Sinead's Hand

4red

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ

Well done to the makers of this great ad for Marriagequality.

sc01

Love that ad!

cotwold

Will this be broadcast on tv?

dreamer_ire

Have it on my facebook page.... straight friends think it's great! Well done ad makers (for once).

a-ha

I love this ad. It's just perfect. I hope it can be broadcast if we ever have a referendum on same sex marriage.

Grace29

a-ha wrote: »

I love this ad. It's just perfect. I hope it can be broadcast if we ever have a referendum on same sex marriage.

There isn't any need to have a referendum on same sex marriage - no-where in the constutution does it specify that marriage is between a man and a woman only.

However, the typically backward Fianna Fail government is happy enough to say that one is necessary, to put a seemingly insurmountable obstacle in the way of gay marriage, and keep the religious traditionalists in the party happy.

Iwasfrozen

Grace29 wrote: »

There isn't any need to have a referendum on same sex marriage - no-where in the constutution does it specify that marriage is between a man and a woman only.

However, the typically backward Fianna Fail government is happy enough to say that one is necessary, to put a seemingly insurmountable obstacle in the way of gay marriage, and keep the religious traditionalists in the party happy.

I beg to differ.

oneweb

Saw this before a film during the Gay Film Fest.

I think that its simplicity makes it so much more likeable. It's not an in-your-face queen screaming about human rights, it's just a 'that's a very good point'.

I frantically searched for the clip to send around to mates but couldn't find it back then Thanks for the link!

shoegirl

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I beg to differ.

Not sure that is written in stone yet. Until the supreme court actually finds a law permitting marriage between people of the same sex unconstitutional, the situation is not clear.

Its dependent on interpretation, Grace is correct in stating that it doesn't specify what marriage is, but if the courts were challenged to interpret a change in law, they potentially could declare the change to be unconstitutional.

The_Minister

Grace29 wrote: »

There isn't any need to have a referendum on same sex marriage - no-where in the constutution does it specify that marriage is between a man and a woman only.

However, the typically backward Fianna Fail government is happy enough to say that one is necessary, to put a seemingly insurmountable obstacle in the way of gay marriage, and keep the religious traditionalists in the party happy.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. They would (according to most experts) find that marriage in the Constitution meant hetrosexual marriage.

Show_me_Safety

that's a great vid. Really well done. I'm gonna put it on my facebook!

Reflector

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I beg to differ.

Well surely the fact that divorce has come in goes completely against this statement as there is no greater attack on the institution of marraige as it been legally dissolved.

It doesn't state that a family has to be a man + a woman + Children. A family can easily be Man + man + children and then marraige is a right to protect that family as they are Irish citzens and therefore deserve protection under the law.
I really believe that it is unnecessary.

spurious

The UN definition of family:
Any combination of two or more persons who are bound together by ties of mutual consent, birth and / or adoption or placement and who, together, assume responsibility for, inter alia, the care and maintenance of group members, the addition of new members through procreation or adoption, the socialisation of children and the social control of members.

The_Minister

Reflector wrote: »

Well surely the fact that divorce has come in goes completely against this statement as there is no greater attack on the institution of marraige as it been legally dissolved.

It doesn't state that a family has to be a man + a woman + Children. A family can easily be Man + man + children and then marraige is a right to protect that family as they are Irish citzens and therefore deserve protection under the law.
I really believe that it is unnecessary.

Divorce required two referendums to get through (the first was lost).
So your point makes no sense.

The Supreme Court interpret the constitution. Sometimes they stick to a literal interpretation (which is what you want), but they normally look deeper, to determine the meaning of the Constitution.
So it probably will require a referendum, as the SC are likely to find that family in the Constitution means hetrosexual couple.

Annasopra

spurious wrote: »

The UN definition of family:
Any combination of two or more persons who are bound together by ties of mutual consent, birth and / or adoption or placement and who, together, assume responsibility for, inter alia, the care and maintenance of group members, the addition of new members through procreation or adoption, the socialisation of children and the social control of members.

Yes but thats just the UN definition

Iwasfrozen

spurious wrote: »

The UN definition of family:
Any combination of two or more persons who are bound together by ties of mutual consent, birth and / or adoption or placement and who, together, assume responsibility for, inter alia, the care and maintenance of group members, the addition of new members through procreation or adoption, the socialisation of children and the social control of members.

Do you realise the UN doesn't run our country ?

Iwasfrozen

shoegirl wrote: »

Not sure that is written in stone yet. Until the supreme court actually finds a law permitting marriage between people of the same sex unconstitutional, the situation is not clear.

Its dependent on interpretation, Grace is correct in stating that it doesn't specify what marriage is, but if the courts were challenged to interpret a change in law, they potentially could declare the change to be unconstitutional.

Constitutions are usually Read as Intended (RAI) rather than Read as Written (RAW). And it is almost certain that the writers of the Irish constitution intended Male - Female marraiges only.

L1011

The_Minister wrote: »

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. They would (according to most experts) find that marriage in the Constitution meant hetrosexual marriage.

And without a supreme court case, this is entirely speculation.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Constitutions are usually Read as Intended (RAI) rather than Read as Written (RAW). And it is almost certain that the writers of the Irish constitution intended Male - Female marraiges only.

Whether they intended it to be male-female only is effectively irrelevant if the courts rule that same sex marriages do not attack the institution.

Please stop spouting your speculations that its unconstitutional until it has been decided as such by the courts. To date, it hasn't. You have an unhealthy obsession with this topic.

The_Minister

MYOB wrote: »

And without a supreme court case, this is entirely speculation.

Informed speculation

L1011

The_Minister wrote: »

Informed speculation

Doesn't change it from being speculation. Until its fact, people need to stop presenting it as such - not that you have presented it as fact that I've seen, but others have.

who is this

The_Minister wrote: »

Informed speculation

Informed speculation which is contradicted (partially) by more recent case law. Two women and a child were found to constitute a de facto family (key word naturally being "family"). Yes I know, SC appeal yadda yadda yadda. But as it stands, the HC ruling stands.

Sets an important precedent which obviously isn't enough in and of itself, but extremely relevant nonetheless.

And regardless, the Constitution says family is founded on marriage. Not the reverse as several people seem to have suggested. Therefore whether or not two people already constitute a family is not a constitutional criterion for determining eligibility to marry

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

Whether they intended it to be male-female only is effectively irrelevant if the courts rule that same sex marriages do not attack the institution.

Please stop spouting your speculations that its unconstitutional until it has been decided as such by the courts. To date, it hasn't. You have an unhealthy obsession with this topic.

Ok, off you go to have your little court case, go on.
As you say we'll never know untill it's held so what's keeping you ?

Boston

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ok, off you go to have your little court case, go on.
As you say we'll never know untill it's held so what's keeping you ?

Did you like complete ignore the post directly above yours.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ok, off you go to have your little court case, go on.
As you say we'll never know untill it's held so what's keeping you ?

You're the one claiming an interpretation other than the wording, its you who needs to prove it.

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

You're the one claiming an interpretation other than the wording, its you who needs to prove it.

Actually you are the one who wants to change the constitution, The wording is in black and white.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually you are the one who wants to change the constitution, The wording is in black and white.

The wording in black and white doesn't come close to your interpretation and you are the one insisting it is to be read as intended rather than as written. Your post there makes no sense, at all.

Boston

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually you are the one who wants to change the constitution, The wording is in black and white.

Have you read the constitution? It's not that long and no where does it state in black and white that marriage is between and man and a woman.

mobius42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually you are the one who wants to change the constitution, The wording is in black and white.

Since the Constitution is being brought up so much, I thought I would search the entire document for all mentions of the word marriage.

From here: http://www.constitution.ie/reports/ConstitutionofIreland.pdf

3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that
i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,
ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.
3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.

The section above is the only section which mentions marriage. I'm not a constitutional lawyer so please point to where it says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The only reason a referendum would be required would be if the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is unconstitutional and, based on the text above, they would have no reason to do so. Divorce was legalised and if that isn't considered an attack on marriage then they are unlikely to consider gay marriage an attack on marriage.

Iwasfrozen

mobius42 wrote: »

The only reason a referendum would be required would be if the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is unconstitutional and, based on the text above, they would have no reason to do so. Divorce was legalised and if that isn't considered an attack on marriage then they are unlikely to consider gay marriage an attack on marriage.

I feel like I'm ramming my head against a brick wall with you people so I point you back to my "I beg to differ post".

L1011

the one where you speculate wildly about something that hasn't happened? There has been no judgement, until there is please stop pretending there is

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

the one where you speculate wildly about something that hasn't happened? There has been no judgement, until there is please stop pretending there is

I never said there has been a judgement.
I think you will find more in common with the hamster in my sig.

L1011

once again, your post doesn't make any sense in English.

Boston

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I feel like I'm ramming my head against a brick wall with you people so I point you back to my "I beg to differ post".

Odd, I often feel like you should ram your head against a brink wall. If you've no interest in dealing respectfully with people perhaps you should go elsewhere rather then hassling us.

Iwasfrozen

Boston wrote: »

Odd, I often feel like you should ram your head against a brink wall. If you've no interest in dealing respectfully with people perhaps you should go elsewhere rather then hassling us.

In what way am I hassling you ?
You just can't seem to accept any viewpoint that is different to your own.

Boston

You're the one being aggressive, you're the one comparing people to hamsters.

Iwasfrozen

Boston wrote: »

You're the one being aggressive, you're the one comparing people to hamsters.

ok, maybe that was a little harsh, I apologize MYOB.
Though it is pretty clear that a referendum will be needed to to introduce Gay marraige.

L1011

thats just speculation on your part though, and as far as i know, you are not a constitutional lawyer. Neither is the boards legal forum.

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

thats just speculation on your part though, and as far as i know, you are not a constitutional lawyer. Neither is the boards legal forum.

And if you where a judge in the supreme court how would you judge it ?

Would you read it as intended (RAI) by the Catholic coocoo's that wrote our constitution and rule against Gay marraige pending a referendum ?

Or would you read it as it was written (RAW) and legalise gay marraige against the wishes of the founders of this country ?

So which would it be ?

Boston

Actually the current constitution wasn't written by the countries founders but rather largely written by that bastard De Valera. Go here to see what was included in the original. No special church and state relationship, free speech and assembly ect ect

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And if you where a judge in the supreme court how would you judge it ?

Would you read it as intended (RAI) by the Catholic coocoo's that wrote our constitution and rule against Gay marraige pending a referendum ?

Or would you read it as it was written (RAW) and legalise gay marraige against the wishes of the founders of this country ?

So which would it be ?

The Constitution has of course been interpreted in both ways - whats your point?

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Though it is pretty clear that a referendum will be needed to to introduce Gay marraige.

It's an arguable legal point that is not definitively clear

Iwasfrozen

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The Constitution has of course been interpreted in both ways - whats your point?

I don't have a point atm, I'm just waiting to see how homosexual people would like our constitution to be interpreted.

Iwasfrozen

Boston wrote: »

Actually the current constitution wasn't written by the countries founders but rather largely written by that bastard De Valera. Go here to see what was included in the original. No special church and state relationship, free speech and assembly ect ect

The free state was a different country to the modern Irish Republic.
It's head of state was the British monarch for gods sake. You're not getting out of it that easily.

And alot of people could take offense at you for calling DeValera a bastard, just saying.

mobius42

Obviously, I would read it as written. That seems a much more sensible basis as you can argue over what someone's intentions were, but you cannot argue over what is written in black and white. Trying to interpret the law by deciding how the original writers intended it to be read seems very subjective.

What annoys me about the government's stance on this issue is that they are saying that a referendum would definitely be required, when this is not the case, and the fact that they are refusing to hold a referendum when there is an excellent opportunity to do so alongside Lisbon 2.

Boston

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The free state was a different country to the modern Irish Republic.
It's head of state was the British monarch for gods sake. You're not getting out of it that easily.

You have no point and now you're spouting nonsense. We became an independent coutnry in 1922 and a republic in 1937. Read up on Irish history before posting again. Or better yet, don't.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And alot of people could take offense at you for calling DeValera a bastard, just saying.

Bastard and a Coward.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The free state was a different country to the modern Irish Republic.
It's head of state was the British monarch for gods sake. You're not getting out of it that easily.

And alot of people could take offense at you for calling DeValera a bastard, just saying.

The legal, internationally accepted head of state at the time of DeV's constitution was the British Monarch. The Free State is a direct ancestor of the current state. DeVs constitution was 11 years old before we became the Republic that we are today.

Iwasfrozen

Boston wrote: »

You have no point and now you're spouting nonsense. We became an independent coutnry in 1922 and a republic in 1937. Read up on Irish history before posting again. Or better yet, don't.

I think I know Irish history, we are told enough about it in Leaving cert History. And at the risk of dragging this even more off topic we may have become indepentent in 1922 but the nation of '37 was not the free state.

Boston wrote: »

Bastard and a Coward.

You ignorance of history knows no bounds, the '22 constitution was replaced by a popular vote.

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

The legal, internationally accepted head of state at the time of DeV's constitution was the British Monarch. The Free State is a direct ancestor of the current state. DeVs constitution was 11 years old before we became the Republic that we are today.

Of course I am not ignoring the fact that the Irish free state was offical at it's time but it was replaced by the Republic in '37.
Now to be frank I don't think we should bring this thread off-topic any more.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course I am not ignoring the fact that the Irish free state was offical at it's time but it was replaced by the Republic in '37.
Now to be frank I don't think we should bring this thread off-topic any more.

It was replaced by the Republic in 1948/9, actually.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1948/en/act/pub/0022/print.html

Once again, twenty seconds of research saves a lot of posting.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You ignorance of history knows no bounds

And the award for the most ironic comment of the thread goes to...