim", which, if upheld by the court, would have a range of consequences.

He rejected the claim that there was a social change or public consensus that would allow the courts redefine what is meant by marriage.

The plaintiff's claim, he said, was "unsustainable".

The hearing, which is now in it second week, resumes today.

Ann O'Loughlin

Annasopra

I wouldn't necessarily agree that the High Court Judge could find it hard to find against them.

any judge looking at this case would ask whether they "can", they "must" , or they "should" change the existing interpretation.

Interpreting marriage in Ireland in the way we want would like is a big change.

The state using evidence which basically tried to take away from KALs case will give the Judge a reason that she doesn't have to change anything

Yoda

(Would've been easier to handle all that if you'd posted each article in a separate post, Johnny. It takes a lot of scrolling.)

Yoda

Johnnymcg wrote:

"The right to marry does not apply to lesbians or gay couples because the Constitution's wording on marriage unambiguously refers to a man and a woman, Paul Gallagher SC said."

I, for one, fail to find such text. "The natural meaning of those words"? Always, always, always distrust arguments about what is "natural".

Yoda

Johnnymcg wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily agree that the High Court Judge could find it hard to find against them.

Depends on the judge. This one, I am told by someone who knows her, is thorough and fair. That at least is good.

any judge looking at this case would ask whether they "can", they "must" , or they "should" change the existing interpretation.

And such a judge must have noticed Spain. ;-)

Interpreting marriage in Ireland in the way we want would like is a big change.

Not really. The State may argue that in 1937 they didn't think about same-sex marriage, because such a thing was inconceivable in 1937. But this isn't 1937, and if those same people were writing a Consititution in 2006 one may expect that they have found it conceivable. Anyway, is it such a big change? We have divorce and the moral fibre of our country hasn't collapsed because of it. That was arguably bigger change, because the number of heterosexual couples in a position to take advantage of divorce is far, far larger than the number of homosexual couples in a position to take advantage of marriage (were it available to them).

The state using evidence which basically tried to take away from KALs case will give the Judge a reason that she doesn't have to change anything

She's got two choices--and having talked with Talliesin, I can think of three scenarios--and she makes her choices not in a vacuum at all, but having had access to Michael D's bill and the discussion around that.

1) She can say No, in which case Z/G will appeal it to the Supreme Court and the whole thing starts again. Then the Supreme Court will have to decide... and if they say No, Z/G will take it to Europe.

2) She can say Yes, in which case the State will appeal it to the Supreme Court and the whole thing starts again. Then the Supreme Court will have to decide... and if they say No, Z/G will take it to Europe.

3) She can say Yes, and the State can breathe easily, accept same-sex marriage, and be "blameless". :-)

Annasopra

I think she will not rush her judgement before the Colley group reports. She can then say the Oireachtas intends to legislate in this area.

I think there are more then 3 scenarios. It is not certain that even if this case is succesful that it would open full gay marriage. The case really hinges on the revenue. She could strictly apply the case as regards ONLY being about Taxation. In this scenario the Government could do it's "bus pass" and actually overturn the ruling by legislating to discriminate.

She could turn down the case and KAL might go straight to the European courts.

Their case in my view is very strong (but I am just trying not to be over optimistic) I sat in on the last day of the Hearing where Gerard Hogan outlined it. He made many points that you have - that the Constitution doesn't define a marriage as being a man and a woman, that marriage has changed since 1937 (ie in 1937 12 year old girls could marry)

I am a huge advocate of KAL, I'm just trying to be opmtimistic yet realistic

The_Minister

JohnnyMCG wrote:

Sigh - The PDs do not support gay marriage

Sorry, gay partnership.

Twinkle-star15

Is it just me, or does this seem very like the situation in South Africa with Gandhi? When the State refused to recognise non-Christian marriages? Just a thought.

Annasopra

Judgement is to be given tomorrow at 11am

Nevyn

Twinkle-star15 wrote:

Is it just me, or does this seem very like the situation in South Africa with Gandhi? When the State refused to recognise non-Christian marriages? Just a thought.

Actually there are interuptations that say that is the case here, that non catholic marriages aren't recognised under the consititution.

dory

Johnnymcg wrote:

Judgement is to be given tomorrow at 11am

Really? Im a bit lost here. Are you saying they'll announce whether they're going to recognise their marraige or not tomorrow?

How can one find out the latest? Suppose it will be on the news ya?

Annasopra

Im a bit lost here. Are you saying they'll announce whether they're going to recognise their marraige or not tomorrow?

How can one find out the latest? Suppose it will be on the news ya?

Well yes they are going to announce whether it is recognised or not BUT whatever the verdict it won't make much difference because it will be appealed to the Supreme Court by either Zappone/Gilligan themselves if they lose or the state if it loses

For anyone interested Maman Poulet did some excellent digging/research on the States witnesses

Yoda

From the Irish Times (ireland.com)

Lesbian couple lose marriage case

The High Court has rejected a landmark action by a lesbian couple aimed at having their marriage in Canada recognised as valid under Irish law or securing the right to marry in Ireland.

Dr Katherine Zappone and Dr Anne Louise Gilligan were married in Canada in September 2003 and, the following year, began moves to have their relationship officially accepted under Irish law.

But Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne today dismissed their case, insisting there was no provision for same-sex marriage in the Constitution.

Dr Zappone, a public policy consultant, and DrGilligan, an academic, had taken the case against the Revenue Commissioners and the State.

The case, which ran for eight days last October, raised significant issues about the meaning of marriage under the Constitution and issues concerning the entitlements of same-sex couples under the tax acts.

Stark

Bit of a bummer. So I guess next step is the Supreme Court.

Yoda

Last Updated: 14/12/2006 15:53
Lesbian couple loses marriage court case

The High Court has rejected a landmark action by a lesbian couple aimed at having their marriage in Canada recognised as valid under Irish law or securing the right to marry in Ireland.

Dr Katherine Zappone and Dr Anne Louise Gilligan were married in Canada in September 2003 and, the following year, began moves to have their relationship officially accepted under Irish law.

Dr Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Dr Gilligan, an academic, had taken the case against the Revenue Commissioners and the State. They argued that the State acted unlawfully and breached their constitutional rights to equality, marriage, property and family rights. And they sought to be assessed for tax purposes by the Revenue Commissioners as a married couple.

But Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne today dismissed their case, insisting there was no provision for same-sex marriage in the Constitution.

"Marriage was understood under the 1937 Constitution to be confined to persons of the opposite sex," she said in her 138-page ruling. She also said she could not support the couple's claim that the Constitution was incompatible with decisions from the European Court of Human Rights.

However, Ms Justice Dunne expressed a level of sympathy with the plaintiffs.

"Undoubtedly people in the position of the plaintiffs, be they same-sex couples for heterosexual couples, can suffer great difficulty or hardship in the event of the death or serious illness of their partners. Dr Zappone herself spoke eloquently on this difficulty in the course of her evidence," she said.

"It is to be hoped that the legislative changes to ameliorate these difficulties will not be long in coming. Ultimately, it is for the legislature to determine the extent to which such changes should be made."

Dr Zapone and Dr Gilligan have been together for 25 years and have lived in Ireland since 1983. They went to Canada in September 2003 to marry after a change in the law there and on their return set about having their bond recognised in Ireland.

In July 2004 the Revenue refused their claim for the same allowances as a married couple under the Taxes Consolidation Act. Civil servants insisted that marriage related only to a husband and wife and that the Oxford English Dictionary defined this as a married man and woman.

The eight-day case heard that the couple had suffered significant personal distress after that decision and that their battle was not simply about getting equal financial treatment but also dignity.

Costs will be decided at a later date.

Speaking outside court, the couple said they were disappointed with the judgment but would take time to consider it fully.

Dr Zappone said: "We do believe and we know that Ireland will be a land of justice and of equality for all human beings, and we believe and we know that the Irish Constitution does protect our rights as it does all others."

Dr Gilligan said they were disappointed at the ruling. "Personally we are disappointed and now that's as humanly real as we can be today," she said.

The Green Party's justice spokesman, Ciarán Cuffe, said after the ruling it was "unacceptable that the constitutional rights that we in Ireland cherish, such as the right to equality and to marriage, property and family rights, continue to be denied to certain groups of people living in the State".

He called on the Government to bring forward legislation as a matter of urgency to guarantee equality under law to same-sex couples.

Speaking to the media at an event to mark the publication of the Labour Party's Civil Unions Bill, Labour Party leader Pat Rabbitte said he was "disappointed" by the outcome in the case. However, he said he had not yet had time to examine the court's arguments.

Fine Gael's equality spokeswoman in the Seanad, Sheila Terry, said today's High Court ruling makes it clear that the question of gay marriage is a constitutional one and that the emphasis now must be on civil partnership.

She said the party's Civil Partnerhsip Plan published over two years ago would provide cohabiting same-sex and opposite-sex couples with the rights they deserve and "should be enacted immediately".

Under Fine Gael's proposal, cohabiting couples could register their relationship with the State and avail of rights in the areas of next of kin, pensions, succession, tax, property, social welfare, inheritance and workplace entitlements.

Labour's Civil Unions Bill, published today, would allow same-sex couple enter into unions mirroring marriage, with the same rights and responsibilities.

In a statement, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL), also said it was disappointed at the outcome.

ICCL director Mark Kelly said the court had "missed an opportunity to place equality considerations ahead of a vision of marriage that is grounded in the past".

Rev Hellfire

Rozie wrote:

There is no valid case "against" gay marriage. It's absolute bull**** that none of the major parties are supporting it.

We should be completely and utterly ashamed of our conservative, bigoted, unreasonable, closed minded, skanger ridden country.

That "Justice" deserves to have her marriage broken up, see how she likes that. And beat the **** out of her in an actual debate and not courtroom BS just for good measure.

I no longer recognise those who so who act on prejudice in such positions of power as human beings deserving of equal rights.

The judge is bound by the law and the legal definition of marriage. So her hands where tied when it came to this result. So your 'criticism' of her is undeserved.

Anyway it seems that even this 'conservative, bigoted, unreasonable, closed minded, skanger ridden country' is moving to providing civil unions (a marriage in all but words, well a civil marriage ) which should provide the legal protections and structures offered to married couples.

Boston

Rozie wrote:

There is no valid case "against" gay marriage. It's absolute bull**** that none of the major parties are supporting it.

We should be completely and utterly ashamed of our conservative, bigoted, unreasonable, closed minded, skanger ridden country.

That "Justice" deserves to have her marriage broken up, see how she likes that. And beat the **** out of her in an actual debate and not courtroom BS just for good measure.

I no longer recognise those who so who act on prejudice in such positions of power as human beings deserving of equal rights.

The judge was bang on actually. It shouldn't fall to judges to make up for the failures in goverment.

keynesian

The_Minister wrote:

You are forgetting the PDs. They were (one of?) the first parties to support gay marraige, and have repeatedly stated that they support it. I think its kinda a "cafe-bars" situation where FF won't let it happen.

Are you forgetting that was only after some PD prat went on the late late and said it would never happen. There was such a gay backlash within the party they had to write up a policy.

keynesian

LiouVille wrote:

It shouldn't fall to judges to make up for the failures in government.

Our Nation Administration, like most "democracies", operates on a checks and balances system. So, it is up to the judiciary to protect the constitution and therefore correct the legislator or as you put it "make up for the failures in government"

Stark

Rozie wrote:

That "Justice" deserves to have her marriage broken up, see how she likes that. And beat the **** out of her in an actual debate and not courtroom BS just for good measure.

Trying to get yourself banned from another forum?

The_Minister wrote:

You are forgetting the PDs. They were (one of?) the first parties to support gay marraige, and have repeatedly stated that they support it. I think its kinda a "cafe-bars" situation where FF won't let it happen.

If memory serves me correctly, marriage was never defined as between "man and woman" until McDowell sneakingly introduced legislation to make it so.

Rev Hellfire

Rozie wrote:

Then, again, what was the point in even going into the courtroom?

We must assume they went because they believed they had a chance. As it turned out their interpretation of the legal landscape with respect to the issue was proven wrong.

Rozie wrote:

Names can mean a lot. It's still not equal recognition, and very often "Civil Unions" don't contain quite the same list of rights that a full on "marriage" does.

Of course it’s a legal recognition. When implemented correctly a civil union can provide a comparable legal framework to the legal partnership formed by a marriage. And assuming that it’s the legal structures that are sought (which was the case in the zappone/gilligan case) I personally cannot see the issue.

The_Minister

keynesian wrote:

Are you forgetting that was only after some PD prat went on the late late and said it would never happen. There was such a gay backlash within the party they had to write up a policy.

If you have ever been to a PD meeting (in a college or something), you will notice that about one in three active male PDs is gay (i've never met a lesbien PD). There is huge support within the party for civil partnership.

stark wrote:

If memory serves me correctly, marriage was never defined as between "man and woman" until McDowell sneakingly introduced legislation to make it so.

I said later in the thread that I had meant civil partnership.

Sangre

Stark wrote:

Trying to get yourself banned from another forum?



If memory serves me correctly, marriage was never defined as between "man and woman" until McDowell sneakingly introduced legislation to make it so.

Unfortunately that's completely untrue, it has always been defined as only between a man and a woman. You'd be surprised the amount of case law on what constitutes a legal, valid marriage, its because it has so many legal ramifications.

damien

Stark wrote:

If memory serves me correctly, marriage was never defined as between "man and woman" until McDowell sneakingly introduced legislation to make it so.

No, a ban on same sex marriage was never about in legal text until Mary Coughlan stuck it into section 2 of the Civil Registration Act 2004 where it stated that there is an impediment to a marriage "if both parties are of the same sex"

The marriage definition of one being between a man and a woman is all over the gaff in case law. Though that is quite easy to change really.

damien

The_Minister wrote:

If you have ever been to a PD meeting (in a college or something), you will notice that about one in three active male PDs is gay (i've never met a lesbien PD). There is huge support within the party for civil partnership.

Awww shucks little one, the real world doesn't actually come into play until you leave college. By then the mighty dollar and political favours should beat all that ideology crap out of you. In the real world the church has a much stronger influence, thus we saw Bertie turn one of his own party Minister's, the Tanaiste and a few other FF and PD people by distancing himself from the Oireachtas Committee which asked for a drop in the age of consent and press releasing and making most of his own party give off-record comments condeming the maverick views of those that came to the conclusion.

Also. funny how the equality party you call the PDs hasn't managed to do anything about Civil Partnerships in all the years they're in Government. Tis odd too that when Iain Gill started work for the PDs (now since left) that they erased his past history of working for EU Gay Rights Lobby Groups and his (fantastic) gay rights work in Ireland too. From the cache on the PD site:

Before beginning his work with the Progressive Democrats Iain was a full time National Officer with the Union of Students in Ireland (USI) and worked between the European Parliament in Brussels and an International Human Rights Organisation based in Belgium.

damien

I'll just copy and paste (I'm lazy) comments I left on someone's Bebo about the KAL case:

The KAL case seemed more about hosting lavish blacktie balls than getting something constructive done. Nobel as it was, and great as the champagne and canapes were, the party is over. It would have taken a judge to go against legal logic to side with these two ladies.

The lazy and selfish gay community deserves nothing if it does nothing to get it. It was great to see two ladies go and do something when most of the gay rights organisations kiss the ass of McDowell or Bertie while stabbing the back of those who yearn to have their love recognised. If you want to do something then go into politics or start a lobby group or get a law degree and start suggesting new laws for sympathetic parties to adopt.

Stirling

Guys its an emotive issue but any serious debate about it thats based on the Law underpinning the decision has to look at the Law. To be honest I don't care either way about which way this ultimately goes but I do care greatly about the extent to which the Law is respected and upheld.

Under the current Constitutional framework and the huge amount of case law that has been generated as Sangre has pointed out marriage has always been interpreted as the union of a biological man a biological woman.

Whatever problems people have with this definition it is the Law and can asuch only be changed by Government and not the Judiciary whose function is to interpret. Comments such as those made by Rozie are totally misguided and overlook why the Law, and Constitutional and Administrative Law in particular, exists in the first place.

Expecting the judiciary to ignore the Law just because it is an emotive issue that you feel strongly about is just one step away from them ignoring the Law when the State enacts something that is a flagrant disregard for your rights just because that is something the State feels strongly about.

The Law is there as a two way street protecting the State from us as much as us from the State and to achieve both ends it must act impartially at all times and not just react to emotive issues that we feel strongly about.

If one starts from this premise and recognise that the barrier to recognition is political rather than legal then we will be able to have a much more mature and informed discussion.

Boston

keynesian wrote:

Our Nation Administration, like most "democracies", operates on a checks and balances system. So, it is up to the judiciary to protect the constitution and therefore correct the legislator or as you put it "make up for the failures in government"

Thats awful american crap. Judges here are not in the position to make the law. As pointed out by someone already mentioned the Civil Registration Act 2004 explicitly bars the way for same sex marriage. I for one would not like the collective bunch of tools that is the judiciary making laws.

The ruling sucks.

Annasopra

The KAL case seemed more about hosting lavish blacktie balls than getting something constructive done. Nobel as it was, and great as the champagne and canapes were, the party is over. It would have taken a judge to go against legal logic to side with these two ladies.

Some people are never able to be positive and acknowledge others contributions

damien

Johnnymcg wrote:

Some people are never able to be positive and acknowledge others contributions

And these contributions would be?

Boston

Sitting on their arse posting cynical messages on forums... hold on I'm thinking of someone else. :rolleyes:

keynesian

The_Minister wrote:

If you have ever been to a PD meeting (in a college or something), you will notice that about one in three active male PDs is gay (i've never met a lesbien PD). There is huge support within the party for civil partnership..

Yes, well read my statement again, I have no doubt that the PD are full of puffters. Like moths to a flame, fags love fashism.

Annasopra

And these contributions would be?

The contributions of the friends and supporters of Katherine Zappone and Anne Louise Gilligan to the cause of seeking equality e.g. Unpaid work on their behalf, time, money, organising, fundraising, advocacy, advice

damien

Johnnymcg wrote:

The contributions of the friends and supporters of Katherine Zappone and Anne Louise Gilligan to the cause of seeking equality e.g. Unpaid work on their behalf, time, money, organising, fundraising, advocacy, advice

Ah, so you're wanting recognition for the voluntary work you put in, even if the campaign was pointless?

There should be a campaign for a constitutional change, it's as simple as that. All these silly and time-wasting court cases and half-arsed almost-equal civil partnerhsip suggestions form the spineless political parties are not good enough.

Equality should not be snuck into mainstream life using legal trickery and loopholes. We should not try and get rights by crawling through the cracks and crevices of the law, but by walking straight up to the front door and knocking and asking the people for change. It is unsavoury and suggests we lack pride in asking for what we want.

Perhaps the "time, money, organising, fundraising, advocacy, advice" should be put to work on that?

But I guess if you want a medal for doing something that achieved nothing, someone can fashion you a medal from the foil from a bottle of champagne.

Boston

I see where he's coming from and all, but yea know the case was about trying to get rigths recognised, not changing the law. It was about two people rather then the big picture. I don't think it was pointless, since it put the issue out there.

The_Minister

keynesian wrote:

Yes, well read my statement again, I have no doubt that the PD are full of puffters. Like moths to a flame, fags love fashism.

At first I thought that you had misspelled fashion, and was greatly confused:p .

I'n not sure why you are calling the PDs fascists, they stand in the opposite political sphere to facism. I can't even respond to your comment because it puzzles me. Are you saying that gays like being trampled on, that gays love facism and tend to be racist, or that the PDs are facist?

Yoda

From The Irish Times

Lesbian couple to appeal marriage ruling

A lesbian couple are to appeal to the Supreme Court against a High Court ruling that they do not have the right to marry here under the Constitution.

Dr Katherine Zappone and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan said they intended to appeal against the findings of Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne in their case.

Dr Gilligan said they believed clarification by the Supreme Court of the issues raised in their action was not only in their own interest but also in the public interest.

In her landmark judgment last week, Ms Justice Dunne ruled that marriage is understood under the 1937 Constitution to be confined to persons of the opposite sex. She also rejected claims by Dr Zappone and Dr Gilligan that the refusal to permit them marry here breaches their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.

Dr Zappone, a public policy consultant and member of the Human Rights Commission, and Dr Gilligan, an academic, had brought their action against the Revenue Commissioners and the State. It ran for eight days last October.

The matter came before Ms Justice Dunne again today in relation to the issue of costs.

Donal O'Donnell SC, for the State parties, said his side were not seeking their costs against the couple but rejected arguments that the State should pay the couple's costs.

Gerard Hogan SC, for the couple, said he was grateful the State was not seeking its costs against his clients but believed the State should bear their costs because of the importance of the issues raised in the proceedings.

Ms Justice Dunne said the normal rule on costs was that they follow the event - are paid by the losing party but the State was not seeking its costs against the couple.

In this case, the court had been asked to look at "well-charted constitutional territory" and interpret that in a different way in light of a law not challenged in the case, the judge said.

With "a degree of reluctance" because she understood what was involved in brining a case to court, she believed there were no exceptional circumstances to justify an order for costs in favour of the couple against the State.

In the circumstances, she would make no order for costs - meaning each side pays their own costs.