Ógra Fianna Fáil's proposal for Marriage Equality

Sulmac

I have to say I'm very surprised with this policy document from Ógra Fianna Fáil.

Read it here.

Key points:

• Full civil marriage for same-sex couples.
• Right of same-sex couples to adopt.
• Recognition of children whose parents are in same-sex relationships.
• Removing the blood donation ban on gay men.
• Removing the right of schools to discriminate against gay teachers ("ethos" and all that crap).
• Amending the current legislation which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

It was unanimously agreed upon by their National Youth Conference in November 2009.

I would in no way be a FF supporter, but I welcome this proposal wholeheartedly and hope it gets somewhere - though this is unlikely with the likes of Dermot Ahern at the top.

Well done, Ógra.

Tommy Bateman

This kind of thing is very progressive altoghter, sure them boys are the next generation of FF, and I can say they make me proud to be Irish, and even prouder to be FF.

Red_Marauder

That's all very well and good for Ogra to come out and say that, but these people have no real influence over the party at this time. Maybe come back in twenty years when some of them get elected to office, by which time this issue should be cleared up anyway.

What they are proposing isn't very different to what some of the elected adults are already proposing in Dail Eireann. But you cannot simply ignore the constitutional challenge any more than you can ignore the conservative element in Fianna Fail which would oppose anything resembling civil marriage, and which already opposes the party's Civil partnership bill (re: the Jim Walsh incident)

Ogra can say what they want because they have the luxury of not having to implement any of it.

Sulmac

Red_Marauder wrote: »

That's all very well and good for Ogra to come out (great choice of words... :P) and say that, but these people have no real influence over the party at this time. Maybe come back in twenty years when some of them get elected to office, by which time this issue should be cleared up anyway.

What they are proposing isn't very different to what some of the elected adults are already proposing in Dail Eireann. But you cannot simply ignore the constitutional challenge any more than you can ignore the conservative element in Fianna Fail which would oppose anything resembling civil marriage, and which already opposes the party's Civil partnership bill (re: the Jim Walsh incident)

Ogra can say what they want because they have the luxury of not having to implement any of it.

I agree with you to an extent. I do think it's good, however, that Ógra are adopting a far more liberal position than "Sean" Fianna Fáil. It will probably come to little, but it bodes well that next generation of politicians are progressive like this - even in FF.

The Constitutional challenge (as in, getting a majority in the Dáil to allow for a referendum) and well as FF's traditional conservatism will hopefully erode in time - sure aren't they in the "Liberal" EU grouping now?

Every recent opinion poll on the issue has shown that the Irish people are in support (over 60%) of such measures - it's about time politicians reacted (as they usually do for anything remotely popular) to this and did something progressive for a change.

I do acknowledge at Labour, Sinn Féin and the Greens have all proposed this before - but for anything associated with FF to do so is a major step, you have to admit.

I wonder how (Young) Fine Gael will react...

Red_Marauder

Sulmac wrote: »

Every recent opinion poll on the issue has shown that the Irish people are in support (over 60%) of such measures - it's about time politicians reacted (as they usually do for anything remotely popular) to this and did something progressive for a change

Are you sure about that figure? I have to say that I'm not well versed in the polls on civil marriage but I would be surprised if support was particularly high, especially where children are concerned. I remember when the issue of constituional challenge arose previously it was thought at the time that a referendum might fail. That was just a few years ago now. Even 60% support for equal rights is a startlingly low number to be honest.

I wonder how (Young) Fine Gael will react...

They'll probably offer free Fosters instead of Bavaria next Freshers week... free beer and condoms is the only practical impact YFG has ever had on me

Sulmac

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Are you sure about that figure? I have to say that I'm not well versed in the polls on civil marriage but I would be surprised if support was particularly high, especially where children are concerned. I remember when the issue of constituional challenge arose previously it was thought at the time that a referendum might fail. That was just a few years ago now. Even 60% support for equal rights is a startlingly low number to be honest.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. If you look here (yes Wikipedia, I know):

A survey carried out in 2008 showed that 84% of Irish people supported civil marriage or civil partnerships for gay and lesbian couples, with 58% (up from 51%) supporting full marriage rights in registry offices. The number who believe homosexuals should only be allowed to have civil partnerships fell in the same period, from 33% to 26%. A later Irish Times online poll, put support for same-sex marriage at 63%, up a further 5%. A survey commissioned by MarriagEquality in February 2009 indicated that 62% of Irish people supported same-sex marriage and would vote in favour of it if a referendum were held.

...with sources given at the bottom of the page. Also, on the idea of adoption/children in general:

More rigorous public polls taken during 2006 showed an increasing majority of the population, up to 80%, supporting the introduction of some partnership rights for gay couples, with a slim majority favouring full marriage. The numbers in favour of gay adoption were lower but less clear.

I'll admit a majority might not support adoption rights, and if there is one it would probably be slim. I think it'd be safe to say support is growing all the time, though - especially in the younger age groups.

Within regards to FG, YFG's proposal for Domestic Partnerships which allow for adoption of a partner's child can be found here - although I can't see which year it is from. I also think I remember Brian Hayes also speaking out in favour of protection of children in same-sex relationships, but I'm not sure if it was him - definitely someone in FG though.

dlofnep

Sulmac wrote: »

I have to say I'm very surprised with this policy document from Ógra Fianna Fáil.

Read it here.

Key points:

• Full civil marriage for same-sex couples.
• Right of same-sex couples to adopt.
• Recognition of children whose parents are in same-sex relationships.
• Removing the blood donation ban on gay men.
• Removing the right of schools to discriminate against gay teachers ("ethos" and all that crap).
• Amending the current legislation which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

It was unanimously agreed upon by their National Youth Conference in November 2009.

I would in no way be a FF supporter, but I welcome this proposal wholeheartedly and hope it gets somewhere - though this is unlikely with the likes of Dermot Ahern at the top.

Well done, Ógra.

I'm not suprised. From talking to some members of Ógra Fianna Fáíl in the past - they seem a little more reasoned than their older associates.

dlofnep

Sulmac wrote: »

I do acknowledge at Labour, Sinn Féin and the Greens have all proposed this before - but for anything associated with FF to do so is a major step, you have to admit.

Correct. Ógra Shinn Féin has been very vocal on same-sex rights and has attended a number of gay rights protests. Still, it's nice to see a few more get onboard.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Removing the right of schools to discriminate against gay teachers ("ethos" and all that crap).
Recognition of children whose parents are in same-sex relationships.

Fair play to them here.

Removing the blood donation ban on gay men.

What exactly had a ban on blood donation for gay man(which is technically untrue) got to do with marriage equality?

Full civil marriage for same-sex couples.
Right of same-sex couples to adopt.
Amending the current legislation which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Has it not been previously established a change in the constitution is required for this? So change in legislation isn't posssible without a referendum.

Think their hearts are in the right place but they don't seem to have much sense in ogra FF.

Liam Byrne

I love the phrasing! Marriage "equality" can't exist until someone changes the definition of the word marriage, in the same sense that I couldn't have a "lesbian relationship" until someone changes the meaning of the word "lesbian".

And the figures of approximately 60% claimed above are way off the facts of the support, because if the new definition of "marriage" includes adoption (which it would have to do if only the definition were changed, and any exceptions would then be inequality/discrimination) then the 60% in favour drops significantly.

dlofnep

And what's the current definition of marriage Liam? Does it state it somewhere?

Laminations

dlofnep wrote: »

And what's the current definition of marriage Liam? Does it state it somewhere?

Dictionary definition
marriage noun 1 the state or relationship of being husband and wife. 2 the act, or legal contract, of becoming husband and wife. 3 the civil or religious ceremony during which this act is performed; a wedding. 4 a joining together; a union. 5 as adj • marriage contract • marriage vows.

If we can change the constitutional definition, the dictionary definition will change to keep with the times. Definition #4 would be the one retained I'd imagine.

Guy:Incognito

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Ogra can say what they want because they have the luxury of not having to implement any of it.

But Eamon Gilmore is riding on a wave of support based on the same principal.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

They'll probably offer free Fosters instead of Bavaria next Freshers week... free beer and condoms is the only practical impact YFG has ever had on me

In fairness, it's hard to argue against free beer and condoms. Maybe the grown up members of political parties should hand them out when they are cavassing.

Laminations wrote: »

Dictionary definition
marriage noun 1 the state or relationship of being husband and wife. 2 the act, or legal contract, of becoming husband and wife. 3 the civil or religious ceremony during which this act is performed; a wedding. 4 a joining together; a union. 5 as adj • marriage contract • marriage vows.

If we can change the constitutional definition, the dictionary definition will change to keep with the times. Definition #4 would be the one retained I'd imagine.

What about leaving it as is and challenging the definitions of "husband" and "wife" . Is there anything (set in stone) to say either must mean male or female?

Liam Byrne

Stekelly wrote: »

What about leaving it as is and challenging the definitions of "husband" and "wife" . Is there anything (set in stone) to say either must mean male or female?

But why change any definitions ?

No matter what definition you change, you'll impose on the rights of people who already fit the existing definition.

I don't have the "right" to be called "gay" or "homosexual" - or, for that matter a "wife" or a "woman", or a "mother"; and why's that ? It's simply because I'm not any of them, based on their current definition.

I mean, in all fairness it would be pretty ridiculous if I wanted to campaign to be called a "woman" ?

kev9100

Fair play to Ogra FF. It's encouraging to see that the future leaders of FF are not as reactionary or as ridiculous as the current bunch. Out of interest, what is happen ing with the current Civil Marraige Bill? Will there be a vote soon or has it been silently dropped?

johnnyskeleton

• Amending the current legislation which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Eh? They mean amend the constitution? Considering the difficulties that big FF are having getting the "we love kids" referrendum up an running, I'm not too sure the people will be too keen on it.

Stekelly wrote:

What about leaving it as is and challenging the definitions of "husband" and "wife" . Is there anything (set in stone) to say either must mean male or female?

Well it gives rights to unmarried parents as well as the married homosexual parents.

MavisDavis

Sulmac wrote: »

Key points:

• Full civil marriage for same-sex couples.
• Right of same-sex couples to adopt.
• Recognition of children whose parents are in same-sex relationships.
• Removing the blood donation ban on gay men.
• Removing the right of schools to discriminate against gay teachers ("ethos" and all that crap).
• Amending the current legislation which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Wow, that's some proposal. Credit where credit is due, lads (something I'd rarely give this lot).

Too bad with the conservative-and-not-afraid-to-show-it Dermot Ahern in charge of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (why, Brian, why?) it won't be happening anytime soon. I'm still surprised they managed to drag the Civil Partnership Bill out of him, to be honest.

Progression amongst the youth, I like it. Wow I've never said anything like that about FF before. I may need to lie down..

Sulmac

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And the figures of approximately 60% claimed above are way off the facts of the support, because if the new definition of "marriage" includes adoption (which it would have to do if only the definition were changed, and any exceptions would then be inequality/discrimination) then the 60% in favour drops significantly.

You're probably right in that regard, although what most people don't know is that same-sex couples (as well as unmarried couples! :eek:) can already foster children, and that single people (regardless of sexuality) can adopt children. We have plenty of children in this country in need of a loving family, regardless of whether the parents are straight, gay, bisexual, single, married, whatever.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Eh? They mean amend the constitution? Considering the difficulties that big FF are having getting the "we love kids" referrendum up an running, I'm not too sure the people will be too keen on it.

They mean the Civil Registration Act 2004, the only legislation in the State which defines marriage as between a man and a woman only.

People seem to think that marriage is defined in the same way in the Constitution, but it's not. Article 41.3.1º:

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.

It's all up to the Supreme Court on how they interpret that... They could go with a very traditional/conservative approach or more progressive/liberal one. They could just change the meaning of "Marriage" altogether, as has already been said.

Article 41.1.1º also states:

The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

The "Family" these days isn't just confined to the husband, the wife, the son, the daughter, the dog and the cat. There are countless types of families that deserve recognition. If anything, the Court could interpret this as allowing for same-sex marriage, rather than banning it.

As said before, it all comes down to how the Supreme Court would choose to interpret the relevant articles. Failing that, the only way is by referendum.

Sleepy

Now if you could combine this with Labour Youth's Legal Marijuana policy we'd be living in a wet, less glamorous version of California

Liam Byrne

Sulmac wrote: »

The "Family" these days isn't just confined to the husband, the wife, the son, the daughter, the dog and the cat. There are countless types of families that deserve recognition. If anything, the Court could interpret this as allowing for same-sex marriage, rather than banning it.

The State - rightly - gives special status to the "ideal" family.....where parents decide to have a child and raise it together.

And while admittedly this scenario has been damaged and diluted, no-one can deny that two parents is better than one, so that is aimed for, at least.

And I hope that someone doesn't do the usual and raise the red herrings about a drunken abusive father versus a loving committed lesbian couple, drug-addict mother versus two gay men etc, because that's not comparing like with like.

Ideally, a child would be planned and wanted, and looked after by its biological parents.....I know many wouldn't agree with me, but it's not just a "gay" issue; IMHO deliberately having kids when single, etc, is irresponsble.

We certainly shouldn't condemn those who try their best after an unplanned "accident" or a relationship breakdown, but we shouldn't promote it as the norm, either.

anymore

I must play devil's advocate here a bit, I am afraid. Should not time be allowed to elapse to try and gauge how stable same sex marraiges are before deciding on adoption rights ? Yes I know the adoption rights are intended to apply to situations one of the couple are the biological partners, but it will apply, I assume where neither are the biological parents.
Also, and this applies to hetrosexual couples as well, what safeguards are to be in place to guarantee the rights and respnsibility of the biologogical parent who is not part of the partnership - i am afraid i dont accept you can donate egg or sperm and opt out. The baby has the full right to know both its biological parents and to be able to apply its legisaltive rights against both parents.

Kev_ps3

Another reason to despise FF I guess.

Annasopra

Sulmac wrote: »

I have to say I'm very surprised with this policy document from Ógra Fianna Fáil.

Read it here.

Key points:

• Full civil marriage for same-sex couples.
• Right of same-sex couples to adopt.
• Recognition of children whose parents are in same-sex relationships.
• Removing the blood donation ban on gay men.
• Removing the right of schools to discriminate against gay teachers ("ethos" and all that crap).
• Amending the current legislation which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

It was unanimously agreed upon by their National Youth Conference in November 2009.

I would in no way be a FF supporter, but I welcome this proposal wholeheartedly and hope it gets somewhere - though this is unlikely with the likes of Dermot Ahern at the top.

Well done, Ógra.

It's quite progressive for OFF but other groups have been calling for this for up to 10 years - lets be honest though Ministers Ahern, Coughlan and Hanifin will never let most of these proposals near the cabinet table - Coughlan was actually the first Minister in Europe to introduce discriminating legislation towards same sex couples in recent times in the civil registration act 2004 and the social welfare amendment act 2004

Red_Marauder

anymore wrote: »

I must play devil's advocate here a bit, I am afraid. Should not time be allowed to elapse to try and gauge how stable same sex marraiges are before deciding on adoption rights ?

If you're going down the road of measuring the stability of homosexual marriages, then you have to do the same for heterosexual marriages.

I don't want to veer to widely off topic here, but I really think this whole thing would be amusing if it were not so serious. There are certain aspects of our society which, when the paradigms ultimately shift and the years go by, coming generations will assess with bewilderment.

I believe people will look at prohibitive marriage rights against the gay community in the same light as we now view similiar historic laws against blacks. Just as we wonder at the injustice of a divided Berlin, so too will coming generations consider the situation in Gaza.

I sometimes ask myself how the people who cling so tenaciously to the changing tide of social progress ever see themselves or their failed beliefs succeeding. They will be left behind just like those who opposed civil rights in the past.

Last year we saw the anniversary of the Berlin wall. I often wonder at the people who saw those celebrations and who were around in the 80s actually did nothing to oppose it or didn;t care about it when it existed. I think of apartheid and think of all the people who now celebrate its demise at dinner parties or in political discussions, but at the time didn't really care.

I only bring up the Israeli issue as another example and don't mean to open that can of worms in an already wormy thread. But where will all of us be when the divisions between Gaza and Israel is gone, and the 20th anniversary celebrations begin? Probably going on about how we endorsed it all along.
Where will we be when homosexuals are afforded equal civil rights? Probably saying we endorsed it all along.

I wonder how many people will honestly be able to say that. I'm fully in favour of equal civil rights for homosexuals. But can I tell my Grandkids I have ever done anything about it? Quite shamefully, No.

saol alainn

Sulmac wrote: »

• Recognition of children whose parents are in same-sex relationships.

I don't understand this.:o

Annasopra

saol alainn wrote: »

I don't understand this.:o

What do you not understand?

As far as I understand it is advocating that children should have the right to have their relationship with both of their parents legally recognised. There are children being parented by same sex couples in this country - In most of these cases the child does not have a legal relationship with both parents and this can have consequences e.g. the case of Margaret Gills daughter Barbara

Overheal

What I dont understand is if thats supposed to be some kind of re-election promise, why dont FF pass it Ahead of an Election?

Im kind of spent on broken campaign promises.

Red_Marauder

Overheal wrote: »

What I dont understand is if thats supposed to be some kind of re-election promise, why dont FF pass it Ahead of an Election?

It isn't a re-election promise.

It's Ogra. Not the actual Fianna Fáil party.

anymore

Johnnymcg wrote: »

What do you not understand?

As far as I understand it is advocating that children should have the right to have their relationship with both of their parents legally recognised. There are children being parented by same sex couples in this country - In most of these cases the child does not have a legal relationship with both parents and this can have consequences e.g. the case of Margaret Gills daughter Barbara

I think Saol alainn is playing devils advocate here !
A same sex couple cant both be the biological parents of a child !:p

seamus

anymore wrote: »

I must play devil's advocate here a bit, I am afraid. Should not time be allowed to elapse to try and gauge how stable same sex marraiges are before deciding on adoption rights ?

A number of studies have been done on this and there's nothing to suggest that homosexual relationships are any less stable or monogamous than heterosexual ones.
Unfortunately the gay rights crowd have been their own worst enemy in this regard - public flambouyancy and campness have created an illusion that promiscuity is rife in gay communities and is the de facto type of relationship.

In reality, while gay men in particular are known to have more sexual "freeness" than heterosexual men (for a number of reasons), there are no figures to suggest that gay couples are any more likely to break up than heterosexual ones or that they engage in any form of polygamous relationships moreso than heteros do.

The whole issue of children and adoption can be fixed by enforcing pure equality - applying the same rules to all people/couples, regardless of sexual orientation. If you ignore the gender of the parents, then there are no special cases.

The rules for adopting a child should be the same if it's a man and a women or two men. Likewise, the process where one parent is biological and the other is not, should be identical for all couples - don't forget that this is a very common scenario in heterosexual couples.

Nehaxak

Johnnymcg wrote: »

It's quite progressive for OFF but other groups have been calling for this for up to 10 years - lets be honest though Ministers Ahern, Coughlan and Hanifin will never let most of these proposals near the cabinet table - Coughlan was actually the first Minister in Europe to introduce discriminating legislation towards same sex couples in recent times in the civil registration act 2004 and the social welfare amendment act 2004

I'd have to disagree with you there in regards Hanafin at least from first hand experience and Ahern (Noel/Dermot) from talking with them in the past. Hanafin I had an argument with about, oh 12 years ago at least, when she called to my parents house and I pretended to hate Lesbians, going off on a rant about them possibly getting rights to marry. She very strongly defended both gay rights and the right of same sex couples to marry. Told her I was only messing afterwards but fair play to her for standing there and arguing against me.

As for the Ahern's, Noel or Dermot, both of them would support both gay rights and same sex marraige but I guess it's just a matter of weighing up both rights and public opinon, which unfortunately would not be fully behind the rights for same sex couples to marry - don't think to believe you'd know different as the Irish public can be very fickle with things like that, even people of a younger generation.
One only has to look at the rediculous blasphemy law recently introduced to see how far Dermot Ahern can be twisted toward by certain sections of the public, probably the same sections who would be pressurising FF against introducing marriage rights for gay people.

Times will change and laws will change but it's up to you to vote the people in to make those changes. If FF aren't willing to force the issue then vote for someone else who will, or stand for government yourself and push the issue.
Anyone who had the balls to go around knocking on doors and pushing the issue for gay rights, even in this day and age, must either be completely mad or a feckin' great prospect to have in government and they'd get my vote.

The issue itself may have to be forced at an EU level and be accepted across the union to further the cause and lessen the impact on those in our own country who would be against it.

In this day and age there's no real argument against same sex marriage, reckon more than half the population in Ireland these days are athiest anyway but public opinion is one thing, changing the laws of the country are another. Will take a brave soul to stand up and push through the necessary changes but I do hope it happens as maybe then we can all concentrate on more important matters.

anymore

seamus wrote: »

A number of studies have been done on this and there's nothing to suggest that homosexual relationships are any less stable or monogamous than heterosexual ones.
Unfortunately the gay rights crowd have been their own worst enemy in this regard - public flambouyancy and campness have created an illusion that promiscuity is rife in gay communities and is the de facto type of relationship.

In reality, while gay men in particular are known to have more sexual "freeness" than heterosexual men (for a number of reasons), there are no figures to suggest that gay couples are any more likely to break up than heterosexual ones or that they engage in any form of polygamous relationships moreso than heteros do.

The whole issue of children and adoption can be fixed by enforcing pure equality - applying the same rules to all people/couples, regardless of sexual orientation. If you ignore the gender of the parents, then there are no special cases.

The rules for adopting a child should be the same if it's a man and a women or two men. Likewise, the process where one parent is biological and the other is not, should be identical for all couples - don't forget that this is a very common scenario in heterosexual couples.

I agree with that many gays are their own worst enemies in some respects - I recall one written comment in a paper that hetrosexuals are just jealous gay men can have such easy anonymous sex !
Or many seem to feel if you dont agree with all their views on gay issues, then you are anti gay.
I disagree in one respect to equal rights in regard to adoption. The adotion laws discriminate against various people for a variety of reasons; age etc. In particular men ans women are psychologically different and bring different perpectives and views to parenthood. Ideally in an adoption situation, and where all other aspects are equal, i think it right to have a bias in favour of a mixed sex couple.
And yes I know that may bring cries of " discrimination", but that is my view as a parent.

Annasopra

Nehaxak wrote: »

I'd have to disagree with you there in regards Hanafin at least from first hand experience and Ahern (Noel/Dermot) from talking with them in the past. Hanafin I had an argument with about, oh 12 years ago at least, when she called to my parents house and I pretended to hate Lesbians, going off on a rant about them possibly getting rights to marry. She very strongly defended both gay rights and the right of same sex couples to marry. Told her I was only messing afterwards but fair play to her for standing there and arguing against me.

Nope - not convinced at all regarding Hanifin/Ahern/Ahern

Hanifin comes from a religious background that is very strongly opposed to gay marriage and indeed you can see this in her reaction to a lesbian who discussed adoption Questions and Answers Nov 2006

Dermot most definitely does not support gay marriage and has stated that CP is not a stepping stone to gay marriage

As for Noel Ahern - I know his speech in 1993 decrminalisation debate was not LGBT friendly and there were rows when he was minister for housing over LGBT rights issues - can't find them right now

Liam Byrne

seamus wrote: »

The rules for adopting a child should be the same if it's a man and a women or two men. Likewise, the process where one parent is biological and the other is not, should be identical for all couples - don't forget that this is a very common scenario in heterosexual couples.

And the key point being that in order for that "one parent" to have the child, they wouldn't be gay.

So any claim about "treating like with like" is automatically skewed.

And for the record, I'm not being "anti-gay", because I don't agree with single people getting so-called "sperm donors" and stuff either.....it's irresponsible.

johnnyskeleton

Sulmac wrote: »

They mean the Civil Registration Act 2004, the only legislation in the State which defines marriage as between a man and a woman only.

People seem to think that marriage is defined in the same way in the Constitution, but it's not. Article 41.3.1º:



It's all up to the Supreme Court on how they interpret that... They could go with a very traditional/conservative approach or more progressive/liberal one. They could just change the meaning of "Marriage" altogether, as has already been said.

Article 41.1.1º also states:



The "Family" these days isn't just confined to the husband, the wife, the son, the daughter, the dog and the cat. There are countless types of families that deserve recognition. If anything, the Court could interpret this as allowing for same-sex marriage, rather than banning it.

As said before, it all comes down to how the Supreme Court would choose to interpret the relevant articles. Failing that, the only way is by referendum.

I agree with you that they ought to, but they have as recently as last year indicated that they will not move with the times and will not recognise de facto families. So any change in this area, it seems to me, will have to come in the form of a constitutional referendum.

The idea that the family is based on marriage is an outdated concept, particularly since it is possible, if you were to give a liberal interpretation to "marriage", that two married homosexuals with no children would be more of a constitutional family than a single mother and her three kids.

So while I am dissappointed with the Supreme Court not moving with the ECHR concept of the de facto family, I think the only realistic way to overcome this is to have a constitutional change.

I'd also be in favour of a much narrower children's rights subsection in Article 41 rather than the proposed "children's rights" amendment i.e. a simple statement that when dealing with the rights of children and families, the welfare of the child is paramount.

johnnyskeleton

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The State - rightly - gives special status to the "ideal" family.....where parents decide to have a child and raise it together.

And while admittedly this scenario has been damaged and diluted, no-one can deny that two parents is better than one, so that is aimed for, at least.

And I hope that someone doesn't do the usual and raise the red herrings about a drunken abusive father versus a loving committed lesbian couple, drug-addict mother versus two gay men etc, because that's not comparing like with like.

Ideally, a child would be planned and wanted, and looked after by its biological parents.....I know many wouldn't agree with me, but it's not just a "gay" issue; IMHO deliberately having kids when single, etc, is irresponsble.

We certainly shouldn't condemn those who try their best after an unplanned "accident" or a relationship breakdown, but we shouldn't promote it as the norm, either.

But what about the stable family of unmarried parents?

Annasopra

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But why change any definitions ?

No matter what definition you change, you'll impose on the rights of people who already fit the existing definition.

How does that work? How does extending the institution of civil marriage to gay couples impose on the rights of those already married or those who can marry? Have the rights of 15 year olds been imposed upon - since the legal definitions removed their right to marry? Did this removal impose on the rights of people who fit the existing definition?

Sulmac

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And the key point being that in order for that "one parent" to have the child, they wouldn't be gay.

There are those who realised they were gay after marrying and having children; there is also IVF available for lesbian couples (though we're into sperm donor territory here as well).

I agree, to an extent, that the best environment for children probably is within a stable and loving husband/wife marriage with their biological parents. That said, I don't think it means we should discriminate in favour of them like we are now. The state really shouldn't have any business in telling people how to run their private or family lives, unless there's a serious issue (such as abuse or neglect).

To be honest, I think the best solution would be to scrap the idea of civil "marriage" altogether and replace it with a sort of civil union type thing for all. Leave marriage to the religions to mess around with. That hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening, though.

Red_Marauder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And the key point being that in order for that "one parent" to have the child, they wouldn't be gay.

Is that statement for real

I agree with sulmac. Religious groups can do what they want, but churches are not civil registries and the traditional idea of marriage ought to be scrapped.

We're Europeans now. Let's go all French - town hall ceremonies for civil marriage, and church ceremonies with strange traditions and plate smashing and bread eating and candle burning if the couple so wish. French men kiss each other on the cheek too but we don't have to do that.

Laissez Faire.

Liam Byrne

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Is that statement for real

Absolutely.

How do you propose creating a child if you don't have 2 different sexes ?

Sulmac wrote: »

(though we're into sperm donor territory here as well).

Which involves both sexes.

The problem is that people are getting selfish......even single people "want" kids, because we've - rightly - not condemned single parents who work their ass off and do their best.

But you don't set out to deliberately create that scenario.

But I will admit that there's a grey area, where people who seem to have no interest or time to raise kids - whether in a couple or not - still "want" to have them.

saol alainn

Johnnymcg wrote: »

What do you not understand?

As far as I understand it is advocating that children should have the right to have their relationship with both of their parents legally recognised. There are children being parented by same sex couples in this country - In most of these cases the child does not have a legal relationship with both parents and this can have consequences e.g. the case of Margaret Gills daughter Barbara

Thanks . It was as anymore kindly explained earlier on. If one parent is the biological parent of the child, the other one isn't. There is a biological parent, what about them? It could make sense if the child is not biologically related to either parent, but not otherwise.

Adoption is a complex issue in itself. The rights of the child should be the priority. Not the rights of any potential adopting parents, admirable as the act is. Where would the child's best interest lay? Consider the following. Three applicants, all can provide a stable, loving environment for the child. A hetero couple, a homosexual couple and a single person. Which would be the preferred applicant? In the interests of the child, not because of rights of individuals.

Many issues have to be considered in any adoption process. Even the religion, if any, and/or cultural background must be considered. For example, an asian (to pluck a random heritage) child would be more 'at home' and fit in with an asian family. That is not to say that a european/african/whatever couple cannot adopt said child. But top of the list would be an asian family. Is that discrimination? No. It's basic common sense.

I could so easily demand equal rights, too. But being in the....ahem....40+ age group, I don't think I'd have that, and rightly so. Even if I had the deepest desire to have/adopt a child now, would it be in the interest of the child? Or is it because of what I want?

Red_Marauder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Absolutely.

How do you propose creating a child if you don't have 2 different sexes ?

Use your imagination! Anything from sexual intercourse to a turkey baster to IVF implantation. The parent who is the biological parent certainly can be a homosexual. Quite obviously.

It doesnt matter that fertisation requires both sexes. I am replying to the line that in order for one parent to have the child "they wouldn't be gay"

anymore

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Use your imagination! Anything from sexual intercourse to a turkey baster to IVF implantation. The parent who is the biological parent certainly can be a homosexual. Quite obviously.

It doesnt matter that fertisation requires both sexes. I am replying to the line that in order for one parent to have the child "they wouldn't be gay"

In order of priority, I suggest the right of a child to know and have the presence of both its biological parents, at least so far as is practical, far outweighs the rights of any couple to define themselves as the childs parents, if one of them isnt the biological parent, and yes that applies to non same sex couples as well. Children are not a 'lifestyle' accessory.

seamus

saol alainn wrote: »

Thanks . It was as anymore kindly explained earlier on. If one parent is the biological parent of the child, the other one isn't. There is a biological parent, what about them? It could make sense if the child is not biologically related to either parent, but not otherwise.

The "other" biological parent doesn't necessarily need to be be aware of the child's existence, particularly in the case of lesbian couples.

That is not to say that a european/african/whatever couple cannot adopt said child. But top of the list would be an asian family. Is that discrimination? No. It's basic common sense.

Surely that depends on the age of the child? If the child has already spent much of its formative years in an asian culture, then sure. But why is an Asian family more suitable to adopt a four-week old Asian baby than a European couple? The child is four weeks old. It has no sense of identity or culture. Having a particular genetic lineage doesn't predispose a person to developing cultural traits.

Likewise, I don't see why heterosexual couples should be prioritised for adoption of babies above gay couples. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point?

anymore wrote: »

In order of priority, I suggest the right of a child to know and have the presence of both its biological parents, at least so far as is practical, far outweighs the rights of any couple to define themselves as the childs parents, if one of them isnt the biological parent, and yes that applies to non same sex couples as well.

I would suggest that the wishes of the biological parents take precedent until the child is an adult themselves.

That is, if one or both biological parents don't wish to raise the child (or aren't aware of the child's existence), then the *needs* of the child take priority - which is a safe home and a nurturing environment provided by at least one adult role model. No child should have the right to demand that a biological parent is involved in their life if that biological parent doesn't want to be.

Red_Marauder

anymore wrote: »

In order of priority, I suggest the right of a child to know and have the presence of both its biological parents, at least so far as is practical, far outweighs the rights of any couple to define themselves as the childs parents, if one of them isnt the biological parent, and yes that applies to non same sex couples as well. Children are not a 'lifestyle' accessory.

Who said anything about parents' rights outweighting the childrens' rights?

Somebody might have suggested that back the way in this thread, but I certainly didn't read that nor agree with it.

All I'm saying is that homosexual couples ought to be able to marry, through civil marriage, and adopt through civil adoption as a married couple. Of course the whole thing of civil adoption is an issue in its own right.

Annasopra

saol alainn wrote: »

Consider the following. Three applicants, all can provide a stable, loving environment for the child. A hetero couple, a homosexual couple and a single person. Which would be the preferred applicant? In the interests of the child, not because of rights of individuals.

I don't believe that there should be any preferred applicant once they meet relevant criteria and are assessed by relevant state agencies

and yes obviously at all stages all adoption cases should in my view be based upon the rights of the child

Labours Bill in 2006 was in my view a very good way of dealing with this

Adoption


The Bill has two substantive provisions dealing with adoption. First, it provides that parties to a civil union who are living together may apply to adopt a child. At present only a married couple or a single individual (regardless of sexual orientation) can adopt. There is no provision for joint adoption save by married couples.

Second, the Bill makes a general amendment to the law of adoption by setting out, for the first time, adoption principles or criteria, to be of general application in all adoption cases. The subsection provides that, in any decision on or relating to an application to adopt a child, whether made by parties to a civil union or otherwise, due regard shall be had to –


the principle that the first and paramount consideration is the best interests and welfare of the child, throughout his or her life,

the concomitant principle that no person, whether by virtue of membership of a particular class of persons or otherwise, has a right to adopt a child or any particular child or a right to preferential consideration of his or her application to adopt a child or any particular child,

the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision, considered in the light of the child’s age and understanding, the child’s particular needs,

the likely effect on the child, throughout his or her life, of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person,

the likely effect on the child, throughout his or her life, of having become an adopted child of the person or persons who applied to adopt that child,

the child’s age, sex, religion or religious background, national origin and cultural and linguistic background and any other relevant characteristics,

any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering,

the relationship which the child has with relatives and with any other relevant person, including –

the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so,

the ability and willingness of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop and otherwise to meet the child’s needs,

the wishes and feelings of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, regarding the child,

the child’s right to know the identity of his or her parents and as far as practicable to be brought up by his or her parents and each of them or by other family members.

Liam Byrne

seamus wrote: »

The "other" biological parent doesn't necessarily need to be be aware of the child's existence, particularly in the case of lesbian couples.

No child should have the right to demand that a biological parent is involved in their life if that biological parent doesn't want to be.

Are you serious ? :eek:

Being a "biological parent" involves responsibilities; one of which is looking after that child.

It's not a puppy farm!

anymore

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Who said anything about parents' rights outweighting the childrens' rights?

Somebody might have suggested that back the way in this thread, but I certainly didn't read that nor agree with it.

All I'm saying is that homosexual couples ought to be able to marry, through civil marriage, and adopt through civil adoption as a married couple. Of course the whole thing of civil adoption is an issue in its own right.

There have been cases of same sex couples trying to exclude the biological parent from access or limiting acess to the child.
In fact it is almost implicit in the notion that same sex couples have ' the right' to children. It is aspect that most people seem to want to ignore.
The creation of one right doesnt justify the extinguishing of another right.

anymore

seamus wrote: »

The "other" biological parent doesn't necessarily need to be be aware of the child's existence, particularly in the case of lesbian couples.
.Likewise, I don't see why heterosexual couples should be prioritised for adoption of babies above gay couples. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point?
I would suggest that the wishes of the biological parents take precedent until the child is an adult themselves.

That is, if one or both biological parents don't wish to raise the child (or aren't aware of the child's existence), then the *needs* of the child take priority - which is a safe home and a nurturing environment provided by at least one adult role model. No child should have the right to demand that a biological parent is involved in their life if that biological parent doesn't want to be.

You are quite wrong. The rights of the child to the care of its biological parents, where it is practical is superior to the wishes of its biological parents. The biological parents owe the child they created responsibility. In fact I would suggest that it is only the child can really claim to have 'rights' in this situation. All non biological parents have only wishes or desires.
In all cases, for example the child should as a minimum have access to its legal rights under the Succession Acts in respect of both biological parents. It should have the legal right to have both of its biological parents to provide for its upbringing.
Children dont have a say in being born; it should have the two people who created it to accept thier responsibilities. If they dont, theri 'rights' are irrelevant. Whether others want to be regarded as the child's parent is irrelevant in establishing the childs rights.

Red_Marauder

anymore wrote: »

There have been cases of same sex couples trying to exclude the biological parent from access or limiting acess to the child.

We're talking about the majority of cases. I'm sure that's happened with adoptive parents in all sorts of marriages.

In fact it is almost implicit in the notion that same sex couples have ' the right' to children. It is aspect that most people seem to want to ignore.
The creation of one right doesnt justify the extinguishing of another right.

That's exactly the same for straight adoptive parents. There's no difference.

anymore

Red_Marauder wrote: »

We're talking about the majority of cases. I'm sure that's happened with adoptive parents in all sorts of marriages.
That's exactly the same for straight adoptive parents. There's no difference.

Then we agree, the child's rights are paramount.

Re majority of cases; legal precedent does not rely on ' Majority of cases'.