Full rights for the LGBT community.

sceptre

Jakkass wrote: »

How did they pass a bill without a vote?

If no-one in the relevant house of the Oireachtas expresses opposition to a bill, there's no need for a vote.

PeterIanStaker

I'm glad this has passed.

P. Breathnach

sceptre wrote: »

If no-one in the relevant house of the Oireachtas expresses opposition to a bill, there's no need for a vote.

Wouldn't you have thought that Jackie Healy-Rea would have wanted an opportunity to vote "Níl"?

Isn't it remarkable how a significant change in how we define our relationships with one another gets passed with a barely-audible murmur, yet our body politic has been greatly perturbed by one small item of animal welfare legislation?

The Seanad will be more interesting. More of Ronan Mullins's creative logic, and a few of the backwoodsmen will be uncomfortable (I can't recall if there are any backwoodswomen who will be voting on this question). And David Norris will make one of his much-lauded speeches of the type that makes my toes curl in a silent scream of protest (it's at times like this that I forgive Oliver Callan for his juvenile portrayal of Norris -- but only temporarily, I assure you).

sensibleken

Great to see Ireland is joining the 21st century. However untill LGBT couples have exactly the same rights as us breeders I won't be saying 'its a free country' about anything

aDeener

sensibleken wrote: »

Great to see Ireland is joining the 21st century. However untill LGBT couples have exactly the same rights as us breeders I won't be saying 'its a free country' about anything

what more rights is there?

sensibleken

aDeener wrote: »

what more rights is there?

unless Im very much mistaken I believe the bill does not give the same rights as civil marriage. adoption for example

Bebs

http://www.marriagequality.ie/learn/civilpartnershipbill/

That's a good explanation of the inequalities that remain or are created with this new bill.

Iwasfrozen

sceptre wrote: »

If no-one in the relevant house of the Oireachtas expresses opposition to a bill, there's no need for a vote.

Many members have expressed reservations due to the absence of a get-out-clause for registrars opposed to the bill on religious grounds. Seymour Crawford being the most vocal at the moment.

molloyjh

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

I'm glad this has passed.

More than that I'm glad it passed with so little opposition, not politically but generally. It didn't create anything near the kind of moral "debate" it has elsewhere. It's a step in the right direction and hopefully it can be followed up before too long with amendments to ensure the parts that are missing or flawed now can be set right later. I just find it very positive that, short of a few morons outside the Dáil, the country as a whole was behind the bill and that it wasn't deemed to be all that controversial.

Iwasfrozen

molloyjh wrote: »

More than that I'm glad it passed with so little opposition, not politically but generally. It didn't create anything near the kind of moral "debate" it has elsewhere. It's a step in the right direction and hopefully it can be followed up before too long with amendments to ensure the parts that are missing or flawed now can be set right later. I just find it very positive that, short of a few morons outside the Dáil, the country as a whole was behind the bill and that it wasn't deemed to be all that controversial.

It passed without opposition because people where not given a chance to voice their opposition. It was pushed through the Dail before the summer recess despite very little debate taking place. Or even being assesed to ensure it is constitutionally lawful.

aDeener

sensibleken wrote: »

unless Im very much mistaken I believe the bill does not give the same rights as civil marriage. adoption for example

i can't see why there is an issue with solving the inheritance rights and domestic violence problems in particular. what possible reasons could there be for them to not be the same as opposite sex marriages? im sure everyone understands, whilst may not agree, to people having reservations about adoption, but those 2 straight forward

sceptre

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Many members have expressed reservations due to the absence of a get-out-clause for registrars opposed to the bill on religious grounds. Seymour Crawford being the most vocal at the moment.

And did Seymour Crawford indicate to the registrar or Ceann Comhairle that he'd like to vote against the bill? He can be as vocal as he wants but his vote is his vote.

As with the stag hunting bill, what these guys say on their local radio stations (or our national ones) doesn't matter - with an Oireachtas seat they're constitutionally permitted to lay down standard opposition or formal opposition to anything that comes before the House (it's not that difficult to do). If they don't do that, then there isn't a vote. Because if they don't do that, there isn't a need for one.

Iwasfrozen

sceptre wrote: »

And did Seymour Crawford indicate to the registrar or Ceann Comhairle that he'd like to vote against the bill? He can be as vocal as he wants but his vote is his vote.

As with the stag hunting bill, what these guys say on their local radio stations (or our national ones) doesn't matter - with an Oireachtas seat they're constitutionally permitted to lay down standard opposition or formal opposition to anything that comes before the House (it's not that difficult to do). If they don't do that, then there isn't a vote. Because if they don't do that, there isn't a need for one.

Are they though? I'm sure the party whip system would sort out any sort of disagreement in the house.

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Many members have expressed reservations due to the absence of a get-out-clause for registrars opposed to the bill on religious grounds. Seymour Crawford being the most vocal at the moment.

The demand for a "conscience clause" for registrars is just a mean strategy to allow prejudiced behaviour. A registrar is a public servant performing a public function, and should have no right to decide what members of the public should be allowed exercise their rights, once those rights have been decided by the legislature.

Should a registrar be allowed to refuse to register the death of a person who committed suicide because the registrar believes that suicide is morally wrong? Or refuse to register the marriage of a couple because one was previously married and has divorced? Or refuse to register a birth because the mother is not married?

I suspect that some registrars who are uncomfortable about same-sex relationships might be glad there is no conscience clause: the absence of choice removes the burden of choosing.

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It passed without opposition because people where not given a chance to voice their opposition....

Let's face it: our TDs have been more exercised about setting packs of hounds on farm animals and running large-scale greyhound breeding enterprises than they are about giving same-sex relationships some legal status.

Clever move that: distract the Dáil with stag-hunting so that they won't notice the civil partnership bill.

Bebs

What's there to notice? The public seem to be overwhelmingly in support of the bill.

Iwasfrozen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The demand for a "conscience clause" for registrars is just a mean strategy to allow prejudiced behaviour. A registrar is a public servant performing a public function, and should have no right to decide what members of the public should be allowed exercise their rights, once those rights have been decided by the legislature.

You're right, they are public servants performing a public role. So why in the bill's current form will any registrar who refuses to perform a civil partnership ceremony be personally liable and opent to costly legal actions?

Also that only covers registrars. What of photographers or hotel owners? They are not public servents but will also have their religious freedoms torn apart by this bill. They will be forced to facilitate a ceremony they consider morally wrong.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Should a registrar be allowed to refuse to register the death of a person who committed suicide because the registrar believes that suicide is morally wrong? Or refuse to register the marriage of a couple because one was previously married and has divorced? Or refuse to register a birth because the mother is not married?

Obvious strawman arguement is obviously strawman.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I suspect that some registrars who are uncomfortable about same-sex relationships might be glad there is no conscience clause: the absence of choice removes the burden of choosing.

Are you mad? Do you honestly believe any registrar is secretly happy to face legal charges because their religious belifes obliges them to refuse to perform the civil partnership?

Iwasfrozen

Bebs wrote: »

What's there to notice? The public seem to be overwhelmingly in support of the bill.

Seem to be. But then the people of California seemed to overwhelmingly oppose prop 8.

Bebs

Also that only covers registrars. What of photographers or hotel owners? They are not public servents but will also have their religious freedoms torn apart by this bill. They will be forced to facilitate a ceremony they consider morally wrong.

This hasn't been an issue when catering for divorcees which would also be something that any devoted Catholic would consider wrong. Why do you think that the gays in particular are provoking this sort of a response?

Is it the Christian thing to do to demonise your neighbour for being different?

Iwasfrozen

Bebs wrote: »

This hasn't been an issue when catering for divorcees which would also be something that any devoted Catholic would consider wrong. Why do you think that the gays in particular are provoking this sort of a response?

Why would a divorce need a ceremony? Let alone photographers or a hotel.

Bebs wrote: »

Is it the Christian thing to do to demonise your neighbour for being different?

Not only Christians but Jews and Muslims aswell are against homosexual unions on religious grounds.

Bebs

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why would a divorce need a ceremony? Let alone photographers or a hotel.


Not only Christians but Jews and Muslims aswell are against homosexual unions on religious grounds.

My point is that it's wrong to deny someone a service based on their religion, colour, creed or sexuality. Where exactly do you get this idea that homosexuality is morally wrong?

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're right, they are public servants performing a public role. So why in the bill's current form will any registrar who refuses to perform a civil partnership ceremony be personally liable and opent to costly legal actions?

Why not if they intentionally cause a difficulty for people by refusing to perform a public duty for which they are paid? Let's be realistic about it: the chances of a registrar refusing to perform a ceremony seem quite small.

Also that only covers registrars. What of photographers or hotel owners? They are not public servents but will also have their religious freedoms torn apart by this bill. They will be forced to facilitate a ceremony they consider morally wrong.

Religious freedom is the right to practise one's religion, not to impose its tenets on others.

Obvious strawman arguement is obviously strawman.

It's not obvious to me. A public official can hold any religious belief or moral position as a private matter, but such things should not enter into the performance of a public duty. I gave examples of things that a registrar might find do not sit easily with his or her set of values, but where registrars do not let that get in the way of performing their public function. I see no good argument why registering a civil union should be any different.

Are you mad? Do you honestly believe any registrar is secretly happy to face legal charges because their religious belifes obliges them to refuse to perform the civil partnership?

I think you have the wrong end of the stick -- possibly because you intentionally took hold of it.

I have been around long enough to know how some of our pressure groups play the game, and they don't play in a nice sporting way. If there were a "conscience clause" there would be a very unpleasant scenario: some people that I think particularly nasty would become very active in seeking to influence registrars' behaviour. I am sure that many registrars would be pleased not to be subjected to their earnest entreaties.

sensibleken

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not only Christians but Jews and Muslims aswell are against homosexual unions on religious grounds.

So? and christians jews and muslims are all against each other on religious ground too.

If the government descriminated against Jews that would be wrong, if it did against christians likewise. so why would against homosexuals be ok. Because of one tiny line in the bible?

sceptre

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Are they though? I'm sure the party whip system would sort out any sort of disagreement in the house.

Crawford, like anyone else, can vote with his own party or not any time he likes (the party whip might have some things to say about it and probably would do something about it but he's freely part of that grouping for as long as he chooses to stay within it and they choose to keep him). Not even the independents put forward formal opposition. Not one of the 165 TDs with a regular vote did.

Again, no parliamentary opposition, standard or formal: no vote. It's been like that since the beginning of British parliamentary democracy, it's even like that in the smallest community grouping that follows basic British parliamentary practice - while I know some committees do the All in favour, all against" regardless, a few hours of reading Roberts rules of parliamentary procedure for illustration would fix that. It's the system we've followed in the Dail since 1919 so it's not as though it's anything new. Any single TD of any party or non-party could have forced a vote on this.

Apogee

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Many members have expressed reservations due to the absence of a get-out-clause for registrars opposed to the bill on religious grounds.

You've named one. Who are the "many" others?

Seymour Crawford being the most vocal at the moment.

As Brendan Howlin mentioned, one might have thought that Deputy Crawford, given his background, would be more alert than most to the dangers of allowing certain groups to discriminate against minorities.

Sulmac

sensibleken wrote: »

If the government descriminated against Jews that would be wrong, if it did against christians likewise. so why would against homosexuals be ok. Because of one tiny line in the bible?

Made me think of this famous clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc

philologos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not only Christians but Jews and Muslims aswell are against homosexual unions on religious grounds.

I wouldn't consider civil partnerships as undermining marriage, or being the equivalent to marriage. It is when family issues come into play that I would be more wary.

oscarBravo

Jakkass wrote: »

It is when family issues come into play that I would be more wary.

Why?

philologos

There are more than just parental rights to be considered -

Is it more a right for a same-sex couple to have a child, or it is more a right for a child to have a mother and a father growing up?

It appears in a lot of issues when we are talking about rights, that a lot of these rights can often be weighed against others in importance, particularly in a court setting. People conclude that this persons right is more important than this other persons right.

Iwasfrozen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why not if they intentionally cause a difficulty for people by refusing to perform a public duty for which they are paid? Let's be realistic about it: the chances of a registrar refusing to perform a ceremony seem quite small.

If the chances of a registrar refusing to perform a ceremony so small then why not give the nod to religious freedom and include the conscious clause?

Also while it is true these peopleare public servents paid to perform a public role they are also people. People with feelings and opinions that obviously will effect their ability to perform said public role. I honestly don't see the problem with including this clause. As you've admitted yourself the number of registrars who refuse to perform the ceremony will be small. So gay couples wil be able to get another registrar and everyone will be happy.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Religious freedom is the right to practise one's religion, not to impose its tenets on others.

Exactly, these people have the right to practice their personal religion without facing a legal challenge because of it.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's not obvious to me. A public official can hold any religious belief or moral position as a private matter, but such things should not enter into the performance of a public duty. I gave examples of things that a registrar might find do not sit easily with his or her set of values, but where registrars do not let that get in the way of performing their public function. I see no good argument why registering a civil union should be any different.

This thread is about the civil partnership bill. I'm not going to deviate from that and drag the thread off-topic.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick -- possibly because you intentionally took hold of it.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have been around long enough to know how some of our pressure groups play the game, and they don't play in a nice sporting way. If there were a "conscience clause" there would be a very unpleasant scenario: some people that I think particularly nasty would become very active in seeking to influence registrars' behaviour. I am sure that many registrars would be pleased not to be subjected to their earnest entreaties.

A strong willed registrar would not bend to pressure from a an interest group. Though I'm sure good-honest registrars would not be happy about facing legal challanges because their religion obliges them to turn down the same sex couple.