Civil Partnership Bill passed by the Dail

LookingFor

Just a note to mark this since I guess it's a fairly significant milestone along the way, so to speak.

Just watching the live feed, and the bill's been passed. There wasn't a vote which I thought was slightly unfortunate. It's on to the Seanad now.

There was lots of back-patting at the end of it all in the closing remarks of the politicians, and finally great applause in the public chamber.

So yeah...here we are. It's not everything we all might hope for, but I think it's definitely an important and enabling stepping stone along the way

rainbow kirby

Step in the right direction anyway!

jaffa20

Was about to post this up and then saw your thread. Good news and about time! What is Jim Walshs problem though?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0701/gay.html

LookingFor

jaffa20 wrote: »

Was about to post this up and then saw your thread. Good news and about time! What is Jim Walshs problem though?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0701/gay.html

I'm not sure specifically but I know some people have issues about it over the cohabitation provisions...they may be the grounds on which he's opposing it, but not sure.

I'm more wondering why RTE put their religious affairs correspondent on this story... edit - nevermind, apparently he's 'social affairs' too.

Gadgie

jaffa20 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0701/gay.html

I find it rather amusing that the RTE article doesn't mention what type of couples will benefit from this new legislation, but the webpage is named 'gay.html'...

L1011

Jim Walsh is opposing it on far more than cohabitation. He witters on about marriage and the 'conscience clause' more than anything.

He also bemoans not being allowed call people "fairies" in public and thinks women should stay in the home. I think you can draw your own conclusions about him!

LegacyUser

Step in the right direction, lets just hope that the opposing voices in the Seanad dont stop it completely. Its already way overdue, for both gay couples and unmarried heterosexual couples.

Annasopra

Gadgie wrote: »

I find it rather amusing that the RTE article doesn't mention what type of couples will benefit from this new legislation, but the webpage is named 'gay.html'...

well the bill is not specifically just for same sex couples in the area of cohabitation

Annasopra

letsmakeithappen wrote: »

Step in the right direction, lets just hope that the opposing voices in the Seanad dont stop it completely. Its already way overdue, for both gay couples and unmarried heterosexual couples.

Seanad opposition will not matter because there are only about 5 senators opposed; Jim Walsh, Labhras O Murchu, John Hanafin, Ronan Mullen and David Norris also said he'll vote against it for not going far enough

PeterIanStaker

The Seanad is completely irrelevant. I'm delighted this has passed.


One more nail in the coffin of Catholofascism.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Johnnymcg wrote: »

David Norris also said he'll vote against it for not going far enough

Beats me! What exactly does he want?

Pride Fighter

This is very good. One step forward, but there is still a lot more to do before full equality for everyone that is LGBT.

iguana

Kane Fresh Patient wrote: »

Beats me! What exactly does he want?

Civil partnerships that are the legal equal of marriage, clearly.

I think it's extremely worrying that this was the bill put forward and fear that it will take longer for equal legal partnerships to come about than if this bill had been rejected as not going far enough. Why a civil partnership like that in the UK, which while different to marriage is equal in the rights and responsibilities it transfers, couldn't have been introduced is beyond me.

rainbow kirby

iguana wrote: »

Why a civil partnership like that in the UK, which while different to marriage is equal in the rights and responsibilities it transfers, couldn't have been introduced is beyond me.

Sounds like a broken record at this stage, but the Catholic influence is probably to blame for that, and the fact that Fianna Fáil is basically in their pocket.

iguana

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Sounds like a broken record at this stage, but the Catholic influence is probably to blame for that, and the fact that Fianna Fáil is basically in their pocket.

Does this bill transfer next-of-kin rights?

rainbow kirby

Not sure of the exact specifics, but the Summary Analysis of the Civil Partnership Bill from Marriage Equality is well worth a read.

baby and crumble

i can't see anything in that about hospital visitation rights etc- anyone who knows care to enlighten me? I will read the whole thing tomorrow, but it's late now.

Annasopra

iguana wrote: »

Civil partnerships that are the legal equal of marriage, clearly.

I think it's extremely worrying that this was the bill put forward and fear that it will take longer for equal legal partnerships to come about than if this bill had been rejected as not going far enough. Why a civil partnership like that in the UK, which while different to marriage is equal in the rights and responsibilities it transfers, couldn't have been introduced is beyond me.

apart from the area of children what rights and responsibilities do you think are missing?

LookingFor

zoegh wrote: »

i can't see anything in that about hospital visitation rights etc- anyone who knows care to enlighten me? I will read the whole thing tomorrow, but it's late now.

I would presume next-of-kin covers that... the issue of hospital access and all that was raised by I think the minister during the debate as one of the scandals that this legislation will end.

Johnnymcg wrote: »

apart from the area of children what rights and responsibilities do you think are missing?

There are some other differences...some from this analysis. It was done a while ago and I can't vouch for its accuracy or 'truthiness' but they have a bunch of 'smaller' things such as:

http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/pdf/summary_analysis_of_civil_partnership.pdf

- WRT wills and contesting wills, a married spouse is guaranteed 1/3 of their spouse's legacy, however children of civil partners can contest a will to shrink that share for the surviving partners

- Rules around domestic violence and court orders are such are different; a married spouse can apply for a range of orders in one go, a civil partner has to apply separately for example

- Exemptions on the notice you need to give to the HSE when you wish to marry or partner are different in each case. Approval of the venue for the ceremony by the HSE, and issues that arise if one partner cannot attend a venue for health reasons or whatever, is stuff married people don't have to do deal with.

- Differences around consent, no exemptions for someone under-18 who wishes to partner vs marry

-There are difference in how splitting up is handled, that in some respects might be considered disadvantageous also to married couples vs partnered. Civil partners can't apply for a judicial separation, but on the other hand there is no need for them to prove there is no chance of reconciliation. Then again, rules that prevent one partner selling off property on their own during a split don't kick in automatically as they do with married couples.

- The hoops you have to go through to get a foreign same-sex marriage even recognised as a civil partnership here, whatever about as a marriage. Only the minister has the ability to approve this recognition, not the courts also as per marriages.

- A religious body cannot officiate at your partnership as they can a wedding. Shockingly, there may just be some who would be happy to handle your civil partnership, but they're not allowed to.

And so on...

Of course, the biggie is the issue of children, which itself is quite enough of a difference. I think also notable is that going forward as new legislation is passed, this separation allows a government to discriminate between married and civilly-partnered in a way they couldn't if we were all simply married.

iguana

Johnnymcg wrote: »

apart from the area of children what rights and responsibilities do you think are missing?

A married heterosexual couple are legal a primary family. That means that my husband is considered my nearest living relative. If I am incapacitated by illness or injury it is my husband who makes my medical decisions for me, if I die he is the one with rights over my body with regards to organ donation and funeral arrangements. With an unmarried person those decisions lie with the parents or the adult children, then the adult siblings, then the grandparents, then the aunts or uncles, then the cousins or nieces or nephews. They may have lived with a partner for 50 years but that partner has no rights at all.

I haven't seen anything at all to say that this bill confers these rights and responsibilities to a civil partner. I haven't even seen anything which guarantees the rights to hospital visitation in cases where critical care is being administered, or the right for a civil partner to be informed of their partners condition. I really hope the fact that I haven't seen anything just means that I've missed it and not that it's not there because these are by far and away the most important legal aspects of marriage.

There are lots of other differences too. Immigration rights, inheritance rights in cases where the deceased partner has living children, adoption rights, the recognition of foreign civil partnerships is frankly ****ed up. I have read that there are 220 marriage rights which are not conferred to civil partners.

Annasopra

iguana wrote: »

A married heterosexual couple are legal a primary family. That means that my husband is considered my nearest living relative. If I am incapacitated by illness or injury it is my husband who makes my medical decisions for me, if I die he is the one with rights over my body with regards to organ donation and funeral arrangements. With an unmarried person those decisions lie with the parents or the adult children, then the adult siblings, then the grandparents, then the aunts or uncles, then the cousins or nieces or nephews. They may have lived with a partner for 50 years but that partner has no rights at all.

I haven't seen anything at all to say that this bill confers these rights and responsibilities to a civil partner. I haven't even seen anything which guarantees the rights to hospital visitation in cases where critical care is being administered, or the right for a civil partner to be informed of their partners condition. I really hope the fact that I haven't seen anything just means that I've missed it and not that it's not there because these are by far and away the most important legal aspects of marriage.

There are lots of other differences too. Immigration rights, inheritance rights in cases where the deceased partner has living children, adoption rights, the recognition of foreign civil partnerships is frankly ****ed up. I have read that there are 220 marriage rights which are not conferred to civil partners.

Does this answer your question?

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

4.4.1 My civil partner is very ill in hospital and the nurse at reception won’t let me see her. What can I do?

There are a number of important contexts in which it will not be possible to discriminate. A hospital that provides treatment to a patient will not be permitted to differentiate between spouses and civil partners, for instance, in relation to visiting entitlements and consultation where a civil partner or spouse is mentally incompetent to make decisions. Hotels and caterers will not be permitted to treat marrying couples differently from intending civil partners in making arrangements for a post-registration reception. Employers who give special leave or make special arrangements for newly-weds will also be required to make similar provision for new civil partners. Any benefit of employment that is extended to the spouses of employees will also have to be extended to employees’ civil partners.

iguana

There are a number of important contexts in which it will not be possible to discriminate. A hospital that provides treatment to a patient will not be permitted to differentiate between spouses and civil partners, for instance, in relation to visiting entitlements and consultation where a civil partner or spouse is mentally incompetent to make decisions.

Do you know if this mean that a civil partner takes legal precedence over biological family? It's great that it allows the partner to be recognised as family, but I wonder what would happen in a situation where a parent and a partner were at odds with regards to treatment?

baby and crumble

Well next of kin is next of kin- blood doesn't matter. If next of kin rights ARE included in civil partnerships then legally a parent has no next of kin rights once their child marries or enters into a partnership.

Iwasfrozen

This is a sad day for religious freedom in Ireland.

rainbow kirby

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is a sad day for religious freedom in Ireland.

Aw shucks, bible thumpers don't get to discriminate. World's smallest violin, world's saddest song and all of that.

ixoy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is a sad day for religious freedom in Ireland.

Do you see the contradiction here in complaining that more choice inhibits freedom?

Please explain this since nothing has been done to marriage or the sacrament of any religion's marriage. No priest is being forced to marry same sex couples for example so what has this got to do with religious freedom?

Links234

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is a sad day for religious freedom in Ireland.

I have a hard time figuring out why you post these kind of obnoxious things. Are you looking to rile people up?

Iwasfrozen

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Aw shucks, bible thumpers don't get to discriminate. World's smallest violin, world's saddest song and all of that.

It's not only Christians that are against this bill. Jews and Muslims are also obliged by their religious texts to oppose civil partnership.

I hate using this word but I sense your attitude is very bigoted towards those wishing to express their belifes. Something that is very ironic for a person who has liberally thrown such words about in past discussions.

ixoy wrote:

Do you see the contradiction here in complaining that more choice inhibits freedom?

Please explain this since nothing has been done to marriage or the sacrament of any religion's marriage. No priest is being forced to marry same sex couples for example so what has this got to do with religious freedom?

The absense of a conscience clause in this bill will mean that people such as registrars, photographers or those responsible for parish halls, etc, will be forced to co-operate in acts they consider to be morally wrong. Or face a costly legal challange.

This effectively silences people who may, for whatever reason have reservations about civil partnership and brands them bigots. Surely you can see this is anti-democratic?

Links234 wrote:

I have a hard time figuring out why you post these kind of obnoxious things. Are you looking to rile people up?

No, I genuinely have reservations about this bill and have come to the civil partnership thread in the LGBT forum to discuss the bill.

iguana

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The absense of a conscience clause in this bill will mean that people such as registrars, photographers or those responsible for parish halls, etc, will be forced to co-operate in acts they consider to be morally wrong. Or face a costly legal challange.

People are free to have whatever religious or moral beliefs that they want. But should they choose to trade in the public domain or work for a public body they must submit to public law. That's not in anyway an infringement on religious freedoms.

Iwasfrozen

iguana wrote: »

People are free to have whatever religious or moral beliefs that they want. But should they choose to trade in the public domain or work for a public body they must submit to public law. That's not in anyway an infringement on religious freedoms.

I agree whole heartedly, which is why I believe that a conscience clause should be put into the bill in order to facilitate those whose religious or moral belifes obliges them to refuse their services to the civil partnership ceremony.

PeterIanStaker

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is a sad day for religious freedom in Ireland.

Yeah it must be terrible for the poor Catholic hierarchy who no longer enjoy the freedom they once had - to abuse children, degrade women and preach from the pulpit that someone is going to (imaginary) hell because of their sexual preferences. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Yeah it must be terrible for the poor Catholic hierarchy who no longer enjoy the freedom they once had - to abuse children, degrade women and preach from the pulpit that someone is going to (imaginary) hell because of their sexual preferences. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Alas it is not only Catholics who will have their freedom of opposition silenced under this bill.

PeterIanStaker

I was singling out catholicism as it has damaged this country the most


Vatican Motto - "no child's behind left"

Aard

I drive for Dublin Bus. I don't think black people should sit at the front of my bus. I refuse to drive if there is a black person at the front. When I tell him to move to the back, some passengers clap and cheer. But most others couldn't actually give a shit. Most black people complain, but I don't have to change because it's against my morals. Yes, I realise that those black people are contributing to my wages, but it's OK because it's always been like this, right?

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not only Christians that are against this bill. Jews and Muslims are also obliged by their religious texts to oppose civil partnership.

I hate using this word but I sense your attitude is very bigoted towards those wishing to express their belifes. Something that is very ironic for a person who has liberally thrown such words about in past discussions.


The absense of a conscience clause in this bill will mean that people such as registrars, photographers or those responsible for parish halls, etc, will be forced to co-operate in acts they consider to be morally wrong. Or face a costly legal challange.

This effectively silences people who may, for whatever reason have reservations about civil partnership and brands them bigots. Surely you can see this is anti-democratic?


No, I genuinely have reservations about this bill and have come to the civil partnership thread in the LGBT forum to discuss the bill.

How come no-one ever called for a conscience clause so that registrars could opt out or marrying divorcees?

Goodshape

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This effectively silences people who may, for whatever reason have reservations about civil partnership and brands them bigots.

That's because they are bigots and they are wrong.

If you are a state registrar then no, you should not be able to discriminate against a same sex couple any more than you should be able to discriminate against a mixed race couple.


I wish there wasn't a need to legislate for common human ****ing decency and respect but "by Christ", I guess there is.

"Religious freedom" in this regard is such an oxymoron it's beyond belief.

rainbow kirby

Goodshape wrote: »

"by Christ"

Didn't Jesus say "Love one another" - not "Love one another, in a strictly procreative married heterosexual context"?

PeterIanStaker

The problem isnt Jesus, its his f*cking fan club!


(ps cool playlist Kirby, Opeth rules \m/)

azezil

Aard wrote: »

I drive for Dublin Bus. I don't think black people should sit at the front of my bus. I refuse to drive if there is a black person at the front. When I tell him to move to the back, some passengers clap and cheer. But most others couldn't actually give a shit. Most black people complain, but I don't have to change because it's against my morals. Yes, I realise that those black people are contributing to my wages, but it's OK because it's always been like this, right?

You're a bus driver! cooooool ^_^

Aard

T_T

TylerIE

Aard wrote: »

I drive for Dublin Bus. I don't think black people should sit at the front of my bus. I refuse to drive if there is a black person at the front. When I tell him to move to the back, some passengers clap and cheer. But most others couldn't actually give a shit. Most black people complain, but I don't have to change because it's against my morals. Yes, I realise that those black people are contributing to my wages, but it's OK because it's always been like this, right?

Love the anecdote- will make use during my next run in :P

rovert

Time to rename the bible the "Book of Troll" as that is all it seems to operate as these days especially on message boards.

Heebie

The civil-partnership bill may be a step in the right direction... but it's also still a step in the wrong direction as well.. it sets a precedent that "nearly-identical but not equal" or "almost equal" is good enough.

IrishTonyO

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not only Christians that are against this bill. Jews and Muslims are also obliged by their religious texts to oppose civil partnership.

There is no mention of 'civil partnerships' in any religious texts, at least be factual

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I hate using this word but I sense your attitude is very bigoted towards those wishing to express their belifes. Something that is very ironic for a person who has liberally thrown such words about in past discussions.

You can express your beliefs all you want, just now you can't force them on others

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The absense of a conscience clause in this bill will mean that people such as registrars, photographers or those responsible for parish halls, etc, will be forced to co-operate in acts they consider to be morally wrong. Or face a costly legal challange.

Registrars are employed by the state to do the states work. As for the others that is already enshrined in Equality law. They cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This effectively silences people who may, for whatever reason have reservations about civil partnership and brands them bigots. Surely you can see this is anti-democratic?

They can say what they want, they just cannot discriminate.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, I genuinely have reservations about this bill and have come to the civil partnership thread in the LGBT forum to discuss the bill.

I would like to know how you think that this bill limits religious freedom? You still have religious freedom, but you cannot force it on others.

Iwasfrozen

Goodshape wrote: »

That's because they are bigots and they are wrong.

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. It is simply not true that people calling for the conscience clause are bigots. And such terms do not futher the discussion.

Goodshape wrote: »

If you are a state registrar then no, you should not be able to discriminate against a same sex couple any more than you should be able to discriminate against a mixed race couple.

So you believe that a registrar, or even a non-state worker such as a photographer or the owner of a local hotel should be liable to legal challanges because their religion obliges them to turn down their services to a same-sex couple?

Oh and for the record, yes. I do believe non-state workers such as photographers or hotel owners should have the right to turn down a mixed race couple. They should have the right to turn down anyone they want.

Goodshape wrote: »

"Religious freedom" in this regard is such an oxymoron it's beyond belief.

Could you explain that?

IrishTonyO

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. It is simply not true that people calling for the conscience clause are bigots. And such terms do not futher the discussion.

And you think people who have a conscience clause are tolerant of differing creeds, beliefs, opinions? How so?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So you believe that a registrar, or even a non-state worker such as a photographer or the owner of a local hotel should be liable to legal challanges because their religion obliges them to turn down their services to a same-sex couple?

As I have mentioned photographers, hoteliers etc are already covered by the Equality legislation, it is already illegal for them to refuse a service based on someone sexual orientation

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh and for the record, yes. I do believe non-state workers such as photographers or hotel owners should have the right to turn down a mixed race couple. They should have the right to turn down anyone they want.

It is already illegal, you should check facts etc before debating things

Iwasfrozen

IrishTonyO wrote: »

There is no mention of 'civil partnerships' in any religious texts, at least be factual

You're right. Because civil partnerships weren't around when they were wrote.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

You can express your beliefs all you want, just now you can't force them on others.

I agree. Which is why it is so important that a conscience clause is included in the Civil Partnership bill.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Registrars are employed by the state to do the states work. As for the others that is already enshrined in Equality law. They cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.

While it is true that registrars work for the state it is obvious that a persons moral and religious belifes will limit the persons ability to do their job as described.

What I don't understand is why is this conscience clause such a problem? My estimation is two out of ten registrars will have no problem performing the ceremony. So why open those who are have reservations up to legal challanges? It simply isn't fair and goes against ones freedom of opposition.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

They can say what they want, they just cannot discriminate.

Nobody is discriminating I don't even know how you could have got that.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I would like to know how you think that this bill limits religious freedom? You still have religious freedom, but you cannot force it on others.

How you one force freedom onto someone else? The only thing this conscience clause will do is protect innocent people with religious or moral belifes from costly legal battles by overzealous same-sex couples or so called "civil rights" interest groups.

Iwasfrozen

IrishTonyO wrote: »

And you think people who have a conscience clause are tolerant of differing creeds, beliefs, opinions? How so?

What do you mean by people who have a conscience clause?

IrishTonyO wrote: »

As I have mentioned photographers, hoteliers etc are already covered by the Equality legislation, it is already illegal for them to refuse a service based on someone sexual orientation.

Read my post. That is not what I asked him. I asked do you believe that a registrar, or even a non-state worker such as a photographer or the owner of a local hotel should be liable to legal challanges because their religion obliges them to turn down their services to a same-sex couple?

IrishTonyO wrote: »

It is already illegal, you should check facts etc before debating things

And you should really read peoples posts. Especially if you go to the bother of quoting them. In that post I was outlining what I believe in regards to this matter. I never mentioned what laws are currently in place. You seemed to pick that up and run with it yourself.

iguana

IrishTonyO wrote: »

And you think people who have a conscience clause are tolerant of differing creeds, beliefs, opinions? How so?

Great point. If you have a conscience clause for one, you must have it for all. In that case you could expect to have a hotel chain which is run by a Jewish person declaring that they will host no more weddings for anyone but other Jews as they can not in good conscience play host to gentile celebrations.

IrishTonyO

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're right. Because civil partnerships weren't around when they were wrote.

Then don't say it is against religious texts

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

While it is true that registrars work for the state it is obvious that a persons moral and religious belifes will limit the persons ability to do their job as described.

If your morals or religious beliefs prevent you doing your job that is their choice, either suck it up or get a different job. By the way does their religious beliefs that a civil marriage is not a marriage stop them marrying people in registry offices?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What I don't understand is why is this conscience clause such a problem? My estimation is two out of ten registrars will have no problem performing the ceremony. So why open those who are have reservations up to legal challanges? It simply isn't fair and goes against ones freedom of opposition.

If I to express my freedom of opposition to paying taxes, do you also think I should not have to pay them?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nobody is discriminating I don't even know how you could have got that.

Saying you will not do your job (i.e. as a registrar) just because the people involved are homosexual is discrimination no matter what way you look at it. Do you think that an atheist registrar should be allowed not to marry people with religious beliefs as it goes against their beliefs??

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How you one force freedom onto someone else? The only thing this conscience clause will do is protect innocent people with religious or moral belifes from costly legal battles by overzealous same-sex couples or so called "civil rights" interest groups.

Religious freedom means you are free to believe and practice your religion. I do no see how you think other sections of society having rights affects your religious freedom. Also as said previously there is nothing in religious texts about civil partnerships anyway.

IrishTonyO

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What do you mean by people who have a conscience clause?


Read my post. That is not what I asked him. I asked do you believe that a registrar, or even a non-state worker such as a photographer or the owner of a local hotel should be liable to legal challanges because their religion obliges them to turn down their services to a same-sex couple?

Please show me where your religion tells a photographer he is not to take pictures of a homosexual couple, or any other examples you may have