Civil Partnership Bill to go before Dáil in new session

4red

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0127/1232923367773.html

Gay Civil Partnership is listed among numerous other Bills to be published before Easter but is by no means guaranteed to pass - as Labour Party chief whip Emmet Stagg said yesterday some of the 18 Bills promised will “never see the light of day”.

Please lobby your TDs here and Senators here to get this legislation through.

Goodshape

4red wrote: »

Please lobby your TDs here and Senators here.

Just in a general sense, how does one go about this?

Is it just find the TD / Senator related to your area and email them "what I think you should do" or what?

4red

Just send an email to your local TD or to all Fianna Fail/Green TDs, or even to all TDs/Senators, as I have done previously. Almost all of them reply and will indicate whether they support the Bill or not - most have been very communicative, particularly those who support equal rights for gay people.

Good questions to ask are :
Do you support the Civil Partnership Bill?
If so, what steps are you and your party taking to push it through?
What timeline can we expect once the Bill is passed through - i.e. when will gay people be able to enter into Civil Partnership with their partners?

It's always good to be polite, clear about your own position and follow up with them from time to time.

Remember TDs will only pass laws if they feel there is strong public support. While surveys show a majority of Irish people support Gay Civil Partnership, it's safe to say most heterosexuals (and sadly many gay people) won't bother to lobby.

So get emailing, it will take only a few minutes, will make you feel you're part of the democratic process, and might help change the law.

Good luck.

Goodshape

Thanks for that. I'll see if I can fire off a few emails this evening.

L1011

You would be surprised at the gaping lack of response from some FF TDs (whos party line is to vote yes for it) when you lobby them on it; namely older traditionalist ones (Michael Fitzpatrick, I'm looking at you...)

ixoy

Wouldn't surprise me if this got put on the back-burner under the guise that granting so many new couples tax relief is something that can't be done in the "current economic climate".

4red

Agreed to both points above. That's why it's important to lobby for it. Would be good to hear any responses, or lack of, people receive!

Annasopra

ixoy wrote: »

Wouldn't surprise me if this got put on the back-burner under the guise that granting so many new couples tax relief is something that can't be done in the "current economic climate".

Yes - I've heard that it won't go before the house until Septemeber and even then the FF backbenchers are trying to derail it

Annasopra

4red wrote: »

Just send an email to your local TD or to all Fianna Fail/Green TDs, or even to all TDs/Senators, as I have done previously. Almost all of them reply and will indicate whether they support the Bill or not - most have been very communicative, particularly those who support equal rights for gay people.

Good questions to ask are :
Do you support the Civil Partnership Bill?
If so, what steps are you and your party taking to push it through?
What timeline can we expect once the Bill is passed through - i.e. when will gay people be able to enter into Civil Partnership with their partners?

It's always good to be polite, clear about your own position and follow up with them from time to time.

Remember TDs will only pass laws if they feel there is strong public support. While surveys show a majority of Irish people support Gay Civil Partnership, it's safe to say most heterosexuals (and sadly many gay people) won't bother to lobby.

So get emailing, it will take only a few minutes, will make you feel you're part of the democratic process, and might help change the law.

Good luck.

Theres a few other issues that must be included in there

* why does the proposed civil partnsership bill include no provisions for tax or social welfare
* If there is separate tax and social welfare legislation will theis effectively mean couples in Civil Partners will have inferior rights and obligations
*(in my opinion this should be included too) - what is your stance on adoption by civil partners

LookingFor

ixoy wrote: »

Wouldn't surprise me if this got put on the back-burner under the guise that granting so many new couples tax relief is something that can't be done in the "current economic climate".

I think I'd stop paying my taxes if they did that..

Annasopra

LookingFor wrote: »

I think I'd stop paying my taxes if they did that..

OK then - work out how you will do that because the government (FF) are not rushing anytime soon to bring this in

Aoifums

Sorry to ask, but how do you go about finding each TD for your area? I know some, but if I'm emailing anyone then I will email them all.

L1011

oireachtas.ie has the details, ff and green td's are best to contact as they're in govt.

JonThom

Panti has written a blog entry on this. Some interesting points...

http://www.pantibar.com/blog.aspx?contentid=1536

Spyral

Panti has written a blog entry on this. Some interesting points...

http://www.pantibar.com/blog.aspx?contentid=1536

The one about bashing the RCC speaks volumes in itself. Tolerance ?

it's safe to say most heterosexuals (and sadly many gay people) won't bother to lobby.

why not, hypothetically it will allow me and my brother for example to be legal partners to ensure land etc is owned by both of us wont it? It works ok in other EU countries.

However marraige is a religous thing and unless gay-friendly churches are doing marraiges then I don't see how its any matter for the state to legislate upon.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Spyral wrote: »

The one about bashing the RCC speaks volumes in itself. Tolerance ?



why not, hypothetically it will allow me and my brother for example to be legal partners to ensure land etc is owned by both of us wont it? It works ok in other EU countries.

However marraige is a religous thing and unless gay-friendly churches are doing marraiges then I don't see how its any matter for the state to legislate upon.

No it ain't, two of my friends got married without god's blessing in the registry office

Thing about that article is is leaves out two important things. A lot of people won't protest because they don't want people to think they're gay

Also, young gays who are more likely to protest often hang out with other gays, as animal rights activists tend to hang out with each other. Most social circles are 95% straight, the topic of "anyone up for a gay rights protest" is unlikely to come up

Marshy

Spyral wrote: »

However marraige is a religous thing and unless gay-friendly churches are doing marraiges then I don't see how its any matter for the state to legislate upon.

Afraid not, civil marriage which is in question here is entirely secular, as the previous poster pointed out with people being able to get married in a registry office.

L1011

Spyral wrote: »

However marraige is a religous thing and unless gay-friendly churches are doing marraiges then I don't see how its any matter for the state to legislate upon.

Marriage isn't a religious thing in Ireland; its an entirely civil legal matter. That some religions throw a ceremony on in front of the legally mandated witnessing and signing of the register is completely and utterly irrelevant.

shoegirl

While the situation of parental and childrens rights is a noble and important cause, I think its really important that we start by getting the initial bit of legislation through first. If we don't the legislation will probably be indefinitely shelved. I am quite concerned about the lack of support from the LGBT community about this bill as it may be used as an excuse to drop it altogether.

who is this

shoegirl wrote: »

I am quite concerned about the lack of support from the LGBT community about this bill as it may be used as an excuse to drop it altogether.

I don't support it because all it will do is delay full equality. There will always be a large enough amount of people who will say "Oh sure, now there's the CP. Isn't that enough". To me, CP is, always has been, and always will be a stalling tactic and nothing more. If the Attorney General is so smart and marriage would be unconstitutional, how come he didn't consider (for example) the mass card legislation might be unconstitutional (which I have now heard, probably is). If he did warn the Gov. how come it was okay to pass it anyway to see what happens, but that's a no-go for same-sex marriage?

These proposals don't even include Social Welfare, Taxation etc. which are "being looked into" by their own Ministers. So much for a commitment to "equality for all", as they say so often. Obviously they don't understand the term if they don't realise that the "for all" is (or should be) entirely redundant.

maxi19

If you have to encourage your TD or senator to vote in favour of this bill you're voting for the wrong party in the first place. Senator Pearse Doherty has already pleadged his unwavering support for the bill.

L1011

maxi19 wrote: »

If you have to encourage your TD or senator to vote in favour of this bill you're voting for the wrong party in the first place. Senator Pearse Doherty has already pleadged his unwavering support for the bill.

I'd rather go back in the closet than vote SF...

smileykey

If this is the same bill proposed last year, I would NEVER lobby support for it! I would lobby for its rejection. It's second class citizenship legitimised! The bill gives no adoption rights, and of the few rights it does give, they aren't near as protected as the rights given by marriage. Its a tokenistic bill just to keep us off their backs. It give absolutely no protection or rights to families based on a gay couple.
Just to put things into perspective, my friend, who is the son of a lesbian couple and has been raised by them since birth would still be a stranger in the law's eyes to his non-biological mother, even if they get civil partnershipped and do everything they legally can in the Irish state.
As far as I know, in the UK civil partnership is marriage by another name, it affords the same rights and responsibilities, why can't it be the same in Ireland? Why are people so happy to accept this offensive, tokenistic bill that mearly reiterates the message that we are not equal??

I'm actually shocked that people are promoting this bill. We deserve better. Our families deserve better.

The_Minister

JonThom wrote: »

Panti has written a blog entry on this. Some interesting points...

http://www.pantibar.com/blog.aspx?contentid=1536

How did the gays help the pensioners and the farmers, and why do they owe gay people their support?

ixoy

The_Minister wrote: »

How did the gays help the pensioners and the farmers, and why do they owe gay people their support?

I think it's based on the idea that those groups both felt that they deserved their things (medical cards, grants, etc), that it was owed to them because they were citizens of the state, so that in turn they should be equally outraged that other members of the state aren't receiving their right - in this case for gay people to get married.

I imagine there is 0% chance of any of this happening in the current economic climate, although if they do put in place they'll probably use the economy as an excuse not to give a lot of the same taxation freedoms that married couples enjoy.

TomRooney

4red wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0127/1232923367773.html

Gay Civil Partnership is listed among numerous other Bills to be published before Easter but is by no means guaranteed to pass - as Labour Party chief whip Emmet Stagg said yesterday some of the 18 Bills promised will “never see the light of day”.

Please lobby your TDs here and Senators here to get this legislation through.

i dont think this is a good idea, with any luck it wont go through.

TomRooney

ixoy wrote: »

I think it's based on the idea that those groups both felt that they deserved their things (medical cards, grants, etc), that it was owed to them because they were citizens of the state, so that in turn they should be equally outraged that other members of the state aren't receiving their right - in this case for gay people to get married.

I imagine there is 0% chance of any of this happening in the current economic climate, although if they do put in place they'll probably use the economy as an excuse not to give a lot of the same taxation freedoms that married couples enjoy.

but it is not legaly accepted that it is a "right" for gays and lesbians to marry.

so it is only realy the gay community that is pushing for this, and that is quite small, in fairness.

TomRooney

smileykey wrote: »

If this is the same bill proposed last year, I would NEVER lobby support for it! I would lobby for its rejection. It's second class citizenship legitimised! The bill gives no adoption rights, and of the few rights it does give, they aren't near as protected as the rights given by marriage. Its a tokenistic bill just to keep us off their backs. It give absolutely no protection or rights to families based on a gay couple.
Just to put things into perspective, my friend, who is the son of a lesbian couple and has been raised by them since birth would still be a stranger in the law's eyes to his non-biological mother, even if they get civil partnershipped and do everything they legally can in the Irish state.
As far as I know, in the UK civil partnership is marriage by another name, it affords the same rights and responsibilities, why can't it be the same in Ireland? Why are people so happy to accept this offensive, tokenistic bill that mearly reiterates the message that we are not equal??

I'm actually shocked that people are promoting this bill. We deserve better. Our families deserve better.

do you not think if same sex relationships where meant to have kids, then they would be able to concieve them naturaly.

but they cant, so why go against the natural order of things as mother nature has deemed.

i believe you should as much right as any citizen, but kids in my opinion is going too far.

barbeck23

TomRooney -

Could you explain to me where this term 'mother nature' came from?
Who isn't to say that the so called person 'mother nature' intended science to develop to an extent that allowed homosexuals to have children - to be parents. Surely the same arguement could said for almost all of modern medicine - if you needed a blood tranfusion I presume you would be refusing in order to allow mother nature have her way.

Your comments are disgusting, almost akin to someone saying 'mother nature intended black people to be second class citizens' - how minds have changed and thank goodness. Are you going to be a person of backward thinking or forward thinking?

Reflector

TomRooney wrote: »

do you not think if same sex relationships where meant to have kids, then they would be able to concieve them naturaly.

but they cant, so why go against the natural order of things as mother nature has deemed.

i believe you should as much right as any citizen, but kids in my opinion is going too far.

you're contradicting yourself here tom, there is no such thing as "against Nature". If it exists then it is natural to the human race. It is up us to decide what we deem to be ok for society and denying a couple who love eachother the chance to be considered for adoption is just wrong. how can you stand up and say that we are equal citizens when this important right is taken from us. Either we are 100% equal or not equal there is no grey area here.

L1011

TomRooney wrote: »

i dont think this is a good idea, with any luck it wont go through.

With any luck, you'll grow out of being a bigot.

It has the support of all elected parties, its going to go through when it eventually goes foward; end of.

TomRooney

MYOB wrote: »

With any luck, you'll grow out of being a bigot.

It has the support of all elected parties, its going to go through when it eventually goes foward; end of.

well that remains to be seen.

i for one am against it as i am a christian, and it goes against my beliefs.:D

Reflector

TomRooney wrote: »

well that remains to be seen.

i for one am against it as i am a christian, and it goes against my beliefs.:D

Well in my beliefs I think that all christians should be publicly flogged for ramming their invisible sky god down our throats for the last 2000 years.

L1011

TomRooney wrote: »

well that remains to be seen.

i for one am against it as i am a christian, and it goes against my beliefs.:D

It may "remain to be seen" but when 100% of elected parties - and I would suspect all bar one independent TD - support the bill it has a snowballs chance in hell of not going through.

Do you also refuse to eat shellfish, deal with anyone who sews two crops in the same field and wear woven fibres? Banned in the same book of the bible.

I love the way people around the world use their "beliefs" to justify bigotry. Or in other cases (not this one), incitement to hatred...

The_Minister

MYOB wrote: »

Do you also refuse to eat shellfish, deal with anyone who sews two crops in the same field and wear woven fibres? Banned in the same book of the bible.

I love the way people around the world use their "beliefs" to justify bigotry. Or in other cases (not this one), incitement to hatred...

AFAIK homosexuality is banned in multiple parts of the Bible - God even nuked a city over it.

L1011

The_Minister wrote: »

AFAIK homosexuality is banned in multiple parts of the Bible - God even nuked a city over it.

From what I remember, it was just assumed thats what was going on in Sodom rather than stated. Most English translations only mention about there being sinning going on; not specifics. Would need an actual scholar of ancient Hebrew to try and decide...

The primary ban is in Leviticus; the rest of which bans a whole load of random things which nobody has obeyed for tens of centuries.

There is also no reference, whatsoever to female homosexual relations in the Bible; banned or otherwise.

The_Minister

I did a bit of research on this (my dream job is a policy researcher in the senior civil service, so I like to practice:)).

'Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.'
1 Corinthians 6:9-10

'For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.'
Romans 1:26-27

L1011

Those are both from letters - first letter to the Corinthians and letter to the Romans respectively. The letters aren't meant to be the 'word of god'. Just teachings based on the interpretation of the time...

I'd be interested as to what word they translated to 'homosexuals' in 1 Corinthians for whatever version you got that from. Its "Effemenate" in the King James version!

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206%20;&version=9;

Aoifums

TomRooney wrote: »

well that remains to be seen.

i for one am against it as i am a christian, and it goes against my beliefs.:D

Please don't bring religion up in an argument. Not every believes in the same God(s), and I refuse to believe in a book written by man claiming to be the word of the Lord. I'd believe the Lord's word, just not the mis-translated, influenced by the times, copy of a several thousand year old book.

TomRooney

Reflector wrote: »

Well in my beliefs I think that all christians should be publicly flogged for ramming their invisible sky god down our throats for the last 2000 years.

invisible sky god...?

anyway judeo christian belief originated over 4000 years ago.

you are what is wrong with secular homosexual attitudes. you want us to respect your right to say homosexuality is ok, but you dont respect my right to believe it is utterly wrong........also my faith is very important to me how dare you make such derogatory statements against it.
thats incitement to anti religious sentiment......you see it works both ways,

what you do behind closed doors is your business, just dont try to ram it down other peoples throats.

you dont see heteros having straight pride marches, so keep your sexuality to yourself the vast majority of us just dont care or want to know.

TomRooney

Aoifums wrote: »

Please don't bring religion up in an argument. Not every believes in the same God(s), and I refuse to believe in a book written by man claiming to be the word of the Lord. I'd believe the Lord's word, just not the mis-translated, influenced by the times, copy of a several thousand year old book.

Please dont tell me what to say...that is called censorship.....and not everyone believes in that.

the bible is not mistranslated if you have any real proof provide it, we still have the greek manuscripts for verification and the bible we have today is 99.5 percent textualy pure.

i through my personal and religious beliefs believe homosexualty is un-natural and wrong morally. i am entitled to that view, just as you are entitled to disagree with me.

i dont advocate "gay bashing" or any mistreatment of homosexuals, we are all human and should show respect to each other individualy, but that doesnt mean i have to believe homosexuality is morally good or ok.

a person defines there own sexual preference.

Tricity Bendix

I for one would not question Tom Rooney's right believe homosexuality is against God's law. However, you don't have to believe that homosexuality is 'morally good' to support a legal recognition of same-sex unions. The Bible is a guide on how to live a Christian life, not a book of laws. There is plenty of stuff in there that most Christians wouldn't like to see defined in law, and there is plenty of stuff in law that is not derived from the Bible. So, instead of hiding behind a book, I'd like to hear a Christian outline the argument against this law. Homosexuality is going to exist regardless of whether or not this Bill passes, so what exactly is it that is being opposed.

barbeck23

Tom - You are quite right - no one should tell you what to say or what not to say. Freedom of expression is guaranteed not only under Irish law but also under European Human Rights Law. Freedom of Religion is also protected so you are therefore fully entitled to your own beliefs whether morally based or based in scripture. That is your Human Right.

Another Human Right is equality. From the words of the American declaration of Independence - Human Rights are self - evident - therefore forever evolving with society and people’s acceptance and perceptions. Barack Obama is living proof of this concept. Fortunately for I and many others out there, you (Tom) are in the minority with you views in regards homosexuality and therefore the view that equality, with particular regard to marriage, should be afforded to homosexuals, as a basic Human Right. I would like to ask you where you base your belief that the "vast majority of us just don’t care or want to know". Statistics - facts - prove otherwise.

Homosexuals are simply saying that the law needs to be consistent upon passing down legislation - how is the basic human right of equality afforded to homosexuals when in a situation where a heterosexual couple adopt - it is automatic that the couple are registered as parents - however this is not the case with a civil partnership. Further is a lesbian has artificial insemination - her registered civil partner will not automatically become the dual parent - as is the case with heterosexual couple's. This is blatantly discrimination. Whatever your beliefs of the act of homosexual intercourse - it is a form of bullying. Tom - it's easy to stand in the position you’re in when the whole constitution of Ireland is centred on the Catholic Church. How would you feel if Ireland was dominated by the a religious order that aloud a man to have 2 or more wives, afforded benefits to these family units and discriminated against the catholic ideal of a husband having one wife. That would be discrimination - whatever your belief - whether it be in the concept of adultery or not. As you have stated, we are all human and should respect each other individually – I respect you, your beliefs. I would call upon you to respect mine – and if not support the proposed legislation – be indifferent to it instead of ‘gay bashing’ it.

L1011

TomRooney wrote: »

you dont see heteros having straight pride marches, so keep your sexuality to yourself the vast majority of us just dont care or want to know.

Give us equal rights and you're not going to hear from us. You, however, have already expressed a desire to deny us equal rights.

smileykey

TomRooney wrote: »

do you not think if same sex relationships where meant to have kids, then they would be able to concieve them naturaly.

but they cant, so why go against the natural order of things as mother nature has deemed.

i believe you should as much right as any citizen, but kids in my opinion is going too far.

So by the same standards anyone who has fertility difficulties has been deemed by "mother nature" to be unfit for children and shouldn't have any, is that what you're saying?

And why is it going too far for same sex couples to have children?? I'll be the first to break it to you that they already are. What the law says will not affect me and my partner's decission to have children but it will effect the rights and protections the state will give them and our family. I don't think that that is fair on the children. Why should my children not be afforded the same protection by the state as children of heterosexual couples? why should they not have the same rights to inheritance as other children? why should their parents not get the same tax relief as other parents? Why do the children have to suffer because the state is run by bigots?

who is this

TomRooney wrote: »

do you not think if same sex relationships where meant to have kids, then they would be able to concieve them naturaly.

Do you not think if infertile couples were meant to have kids, then they would be able to conceive them naturally?

I would have preserved the misspellings, and bad punctuation for effect but I couldn't bring myself to press "Submit" without correcting them.

Unfortunately for me, it didn't stop my 'parents'. Shall we strip them of their legal status too? I mean, at least it would be fair. You certainly won't hear any objections from me...

smileykey

you dont see heteros having straight pride marches, so keep your sexuality to yourself the vast majority of us just dont care or want to know.

You do however see the Irish having pride marches (e.g. Paddy's day - please don't try yo excuse this as some religious thing, what is remotely religious about your average paddy's day parade apart from the guy in the green dress and the funny hat?) Why do the Irish have pride marches when many nationalities don't? Would it be due to the fact that our nationality was denied acknowledgement and our people suffered for so long? Do you not think other groups who have been denied acknowledgement and who are still suffering from the oppressive powers of others should also get to have their day of "sticking it to the man"?

Also, I think everyone should celebrate their sexuality since it is a beautiful and fullfiling thing. I would completely encourage heteros to have straight prie marches, what's stopping you? We aren't.

Butterfly baby

TomRooney wrote: »

you dont see heteros having straight pride marches, so keep your sexuality to yourself the vast majority of us just dont care or want to know.

LOL I like him.. simply because he's right and it's true, it's called the "Gay" pride parade and totally implies Gay male, if it's meant to represent everyone then why is it not called The LGBT pride parade? because would that not more encompass all the others that have to live under the same unequality?...Oh no wait it wouldn't because no ones more put down than the gay male are they?....Try living a year as a Transsexual and then you'll learn what real unequality is and, trust me on this, legal marriage is the last thing on your mind...

Reflector

TomRooney wrote: »

invisible sky god...?

anyway judeo christian belief originated over 4000 years ago.

you are what is wrong with secular homosexual attitudes. you want us to respect your right to say homosexuality is ok, but you dont respect my right to believe it is utterly wrong........also my faith is very important to me how dare you make such derogatory statements against it.
thats incitement to anti religious sentiment......you see it works both ways,

what you do behind closed doors is your business, just dont try to ram it down other peoples throats.

you dont see heteros having straight pride marches, so keep your sexuality to yourself the vast majority of us just dont care or want to know.

well at least homosexuality is proven to exist Tom!. Also if you are willing to try and use a god as some sort of moral compass for all of humanity than I find that offensive and so do many people who were beaten, abused by people acting in your gods name. I have no objection to who you worship behind closed doors but why do we have to have it rammed down our throats.

People just want rights, I cannot believe someone who's entire faith is based on love and compassion could be so objectional to that. Love is love no matter what our gender and surely someone who believes in a soul can look beyond gender when it comes to two people committing themselves to eachother.

just one final note, how can I respect your right to say something that is fundemantal to who I am as a person is wrong. I feel that your belief in a roundabout way incites for homosexuality to be removed from society. I hope that throughout your life you become a more compassionate person and learn a more tolerant and live and let live outlook on life. I respect peoples spirituality and would never dream of infringing on their beliefs but when those beliefs incite hate than I have to defend my life.