Gay Marriage

LegacyUser

Gay and Lesbain people held a rally yesterday demanding gay marriage .Why did they have to do this ,shouldnt the Government give marriage to all

oisindoyle

Yes i agree .There should be civil marriage for all .

Rev Hellfire

Isn't the proposed Civil Partnership just marriage under a more palatable name?
If it quacks like a duck, walks like duck, chances are it is a duck.

If I was affected by this I'd imagine I'd be more concerned in ensuring the bill goes forward and then address any perceived shortcomings it may have.

oisindoyle

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Isn't the proposed Civil Partnership just marriage under a more palatable name?
If it quacks like a duck, walks like duck, chances are it is a duck.

If I was affected by this I'd imagine I'd be more concerned in ensuring the bill goes forward and then address any perceived shortcomings it may have.

Actually no its not ..The proposed civil partnership bill falls short on many things and is basically a bill just to shut the gayers up.No gay man or woman wants this proposed CP bill ,they want equality.

Rev Hellfire

oisindoyle wrote: »

Actually no its not ..The proposed civil partnership bill falls short on many things and is basically a bill just to shut the gayers up.

While it may not prove everything it does provide the a proper legal framework for couples, which in essence is all a marriage is anyway.
Having same sex couples legally recognised is a significant step forward I would have thought.

oisindoyle wrote: »

No gay man or woman wants this proposed CP bill ,they want equality.

Clearly that's not the case as the recent threads here show there is support for the bill. Not that I would assume board.ie is authoritative on gay & lesbian matters. But I would expect it to be largely in-line with the community (I could quite possibly be misguided).

Bottle_of_Smoke

oisindoyle wrote: »

Actually no its not ..The proposed civil partnership bill falls short on many things and is basically a bill just to shut the gayers up.No gay man or woman wants this proposed CP bill ,they want equality.

What are the differences? I agree there should be equality, don't see a need for an extra bill btw

Bougeoir

Yes I too want equality but I think that can also be achieved by a proper full Civil Partnership bill without the short-fallings. I don't care too much whether it's called marriage, civil partnership, union etc. (Although I must point out that marriage is traditionally a religious thing, holy matrimony). As long as LGBT people have equal rights to straight people, then that's fine it doesn't matter if the government decides to called "gay marriage" a "civil partnership".

Marshy

In reality the proposed Civil Partnership Bill is definitely a step in the right direction despite the shortcomings and I think getting this brought in is Step 1 in terms of equality.

The governement have been arsing around with it too long now though, its almost a year since the heads of bill were published. I know there was a group within Fianna Fáil who spoke out against it but I'd imagine they'd be a minority within the party. There needs to be a final push to get the legislation brought in.

anoisaris

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What are the differences? I agree there should be equality, don't see a need for an extra bill btw

On a practical level partnership offers very little to gay couples with or with the intention to raise children within their relationship leaving their children in legal limbo. (And there are currently plenty of children in the state being raised by gay people).

I believe the fact that politicians are claiming civil marriage would require constitutional change is also a matter of debate as no reference to marriage being an exclusive opposite sex bond is made with in the constitution but it is assumed or in the case of some opinions an "implication".

Yes religious marriage is traditionally man and woman, in a religious/legal union before the church and the church would have it no other way I'm sure. However civil marriage is a lstate/egal union most gay people would never want a religious ceremony anyway!

OneArt

I disapprove of gay marriage, and all marriage in general.

I think the concept of marriage itself should be scrapped and replaced with two people making a legal agreement to raise a child or children.

jady88

anoisaris wrote: »

I believe the fact that politicians are claiming civil marriage would require constitutional change is also a matter of debate as no reference to marriage being an exclusive opposite sex bond is made with in the constitution but it is assumed or in the case of some opinions an "implication".

Not much of a debate when virtually every legal mind of any worth would agree that the constitution although not explicit in it's definition of marriage would hold it to be male female in nature.

anoisaris

jady88 wrote: »

Not much of a debate when virtually every legal mind of any worth would agree that the constitution although not explicit in it's definition of marriage would hold it to be male female in nature.

Given it was 1937 perhaps so. We'll have to wait to see what The Supreme Court rule so.

bp1989

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What are the differences? I agree there should be equality, don't see a need for an extra bill btw

equal but different is not equal.

rainbow kirby

bp1989 wrote: »

equal but different is not equal.

Bottle_of_Smoke

bp1989 wrote: »

equal but different is not equal.

What do you mean. What I mean by no need for a new bill is I think homos should be allowed get married in the registry office the way heteros currently can.

anoisaris

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What do you mean. What I mean by no need for a new bill is I think homos should be allowed get married in the registry office the way heteros currently can.

That is what gay people (or a lot of gay people) want! It can't happen if the powers that be are saying it will change the constitutional status of marriage, anything that changes the constitute requires a referendum which has to have the majority of the Dáil in the first instance and it doesn't currently but has support from some.

Reflector

I'm not a fan of marraige but I am in full support of people to have it if that's what they want. I also think it is very important that gay families are recognised as they are becoming more and more common especially among lesbian couples.

Bottle_of_Smoke

anoisaris wrote: »

That is what gay people (or a lot of gay people) want! It can't happen if the powers that be are saying it will change the constitutional status of marriage, anything that changes the constitute requires a referendum which has to have the majority of the Dáil in the first instance and it doesn't currently but has support from some.

I also think it would be defeated in a referendum. Most people support gay marriage but not gay adoption which the opposition would plug in their campaign. Maybe in 20 years, but right now not a chance.

azezil

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Isn't the proposed Civil Partnership just marriage under a more palatable name?
If it quacks like a duck, walks like duck, chances are it is a duck.

If I was affected by this I'd imagine I'd be more concerned in ensuring the bill goes forward and then address any perceived shortcomings it may have.

This is a quote from the LGBTNoise website, who hosted said rally.

What rights do same-sex couples and their families have?

In Irish law same-sex couples are currently afforded no civil or legal rights as they are not recognised in any shape or form in Irish law. This can often result in tragic consequences, especially in the case of death or illness of a partner. Denial of access to civil marriage means there are no constitutional protections for same-sex relationships.

What does this mean for same-sex couples?

Whether they have been together two years or twenty years, this lack of legal recognition means same-sex couples are not entitled to any of the rights afforded to straight married couples:

• No next-of-kin rights. If one partner falls seriously ill the other is not entitled access to their bedside in ICU; if one loses the ability to communicate the other has no say in their medical care; if one partner dies the other has no entitlement to participate in funeral arrangements.
• No inheritance (succession) rights in the case of the death of your life partner. If no will exists, the surviving partner is not entitled to any of the deceased’s estate or possessions. In this case, the surviving partner may face huge financial losses and even lose their home. Same-sex couples are not covered by the Succession Act 1965 or by the Home Protection Act 1976; if a will has been made, this means the surviving partner will have to pay full inheritance tax on their family home as the state does not recognise gay families.
• No entitlement to the tax and social benefits automatically awarded to married heterosexual couples. Same-sex couples are expressly excluded from the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004. Only opposite-sex married couples are recognised by the Revenue Commissioners for tax purposes.
• Same-sex couples with a child are not both allowed to be legal parents or guardians. Only one partner may be recognised as legal guardian or parent. In the case of the death of the legal parent, the biological relatives of the child become legal guardians, not the partner, regardless of how long that partner may have played an active role as a parent-figure.
• You cannot apply to adopt a child as a same-sex couple. A same-sex couple may not apply to adopt, however a single individual may apply regardless of sexual orientation.
• Same-sex couples are refused access to reproductive health services such as IVF. Same-sex couples are technically permitted access to this service though in practice many have been refused this treatment in Ireland.

Why gay civil marriage and not civil unions or partnership?

There are many good reasons:
• First and foremost, equality is not possible through the other two options. Equality means equal choice, equal protections, equal status, duties and responsibilities. Equal rights means having the exact same rights, not two sets of rules for two different groups. If gay people are give different rights and different options, this will only serve to continue the alienation of LGBT citizens in Irish society and in Irish law. Different but equal is not equal.
• The Irish Constitution protects marriage; there is no mention of civil union or partnership in this important document. Gay civil marriage would allow same-sex couples immediate equal rights and importantly would provide numerous gay families the protections they are currently denied. Marriage will also give a non-Irish partner the right to legally reside in Ireland. Non-marital families are not recognised under Irish law and are excluded from the protections of the Domestic Violence Act 1996, Parental Leave Act 1998, and the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004 to name but a few.
• Marriage is a civil right, just as divorce is. While many opposite-sex Irish couples currently choose to get married in a Catholic church, that church will not recognise your divorce; Irish law will. The Irish Constitution does not state that marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore, gay civil marriage has not been proven unconstitutional. Only the Irish Supreme Court can define the meaning of marriage in the constitution. The government decided to define marriage as a union between two people of opposite gender in 2004 in the Civil Registration Act, a pre-emptive move by a conservative government that was perhaps unnerved by the changing situation on gay civil marriage in Europe. Gay civil marriage currently exists in Spain, Belgium and Holland; it is also legal in Canada, the Republic of South Africa and the State of Massachusetts. Unless we have full civil marriage, couples moving to Ireland from such countries will lose many of their civil rights when they do so.


So what are the Irish government doing about this?

Equality and anti-discrimination legislation has improved circumstances for lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals in Irish society. However, the government has not yet managed to introduce any form of legislation that recognises or protects same-sex relationships.

In the terms of the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 1998, the government contracted to ensure that “an equivalent level of protection of human rights” would be available on both sides of the boarder in Ireland. But although the UK’s Civil Partnerships Bill came into law in 2005 the Irish government have not introduced any such equivalent legislation.

In November 2007, the current government voted down a Civil Union Bill claiming it was ‘unconstitutional’ (This argument is misleading and untrue. See ‘Why gay civil marriage?) and that gay people deserved more comprehensive legislation that would be more secure and better-thought out. The latter argument would have excited gay citizens of Ireland if it were not for their announcements that appeared that day.

In the Dail the government promised to begin drafting legislation that would allow same-sex couples legal recognition. The only details they provided were the fact that the future bill would focus on the general rights of co-habitees, such as siblings and friends who lived together over a long period, and would not necessarily be specific to gay couples. To date, there is still no certainty as to what exactly the government is promising and little information has been forthcoming through them. However, the following information has been stated by members of the ruling parties - Fianna Fáil and the Greens – or reported in the national media:

• Before the summer of 2008, the government will publish a heads of bill proposing new legislation relating to same-sex relationships. A heads of bill is the first of five stages necessary in bringing a new bill into legislation; they are bullet points for discussion, not promises or definite laws. The bill will probably refer to same-sex unions as ‘civil partnership’ or ‘domestic partnership’ to distinguish it from the civil union debates of 2007.
• This bill will not focus just on same-sex couples but will also cover non-sexual relationships such as those of siblings or friends living together. In place of elevating same-sex relationships to a status equal with heterosexual relationships, it appears they will be demoted and placed on the same tier as brothers and sisters or friends who co-habit. Senator David Norris has called the upcoming bill the equivalent of a ‘dog licence’ for gay people and an insult to gay relationships throughout Ireland. In reality these relationship groupings represent entirely different circumstances and require separate treatment. There are currently rumblings that perhaps the government may be realising this and may now legislate for gay couples separately. We must wait and see.
• The government remain tight-lipped as to the full range of issues to be covered. In November 2007 various media reported that this new legislation would most likely cover inheritance rights, health benefits, pension benefits, protection of family home and power of attorney. The Sunday Tribune reported it may also cover the right to adopt children. This remains unclear.
• It is not believed the bill will propose any legislation concerning immigration rights for partners from outside the EU, the recognition of gay families, same-sex parenting rights or the rights of the child with same-sex parents.
• In January 2008 the media reported same-sex marriages, unions and civil partnerships of other countries would be automatically recognised in Ireland with certain conditions under the new legislation. Same-sex marriage is considered very unlikely. The Green Party openly state they view marriage as a human right and wish to achieve same-sex marriage in Ireland: “To relegate same-sex couples to some inferior marriage-like institution is to deny them their human rights, their dignity and their rights as citizens of this State.” As part of the ruling government one can hope their stance will influence legislation.


As further information is released over the coming weeks and months, these points will be amended.

Currently, the outlook remains uncertain and somewhat bleak in terms of the introduction of equal rights for same-sex couples. Current promises do not represent any form of improvement on the civil union legislation voted down last year; they appear to fall even further short of equality. The Irish Constitution declares that all citizens in Ireland shall “as human persons, be held equal before the law” (Article 40). It is time for the gay community and the straight friends, families and colleagues of gay people to vocalise their discontent about the current situation and demand full equality for gay Irish citizens.

Rev Hellfire

Doesn't the proposed civil partnership address many of those issues.
I'm not saying they're not there I'm merely pointing out that legislation is on the cards which addresses many of the concerns.

I would imagine securing that would be a preferable first step, since it can be obtained without the need for a referendum whose result can not be guaranteed.

hot2def

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Doesn't the proposed civil partnership address many of those issues.
I'm not saying they're not there I'm merely pointing out that legislation is on the cards which addresses many of the concerns.

I would imagine securing that would be a preferable first step, since it can be obtained without the need for a referendum whose result can not be guaranteed.

I think the concern is that civil partnerships are a compromise, and once in place, there will be an attitude of "well yous have civil partnerships, what more do you want? yous should be happy", and there will be even less political will to go forward with gay marriage.

azezil

No doubt similar proposals, fears and concerns were expressed in the 60's when black people wanted equal rights. The US used the military to enforce these new laws which allowed interracial marriage in some areas but eventually white American's learned to STFU and accept it.

I have faith that the Irish people will learn to adapt

Bottle_of_Smoke

hot2def wrote: »

I think the concern is that civil partnerships are a compromise, and once in place, there will be an attitude of "well yous have civil partnerships, what more do you want? yous should be happy", and there will be even less political will to go forward with gay marriage.

I can understand that concern, however, if civil marriages were in place people might get used to it and not be bothered by the change to marriage at a later stage. Like the way republicans see the good friday agreement

hot2def

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I can understand that concern, however, if civil marriages were in place people might get used to it and not be bothered by the change to marriage at a later stage. Like the way republicans see the good friday agreement

if we were talking about civil marriage here, I don't think anyone would be saying seperate but equal isn't equal.

is it fair to ask gay and bisexual people to hold on to make it more palatable to some straight people whose self image may be bruised by extending rights to people not like themselves?

This isn't a theoretical problem, real people's lives are damaged by this.


truth be told - I personally could give a flying f*ck if its called marriage, but recently have come to the conclusion that civil partnerships (particularly in the likely watered down form) are at best a consolation prize, and AT WORST a sly back door through which to introduce legislation which might further entrench the barriers to same-sex couples adopting either partner's children, or indeed children at all.

anoisaris

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I can understand that concern, however, if civil marriages were in place people might get used to it and not be bothered by the change to marriage at a later stage. Like the way republicans see the good friday agreement

I think you mean civil partnership rather than civil marriage in the above.

Civil marriage is full marriage there would be no need to change to marriage (do you mean religious marriage?) at later stage.

Most gay people would be more than happy with civil marriage and would not want a religious marriage anyway. Some religious might want a marriage before the church but at least civil marriage is a full legal marriage with full legal entitlements for the couple and any children.

Bottle_of_Smoke

hot2def wrote: »

if we were talking about civil marriage here, I don't think anyone would be saying seperate but equal isn't equal.

is it fair to ask gay and bisexual people to hold on to make it more palatable to some straight people whose self image may be bruised by extending rights to people not like themselves?

This isn't a theoretical problem, real people's lives are damaged by this.


truth be told - I personally could give a flying f*ck if its called marriage, but recently have come to the conclusion that civil partnerships (particularly in the likely watered down form) are at best a consolation prize, and AT WORST a sly back door through which to introduce legislation which might further entrench the barriers to same-sex couples adopting either partner's children, or indeed children at all.

Its not fair, as I said I'd prefer full marriage for homosexuals but I'm thinking in a means to an end kind of way.

anoisaris you're right I did mean civil partnership in that quote.

philologos

The more and more this argument goes on, the more I seem to agree that perhaps the State should put a referendum out either:

1) To clarify the issue with the majority of the population voting
or
2) To get the State out of marriage altogether as Alan Dershowitz suggests here:
http://www.rossde.com/editorials/Dershowitz_marriage.html

oisindoyle

Why doesnt the Government just introduce equality tomorrow .What are they afraid of ? Other countries have civil patnerships and live goes on ...FFS this arseing around is silly....theres no need for a referendum at all ..........

philologos

oisindoyle wrote: »

Why doesnt the Government just introduce equality tomorrow .What are they afraid of ? Other countries have civil patnerships and live goes on ...FFS this arseing around is silly....theres no need for a referendum at all ..........

Legislation takes time to pass in the Dáil. There are legal means by which the Government have to follow to do these things. So they aren't afraid of anything, they just have to do it in a legal manner if they are going to do it at all.

Theres no need for a referendum on civil partnerships, as it doesn't threaten the role of marriage in the constitution, however if it was to provide marriage to LGBT governments then there most likely would have to be one to make sure the majority want it to go ahead.

oisindoyle

Jakkass wrote: »

Legislation takes time to pass in the Dáil. There are legal means by which the Government have to follow to do these things. So they aren't afraid of anything, they just have to do it in a legal manner if they are going to do it at all.

Theres no need for a referendum on civil partnerships, as it doesn't threaten the role of marriage in the constitution, however if it was to provide marriage to LGBT governments then there most likely would have to be one to make sure the majority want it to go ahead.

I am quite amused that you say "as it doesnt threaten the role of marriage in the constitution ".There is NOTHING in the constitution that says marriage is between man and a woman ....so please explain

Rev Hellfire

oisindoyle wrote: »

I am quite amused that you say "as it doesnt threaten the role of marriage in the constitution ".There is NOTHING in the constitution that says marriage is between man and a woman ....so please explain

This was further enforced in the KAL case where Justice Dunne ruled the Irish constitution had always meant for marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Wiki Entry

oisindoyle

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

This was further enforced in the KAL case where Justice Dunne ruled the Irish constitution had always meant for marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Wiki Entry

The KAL case is still pending its been appealed ....But back to my original comment ,there is nothing in the constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman

philologos

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

This was further enforced in the KAL case where Justice Dunne ruled the Irish constitution had always meant for marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Wiki Entry

Well, if you take the spirit of the Constitution, De Valera hardly intended it for a man and a man to be married, as that was not the understanding of marriage at that time.

scrattletrap

for those of you who want to see this changed, there is a petition to the government here.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/gay-ireland

Rev Hellfire

scrattletrap wrote: »

for those of you who want to see this changed, there is a petition to the government here.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/gay-ireland

Those online petitions are a complete waste of time, if you think for a moment anyone gives them any sort of credence you're deluding yourself.

Annasopra

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Doesn't the proposed civil partnership address many of those issues.
I'm not saying they're not there I'm merely pointing out that legislation is on the cards which addresses many of the concerns.

I would imagine securing that would be a preferable first step, since it can be obtained without the need for a referendum whose result can not be guaranteed.

The proposed legislation has not been seen yet - we have seen heads of a bill - ie paragraph headings

The three biggest arguments against the proposed legislation (in my opinion) would be

A: it proposes no changes whatsoever in the areas of taxation or social welfare legislation - these would be dealt with entirely separately in separate finance and social welfare bills - this would mean in effect that any government could amend these bills at a whim and create effective inequalities and discrimination - Marriage Equality have expanded on that point here

B: It totally ignores the rights of children being parented by same sex couples

C: Marriage is offered certain constitutional protections - Civil Partnership will not have the same protections - I am fully clear yet what that means

Personally I acknowledge that Civil Marriage for all is the ideal and support it as a long term goal - However I am in favour of civil partnership as a stepping stone towards marriage -
It is very clear to me that the socially conservative wings of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are still controlling policy in this area
Also I feel that people need rights now - there are couples who are in dire situations - poverty, economic uncertainty, one partner near death - for these people really the difference is irrelevant because they need the rights now

So in conclusion I would personally support Civil Partnership but not the proposed version that the government are bringing forward

philologos

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The proposed legislation has not been seen yet - we have seen heads of a bill - ie paragraph headings

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The three biggest arguments against the proposed legislation (in my opinion) would be....

Johnnymcg wrote: »

So in conclusion I would personally support Civil Partnership but not the proposed version that the government are bringing forward

Hang on, I may not be 100% on focus here. However didn't you say that the legislation hasn't been seen yet? If so how can you argue against something that hasn't been seen. How do we know A, B or C are even valid arguments?

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

Hang on, I may not be 100% on focus here. However didn't you say that the legislation hasn't been seen yet? If so how can you argue against something that hasn't been seen. How do we know A, B or C are even valid arguments?

We have seen part of the proposed legislation The heads of bill here

This is not the legislation itself but the headings of the legislation

I will go through my arguments 1 by 1

A is a perfectly valid argument - It has been put forward by Dr Fergus Ryan Law Lecturer in DIT here Marrriage Equality here

B - This again has been put forward Marriage Equality The Minister has also stated clearly that the right to apply to adopt will not be in this bill

C - This has been clearly stated by the Dept Of Justice "Full civil partnership falls short of full equality for same-sex couples as it excludes such families
from the protection given to the family in the Constitution." in the Colley Report

philologos

Yes, but how do they know if they haven't seen it in its entirety. Aren't they not jumping to conclusions?

Rev Hellfire

oisindoyle wrote: »

The KAL case is still pending its been appealed ....But back to my original comment ,there is nothing in the constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman

The point is the Judge in that case ruled that constitution intended a marriage to consists of a family unit, taken to be a male and female. The AG also agrees with this interpretation.

True the case is due before the supreme court at some point, but the civil partnership legislation should be in place before that happens.

Regardless of how you or I may wish to interpret it until the constitution is explicitly changed via a referendum or the challenge is mounted in the supreme court the legal definition of marriage is a male and female. afaik.

Better to secure the baby now and deal with the bathwater later.

anoisaris

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The point is the Judge in that case ruled that constitution intended a marriage to consists of a family unit, taken to be a male and female. The AG also agrees with this interpretation.

True the case is due before the supreme court at some point, but the civil partnership legislation should be in place before that happens.

Regardless of how you or I may wish to interpret it until the constitution is explicitly changed via a referendum or the challenge is mounted in the supreme court the legal definition of marriage is a male and female. afaik.

Better to secure the baby now and deal with the bathwater later.

It's not a legal definition it's a legal interpretation. If the supreme court rule it to be open for interpretation to include same sex couples then no constitutional change will be required and no referendum on the matter.

philologos

anoisaris: Since the judiciary is a very difficult authority to change the positions of (most judges are in until they retire), if they have made this ruling a few months ago, it's very likely that they are going to make the same ruling again.

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

anoisaris: Since the judiciary is a very difficult authority to change the positions of (most judges are in until they retire), if they have made this ruling a few months ago, it's very likely that they are going to make the same ruling again.

The Supreme Court has overturned decisions of the High Court Before

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but how do they know if they haven't seen it in its entirety. Aren't they not jumping to conclusions?

No

There is no Jumping to any conclusions here

Point A - The government have clearly stated that the CP Bill will not include tax or social welfare amendments that these will be dealt with separately - This is a fact not a conclusion that has been jumped to

Point B - The government have clearly stated that the CP Bill will not provide for adoption - This is a fact not a conclusion that has been jumped to

Point C - The Colley report has clearly stated that "Full civil partnership falls short of full equality for same-sex couples as it excludes such families
from the protection given to the family in the Constitution" - This is a fact not a conclusion that has been jumped to

Rev Hellfire

anoisaris wrote: »

It's not a legal definition it's a legal interpretation. If the supreme court rule it to be open for interpretation to include same sex couples then no constitutional change will be required and no referendum on the matter.

Which is what I was trying to state, the point is without either a referendum or the challenge in the supreme court succeeding; the current interpretation stands.

Neither of which are likely to happen before the finalisation of civil partnership.

We're both saying the same thing

philologos

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The Supreme Court has overturned decisions of the High Court Before

Right, but were these on the interpretation of the constitution?

anoisaris

Jakkass wrote: »

Right, but were these on the interpretation of the constitution?

Yes, they were re; ambiguous abortion law.

jady88

The biggest threat this bill faces in the long term is a constitutional challenge that it is an attack on marriage. The outcome of which would be very unpredictable.

oisindoyle

jady88 wrote: »

The biggest threat this bill faces in the long term is a constitutional challenge that it is an attack on marriage. The outcome of which would be very unpredictable.

An attack on marriage ?????????WTF????''''Please explain

philologos

An attack on the traditional marriage between a man and a woman that was originally advocated by De Valera, or at least that is what I gleaned from this post. It could be interpreted this way if it were to be brought to the Supreme Court.

Boston

Couple of points

1) De Valera advocated a lot of very retarded things, if we still embraced them all we'ed be dancing at the cross roads every Friday night.

2) No where in the constitution does it state that a marriage is between a man an a woman. No where, full stop, end of story. Legislation was brought in (by the PDs if i recall) which specificied that it was between a man an a woman. The issue is that if same sex couples were allow to marry, it would fundamentally affect was was understood to be "The family". That is the problem. We can have civil unions because a civil union will no be seen as a "family".