civil partnership bill 2009

ferret man

what re your views on this and what is it about etc need as much info as possible on it

Goodshape

Try searching the forums here. There has been quite a bit of discussion on this topic, and issues surrounding it, already.

cotwold

ferret man wrote: »

what re your views on this and what is it about etc need as much info as possible on it

Try reading it, http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/General_Scheme_of_Civil_Partnership_Bill

shoegirl

Most people agree it doesn't go far enough.

In the absence of a more single and unmarried/gay couple friendly set of legislation on adoption, it doesn't adress family legal issues couples would have (though I consistently argue this is a seperate issue that shouldn't be just lumped in with gay marriage). And lastly, because it is is "seperate" it makes a "special case" for us which is inherently discriminatory as the implication is "one law for them, one for us".

The debate internally in the gay community is on whether it is better to see this legislation through and then continue lobbying for more, or if it would be better to outright reject it in the hope that something better would come along.

The history in most countries which now have gay marriage, with the exception of a few US states, is that generally civil partnership existed well before the marriage laws came in, generally on a regional basis and not always heavily publicised (Spain being an example of this).

Annasopra

ferret man wrote: »

what re your views on this and what is it about etc need as much info as possible on it

Here's a brief overview

http://www.glen.ie/civil_partnership/GLEN_Overview.pdf

A detailed analysis

http://www.glen.ie/civil_partnership/Civil_Partnership.pdf

and meetings

GLEN is organising information events on the Civil Partnership Bill in Dundalk (hosted by Outcomers), Dublin, Cork (hosted by Cork Gay Men’s Project and LinC) and Galway. The aim of these events is to inform people about what is in the Civil Partnership Bill and to discuss what it will mean practically for lesbian and gay couples. Dr Fergus Ryan, Head of DIT’s Law Department, will provide a detailed account of the Civil Partnership Bill.

The dates and venues for the information events are as follows:

Dundalk - 8.30 pm, Friday 25th September - hosted by Dundalk Outcomers, The Coach House, 8 Roden Place

Dublin - 8pm, Wednesday 7th October, Westbury Hotel, Grafton St

Cork - 7pm, Thursday 15th October - hosted by the Cork Gay Project and L.inC., 8 North Mall.

Galway - 7.30pm, Thursday 29th October - Menlo Park Hotel, Galway

We hope you will be able to join us at one of these events. For further information please contact GLEN 01 4730563info@glen.ie , Outcomers 042 9329816 bernardinequinn@gmail.com , Cork Gay Men's Project 021 4304884info@gayprojectcork.com . or L.inC 021 4808600 info@linc.ie

If you can't make it, you can download a copy of Fergus Ryan’s overview of the Civil Partnership Bill, a copy of his more detailed analysis and a copy of a chronology of key events leading up to the publication of the Bill at www.glen.ie

censuspro

Can you just turn up on the night or do you have to RSVP?

Also, any indication of when this bill will be passed into law?

cotwold

Well Mr Dermot Ahern has said the bill was going ahead like it or not to the gay community. He also said it would be in before the end of the year, but whos to say really.

theparish

civil marriage no prob, adoption prob

Boston

theparish wrote: »

civil marriage no prob, adoption prob

Agreed. If two priestd want to get married I've no problem with it, but priests can't be trusted to raise children.

cotwold

theparish wrote: »

adoption prob

About as erudite and intelligible an argument you'll get from people apposing gay adoption.

censuspro

Boston wrote: »

Agreed. If two priestd want to get married I've no problem with it, but priests can't be trusted to raise children.

Child abuse by members of the clergy and civil marriage and adoption rights are two completely seperate issues that have nothing to do with each other. Whats the connection between priests abusing children and a gay couple adopting children?

cotwold

censuspro wrote: »

Child abuse by members of the clergy and civil marriage and adoption rights are two completely seperate issues that have nothing to do with each other. Whats the connection between priests abusing children and a gay couple adopting children?

Its a joke ?!?!?! He's pointing out the irony of a poster who's screen name is 'theparish' (so presumably religious) saying that gay adoption is a problem when the administrators of his religion institutionally abused children and/or covered up such abuses. ie. its a little f*cking rich to say a gay people aren't suitable parents when the church you continue to support committed some of the most terrible abuses of children.

Boston

censuspro wrote: »

Child abuse by members of the clergy and civil marriage and adoption rights are two completely seperate issues that have nothing to do with each other. Whats the connection between priests abusing children and a gay couple adopting children?

cotwold wrote: »

Its a joke ?!?!?! He's pointing out the irony of a poster who's screen name is 'theparish' (so presumably religious) saying that gay adoption is a problem when the administrators of his religion institutionally abused children and/or covered up such abuses. ie. its a little f*cking rich to say a gay people aren't suitable parents when the church you continue to support committed some of the most terrible abuses of children.

Well there's that, and also this notion that children are better off being raised in the care of the state (Or traditionally the church) then being adopted by good people. When a child is raised with no one as the specific guardian of that child, terrible things often happen.

Annasopra

censuspro wrote: »

Can you just turn up on the night or do you have to Rsvp

Also, any indication of when this bill will be passed into law?

looks like it will be before end of year because it is in the revised programme for government and also there is a separate part of it that will be a finance bill ie part of the government budget on december 7th

philologos

cotwold wrote: »

Its a joke ?!?!?! He's pointing out the irony of a poster who's screen name is 'theparish' (so presumably religious) saying that gay adoption is a problem when the administrators of his religion institutionally abused children and/or covered up such abuses. ie. its a little f*cking rich to say a gay people aren't suitable parents when the church you continue to support committed some of the most terrible abuses of children.

Problem: The premise shouldn't be all people who have faith are Catholics, but some people who have faith are Catholics.

The Episcopal church structure (parishes) are used in many other churches. I.E Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheran churches, and the Anglican Communion (Church of Ireland)

The Ryan Report has little or no relevance to this thread.

Perhaps if you would stick to the topic in a clear and calm manner instead of attacking a user based on their username it would be more constructive. People are going to believe in God whether you like it or not, we may as well not treat one another with scorn, but try to reason together.

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

The Ryan Report has little or no relevance to this thread.

you mentioned it - no-one else

philologos

Johnnymcg wrote: »

you mentioned it - no-one else

cotswold wrote:

when the church you continue to support committed some of the most terrible abuses of children.

This is a clear reference to the acts described in the Ryan Report.

Even then, it's a highly unfair description considering that a minority of priests (around 5%) committed these abuses. Although a non-Catholic, I have a high respect for the people I know who are involved in the Catholic Church.

A more accurate description would be:

cotswold wrote:

when a minority of priests involved with the church you continue to support committed some of the most terrible abuses of children.

It's irrelevant. We should be arguing the merits of adoption / marriage without using logical fallacies. Present your case on the merits of that case rather than using an ad-hominem. It's called being fair.

Born Red 79

I'm catholic and all I want is the right to marry. I believe that God sent me the two loves of my life. My daughter and my girlfriend.

All I ask for, demand, is my right to be equal.

The_Minister

Renewed commitment in PfG.

Annasopra

The_Minister wrote: »

Renewed commitment in PfG.

We know that already

Tricity Bendix

Johnnymcg wrote: »

We know that already

That was unnecessarily harsh. I had no idea it was mentioned in the new PfG.

The_Minister

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

That was unnecessarily harsh. I had no idea it was mentioned in the new PfG.

The exact text is:

Civil Partnerships
This Government is committed to full equality for all in our society. Taking account of the options paper
prepared by the Colley Group and the pending Supreme Court case, we will legislate for Civil Partnerships at
the earliest possible date in the lifetime of the Government.

Which is a fairly strong promise.

Annasopra

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

That was unnecessarily harsh. I had no idea it was mentioned in the new PfG.

Ok fair enough - but I did already mention it in this thread

censuspro

Any update on when this bill is passed into law does anyone know?

Annasopra

censuspro wrote: »

Any update on when this bill is passed into law does anyone know?

It has now at stage 3 of 5 stages in the legislative process so my guess (and it is just a guess) is that it will be early next year before the law is enacted

Annasopra

The next stage is on March 24th (according to Ciaran Cuffe on Twitter)

http://twitter.com/CiaranCuffe/status/9972249363

LGBT Noise and Marriage Equality have sent out facebook updates as follows

Hi everyone,

The Civil Partnership Bill is currently making its way through the many stages and committees of the Oireachtas. Noise have been informed that the Justice Committee have been inundated with letters from ultra-conservative letter writers expressing opposition to gay people being granted any form of rights. Many conservatives are describing Civil Partnership as being the same as marriage; this is far from true. It lacks a great deal of the rights, responsibilities and protections of marriage. Crucially, it ignores the rights of children being raised in LGBT families and says that LGBT people do not even have families.

The Civil Partnership Bill forces couples to participate in their own discrimination and officially makes LGBT people second-class citizens.

In a week when a staunchly Catholic nation, Mexico, granted marriage equality and parental rights to its gay citizens, Ireland is, incredibly, still debating the withholding of rights to its citizens based on sexual identity.

Noise urges you to write to the clerk of the Justice Committee, Mr Alan Guidon alan.guidon@oireachtas.ie before Thursday the 24th of March, expressing your views on Civil Partnership and why it doesn't go far enough. Tell them we demand equality!

Love and noise,
The Noise Team

Dear Friends

The Joint Committee on Justice Equality Defence and Women’s Rights are taking written submissions on the Civil Partnership Bill. They are meeting later on this month to discuss it. You don't have to be a policy expert to write a letter to them. We have written to them today setting out the shortfalls of the Bill and calling once again for the Bill to be upgraded to give same sex couples the option to marry.

You can write to them at:
Mr Alan Guidon
Clerk to the Committee
Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights
Leinster House,
Kildare Street,
Dublin 2

Annasopra

For anyone who is interested the next stage is on this wednesday morning March 24th from 10am and you can watch it live

http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/livewebcast/Web-Live.htm&CatID=83&m=o

It takes place in committee room 3

rolly1

Hello All,

what do ye all reckon of the redress element of the bill?

You know the bit where you and your ex are shackled with very similar legal problems as those of a failed marriage automatically after three years of cohabitation(even though neither of ye would have signed up to it like)? as in either party can chase the other through the courts for maintenance, property, pension rights etc(Section 170,171 on cohabitation)

Annasopra

rolly1 wrote: »

Hello All,

what do ye all reckon of the redress element of the bill?

You know the bit where you and your ex are shackled with very similar legal problems as those of a failed marriage automatically after three years of cohabitation(even though neither of ye would have signed up to it like)? as in either party can chase the other through the courts for maintenance, property, pension rights etc (Section 170,171 on cohabitation)

You can opt out if the redress scheme

rolly1

Yeah you can opt out before the 3 year clock starts ticking, by seeking legal advice and drawing up a cohabitants agreement, how rosemantic! dahling lets cement our loving bond by drawing up the equivalent of a pre-nup! I would say very few people would really wanna get all legal with their loved ones in the early days of shacking up, wouldn't you?

It's a thundering disgrace in this vile kleptocracy that we cannot do as most normal democracies in europe do, be all growed up like and actually have an OPT IN system!

But of course it really suits the compo culture mentality of this ****hole and of course rolls the biggest legal gravy train *evah* into the station..which of course is the whole point of an opt out system..

Annasopra

rolly1 wrote: »

It's a thundering disgrace in this vile kleptocracy that we cannot do as most normal democracies in europe do, be all growed up like and actually have an OPT IN system!

Most normal democracies in Europe? - which countries?

rolly1

Denmark, Seweden and Finland, where the highest rates of cohabiting couples exists across europe, all have opt in systems..

Only in scotland have I seen the same unasked for Nanny State interference in peoples private lives..there is massive disquiet among people in england over attempts to do the same; but here of course we roll over and indeed praise it, as if it we welcome the removal of free choice in cohabiting relationships!

Do people here not realise that with the introduction of this bill that the idea of shacking up with somebody will now carry massive inherent legal risks of being chased through the courts for all kinds of financial redress, if they stay with that person for 3 years or more?

Any of you guys on here either currently living with somebody for at least 3 years, or, have done so in the past? Well you'd want to be watching your pockets from the day this bill comes into force.. and get good bloody legal advice if you reckon your ex partner is of the gold digging variety..

Annasopra

rolly1 wrote: »

Denmark, Seweden and Finland, where the highest rates of cohabiting couples exists across europe, all have opt in systems..

Only in scotland have I seen the same unasked for Nanny State interference in peoples private lives..there is massive disquiet among people in england over attempts to do the same; but here of course we roll over and indeed praise it, as if it we welcome the removal of free choice in cohabiting relationships!

Do people here not realise that with the introduction of this bill that the idea of shacking up with somebody will now carry massive inherent legal risks of being chased through the courts for all kinds of financial redress, if they stay with that person for 3 years or more?

Any of you guys on here either currently living with somebody for at least 3 years, or, have done so in the past? Well you'd want to be watching your pockets from the day this bill comes into force.. and get good bloody legal advice if you reckon your ex partner is of the gold digging variety..

So you were exaggerating when you most countries in Europe? and as well as that Australia and New Zealand would have a similar scheme to that being proposed - I'm not by the way dismissing the points you are making because you do raise very valid concerns but exaggerating the point isn't helpful to your arguments

I think there are a few points in this regard - I'm not sure if an opt in system would be constitutional as it might be regarded as "a threat to the institution of marriage"

With regard to the redress scheme - As I understand it would not automatically kick in if a couple are living together - there would have to be a degree of financial dependency

The Bill also establishes a redress scheme for opposite-sex and same-sex cohabiting couples who are not married or registered in a civil partnership as the case may be. The redress scheme may be activated at the end of a relationship, whether by break-up or death, and allows a financially dependent cohabitant to apply to court for certain remedies, including maintenance, property or pension adjustment orders, or provision from the estate of a deceased cohabitant. The Bill also makes express provision for the recognition of cohabitant agreements which regulate the shared financial affairs of cohabiting couples and enable couples to opt out of the application to them of the redress scheme.

There is an argument being made by Dr John Mee to drop this part of the bill altogether

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0323/1224266876408.html

I don't have particularly strong views either way about this part of the legislation other than if it is implemented that it should be highly publicised

rolly1

I should have qualified by most european countries I meant where partnership legislation exists, the fact you have to quote Australia and New Zealand for anything similar to whats proposed here proves the point. So no I wasn't exagerating.

so opt in is contsitutional and opt out is not, you speculate..can't see your logic here, can you elaborate?

Financial dependency assessment; the ultimate trough for lawyers to snort through with glee, read the bill sections, it is wide wide open to legal interpretation...

So you don't have strong views on it.. but you obviously agree with probably one of the most undemocratic pieces of law in this country by suggesting to publicise it!

Well I can tell you people are waking up to this element of the bill and begining to realise, like the rest of the crap going on in this country, another hoodwink job is being done on potentially 120,00 couples..and their strong views will be heard.

Annasopra

I just saw an ad for primetime I think they will be discussing the cohabitation section of this bill tonight (NOW)

Also it seems that the 3 years will now be lengthened to 5 years after some campaigning from the Irish Farmers Association


http://thepost.ie/news/ireland/partnership-bill-to-be-amended-48418.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0402/1224267556029.html

Chuchoter

I watched the PrimeTime discussion on the civil partnership bill. Seems no-one likes it. Frankly it seems to suit no-one, and falls out of the sky on you after you break up with someone even if you never knew you were getting involved in it.

However the bigger question is that we had a man representing farmers, but no-one representing gay people? Seriously? Where was LGBTNoise, MarriageEquality, GLEN? No-one could come?

Annasopra

crayolastereo wrote: »

However the bigger question is that we had a man representing farmers, but no-one representing gay people? Seriously? Where was LGBTNoise, MarriageEquality, GLEN? No-one could come?

They were discussing the cohabitation section of the bill so they didn't really need LGBT representatives as the section on gay civil partnerships is entirely separate

Chuchoter

Not really. Its all in the same bill and its the first time gay relationships have had any sort of recognition. You'd think we'd have someone. The other three were arguing why it was bad with their arguments. We have arguments too.

Boston

crayolastereo wrote: »

Not really. Its all in the same bill and its the first time gay relationships have had any sort of recognition. You'd think we'd have someone. The other three were arguing why it was bad with their arguments. We have arguments too.

By and large we also think it's bad.

Chuchoter

Boston wrote: »

By and large we also think it's bad.

Then someone should have gone and said 'what they just said' and left. :P

Annasopra

crayolastereo wrote: »

Not really. Its all in the same bill and its the first time gay relationships have had any sort of recognition. You'd think we'd have someone. The other three were arguing why it was bad with their arguments. We have arguments too.

Ivana Bacik was not saying the bill was bad, she was saying that there has been extensive public debate on the issue of civil partnerships for gay couples but that the section on cohabitation had not been discussed at length in public, so it is probably a better idea to have entirely separate legislation for Civil Partnerships and for Cohabitation. It's my understanding that she would support the full bill but would feel that the issues are separate and should be legislated for separately, so she wasn't saying the bill was bad at all and I think would actually support the redress scheme for cohabitants

ixoy

Why is this co-habitation section in this bill then? It doesn't seem to have much to do with the idea of civil partnership at all, other than vaguely trying to define what may consitute a partnership (both same-sex and opposite sex).

rolly1

The crazy cohabitation rules apply equally to LBGT...on primetime Ivana Bacik admitted the 'opt out' nature of the cohabitation section of the bill is to protect the supposedly "vulnerable" minority of the cohabiting population. So its bad law based on a tiny minority of hard cases..these hard cases are also already protected to a significant degree under a raft of family law legislation as waters pointed out. Further to this there is absolutely nothing stopping them from getting off their ass and walking into a solicitors office tomorrow to seek legal protection for their situation.

Its just a crazy dumb-assed law designed for a 'compo culture' society and the lawyers to fill up their boots and feck all else..

Annasopra

ixoy wrote: »

Why is this co-habitation section in this bill then? It doesn't seem to have much to do with the idea of civil partnership at all, other than vaguely trying to define what may consitute a partnership (both same-sex and opposite sex).

It's the government trying to deal with 2 separate but somewhat linked issues in 1 bill rather than separately - there has been extensive research on this area by the law reform commission amongst others - I'll try and dig it out tomorrow

http://lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rCohabitants.pdf

Context
The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, in its
Tenth Report: The Family [January 2006] recommended legislation
to provide for cohabiting heterosexual couples and that civil
partnership be provided for same-sex couples. The Options Paper
presented by the Working Group on Domestic Partnership identified
a range of legislative options for cohabitants [November 2006]. The
Law Reform Commission in its report The Rights and Duties of
Cohabitants [December 2006] recommended a statutory scheme
recognising the validity of cohabitant agreements in respect of a
couple’s joint financial affairs and establishing a redress scheme for
cohabiting couples to be available to a financially dependent
cohabitant at the end of a relationship.

Annasopra

rolly1 wrote: »

I should have qualified by most european countries I meant where partnership legislation exists, the fact you have to quote Australia and New Zealand for anything similar to whats proposed here proves the point. So no I wasn't exagerating.

so opt in is contsitutional and opt out is not, you speculate..can't see your logic here, can you elaborate?

Of course you were exaggerating

I am speculating that an opt in system might be unconstitutional because it might be seen as "an attack on the institution of marriage"

For anyone interested there is a discussion in the politics forum

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055876532

rolly1

Johhnnymcg

You haven't named any the european countries which have a similar approach to cohabiting as is proposed in this bill, but instead quoted Australia and new Zealand.I have stated that the nordic countries have an opt in system. I say no exageration you say exageration, grand, move on.

Is your speculation on the opt approach being unconstitutional informed from a legal background?

Good to see discussion finally taking place on the cohabitation provisions. I believe its nuts that the civil partnership element and the cohabitation provisions are lumped into the same bill.
But then again if I was a legal eagle looking at the financial returns coming back from a pretty small minority of the cohabiting population (LGBT) it would mean far more moolah to keep the two together. Plus look at all those positive headlines they have been able to have on the bill of giving gays extra rights... while sneaking in the cohabitation provisons under its name..that was until last week.

Annasopra

Is your speculation on the opt approach being unconstitutional informed from a legal background?

It's speculation that's base on interested observance of the whole process as a campaigner on LGBT partnership rights. I've been involved in various campaign organisations for 8 years in a completely voluntary basis. I haven't read the Law Reform Commission report on cohabitants/cohabitees in detail so I could be wrong

with regard to your second point - I'm kind of smiling and wondering when can I start using David Quinns phrase - Cohabitation-phobe

rolly1

Im not quite sure what you mean by cohabitation-phobe. I am fully in favour of it, either on its own as a lifestyle choice for both same-sex & opposite sex couples and also as a test run for marriage for opposite sex couples. This whole bill is a cop out for gay marriage though.
I have actually cohabited in the past and fully intend to do so in the future, if the lucky individual will have me;)

On your speculation that 'opt in' might be unconstitutional whereas 'opt out' may not be its worth looking again at the really good blog link you put up on the politics forum :


The solicitor on it says:

So: anyone wishing to cohabit who does not want Part 15 to apply to them will have consider the legislation within the first 2 or 3 years of cohabitation, visit their solicitor(s) and enter into a quasi-prenuptial agreement.Ironically, the legal status of prenuptial agreements in Ireland remains uncertain, yet the same type of agreement is being legislated for in the case of parties who have not entered into a formal relationship.

Therefore the "quasi-prenuptial agreement" that is a cohabitation agreement available to unmarried hetero couples provides a financial disincentive for them to get married. It is clearly a loophole for heterosexual people to get greater protection of their individual financial interests than is available presently in marriage, should their relationship break down. As pointed out in the comments section on the blog this would be very much open to constitutional challenge.

Therefore I can see very clearly why the opt out approach would be unconstitutional but cannot find any legal argument as to why the opt in approach might be.

who is this

rolly1 wrote: »

Im not quite sure what you mean by cohabitation-phobe. I am fully in favour of it, either on its own as a lifestyle choice for both same-sex & opposite sex couples and also as a test run for marriage for opposite sex couples. This whole bill is a cop out for gay marriage though.
I have actually cohabited in the past and fully intend to do so in the future, if the lucky individual will have me;)

On your speculation that 'opt in' might be unconstitutional whereas 'opt out' may not be its worth looking again at the really good blog link you put up on the politics forum :


The solicitor on it says:



Therefore the "quasi-prenuptial agreement" that is a cohabitation agreement available to unmarried hetero couples provides a financial disincentive for them to get married. It is clearly a loophole for heterosexual people to get greater protection of their individual financial interests than is available presently in marriage, should their relationship break down. As pointed out in the comments section on the blog this would be very much open to constitutional challenge.

Therefore I can see very clearly why the opt out approach would be unconstitutional but cannot find any legal argument as to why the opt in approach might be.

But opt-in mimics the formation of a marriage, i.e. a couple choosing to register their relationship would then pick between marriage or the cohabitation agreement (in theory).

Also part of the reason for it is for people who never even consider possible legal/financial ramifications if they split up. Making it opt-in is counterproductive.

As far as I'm concerned, the real thing to consider is the people who think ahead, and people who fail to (for whatever reason). In an opt-in scenario, anyone who failed to think about it in advance will be left with no protection whatsoever (i.e. "nothing" will remain default, not really ameliorating the current situation). Everyone who is currently concerned about it automatically applying are all obviously aware enough of legal/political affairs, that they would opt-out if they need to.

Annasopra

The Dail committee resumes debate tomorrow at 10am

There is a live blog at

http://www.scribblelive.com/Event/Civil_Partnership_Bill_-_Committee_Stage_Resumed

Amendments are here

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4409/b4409d-dcn.pdf

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4409/b4409d-dscn1.pdf