The Zappone/Gilligan case

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.