Anyone getting partnershipped?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Just wondering what the general feeling is on the civil partnership bill coming in next month.

I think its morally wrong to be honest, if anything cementing the legal apartheid status of homosexuals. If people accept civil partnership then full civil marriage rights won't be as high up on the agenda. Therefore I think people should boycott it.

I think people's attitudes are really changing and full marriage is now a real possibility even if it required a constitutional referendum. According to this recent poll 73% of people support gay marriage and perhaps more crucially 3/5 people support gay couples adoption rights(which is what I believed would always stop people voting to legalise gay marriage)

http://www.thejournal.ie/nearly-three-quarters-of-irish-people-in-favour-of-gay-marriage-2011-03/

However I am not gay so I guess its easy for me to get on my high horse about it. I understand some see it as a stepping stone, and gives some rights.

hare05

To be honest I'm just happy to know there's straight people out there willing to discuss this on their own initiative. I tip my hat to you sir/ma'am.

And yes, I agree, nothing but full marriage / adoption rights is acceptable, anything less is an insult.

greyed

The new programme for government commits to establishing a 'Constitutional convention' which is to provide a report within 12 months on various constitutional reforms, including "Provision for same-sex marriage".

This looks like progress, no?... or am I being naive? :P It seems FGs right wing social tendencies have been significantly influenced by Labour.

diddlybit

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

the legal apartheid

This is a fantastic way to describe it, I shall be citing it every time I get into an argument about civil partnership being sufficient legal recognition for same-sex relationships.

I'm not sure that there will be a boycott, but the campaign for civil marriage within the community still has a lot of support. In regards to those that chose to be civil-partnershipped, rather than hold out, perhaps it is out of necessity, rather than choice.

My uncle and his partner got civil-partnershipped (really doesn't have the same ring to it) last year abroad, but I think it was for future security. They are getting older, have a house together and if something happened to one of them, the other would have no rights.

I've always felt that the Irish constitution has been a little vague on what consitiutes marraige and that establishing provisions for same-sex marriage wouldn't be a constitutional minefield, but since Zappone's and Gilligan's case lost, I'm clearly wrong.

I understand that a majority now support same-sex marraige so hopefully a referendum will be in order in the next couple of years. It depends on the work of certain coalition members in government *taps fingers impatiently*

Annasopra

I really hate the comparison of civil partnership to apartheid. It is nothing like the apartheid system - with the apartheid system every aspect of peoples lives were badly affected - Under the apartheid system in South Africa people didn't have many rights that we take for granted; to vote, to stand for election, to live where they wanted, access to equal housing, healthcare, access to public places.

We already have all these rights. We are relatively privileged in the overall scheme of things compared to Black South Africans. Yes we do face homophobia. Yes CP is not fully equal but using the language and analogies of a struggle of people who faced constant daily problems in their lives is completely completely wrong.

diddlybit

Not even using the term figuartively?

Lets not forget that homosexuality was once classifed as a mental disorder and only de-classified by the APA in 1973 and removed from teh DSM. The World Health Organisation only de-classified it in 1990 and removed it from the ISM. Both organisations replaced it with ego-dystonic sexual orienatation, which is when an individual views their sexual orientation as repugnant. This obviously gives the ex-gay movement loads of ammunition to de-gay individuals that feel living in a society that does not accept them and change them into "normal" people by means of intrusive, traumatic and frankly useless forms of therapy .


In our country, homosexuality was only legalised in 1993 and though things have improved ten-fold, we still have a long way to go to get equal rights. An queer individual may have had the right to vote, but their bedroom practices were found to be morally repugnant as to be out-lawed.

I'm not sure that the argument that queer individuals do not face daily problems is viable. I can say that I do not, as I am a happy, well adjusted individual that lives in an urban area. There are many people that have remained in the closet for their whole lives, who would beg to differ. We only have to examine the testimonies of young queer people growing up in unaccepting families and small minded communites to contrast this, without adding the abnormally high suicide rate that afflicts many young people in this country and abroad.

who is this

Actually literally "apartheid" is correct. "apart-" meaning, separate, and "-heid" being the equivalent of "-hood", so "separatehood" or "separateness".

And you can't say it's not "separateness"

And I know I'm splitting hairs but if you're gonna make a big deal about people using the term figuratively I had to point that out.

wonderfulname

who is this wrote: »

Actually literally "apartheid" is correct. "apart-" meaning, separate, and "-heid" being the equivalent of "-hood", so "separatehood" or "separateness".

And you can't say it's not "separateness"

And I know I'm splitting hairs but if you're gonna make a big deal about people using the term figuratively I had to point that out.

Derived from the Afrikaans word for apartness, that doesn't mean they share the same definition though, in general terms it means a policy of separating or segregating groups. The civil partnership bill does not represent a general policy of discrimination, hence the term is overkill.

Anyway, back on track, I agree fully that the civil marriage bill is nowhere near satisfactory, and indeed that all it does is cement inequality into the law. I am hopeful that it won't last long, at least in its current form, and it seems as though I may be right, given the new programme for government.

As greyed pointed out it will see a convention which will discuss, amongst other things, marriage equality, but it also appears to make provisions for changes to the current civil partnership legislation, including ones to cater for the children of gay couples.

oisindoyle

diddlybit wrote: »

I've always felt that the Irish constitution has been a little vague on what consitiutes marraige and that establishing provisions for same-sex marriage wouldn't be a constitutional minefield, but since Zappone's and Gilligan's case lost, I'm clearly wrong.

Their case is still before the Supreme Court and a ruleing is due in the coming months .

Annasopra

diddlybit wrote: »

In our country, homosexuality was only legalised in 1993 and though things have improved ten-fold, we still have a long way to go to get equal rights. An queer individual may have had the right to vote, but their bedroom practices were found to be morally repugnant as to be out-lawed.

I'm not sure that the argument that queer individuals do not face daily problems is viable.

I did not say that LGBT individuals do not face daily problems. In fact I said that we do. I was suggesting that our daily lives are not as oppressed or difficult as those of black people living under the South African regime. There are lots of LGBT people suffering injustices and inequalities and discrimination on a daily basis but not to the same level as black people living under apartheid.

johnnycee66

Getting back to the original question on the post, I and my partner will be getting partnershipped this year. Having been in a relationship 15 years, we will be taking this opportunity of protection (and public statement), no matter how limited it may be perceived by others. Having been around a while (ahem), and can remember how it was pre-1993, and the euphoria of simple change, I'm very pleased with this societal mark of recognition. Yes, it could be better, yes, it probably will be, but we will be celebrating what this step means for us, and the validation it gives our relationship to all who matter to us. For the moment, that's good enough for me.

diddlybit

johnnycee66 wrote: »

Getting back to the original question on the post, I and my partner will be getting partnershipped this year. Having been in a relationship 15 years, we will be taking this opportunity of protection (and public statement), no matter how limited it may be perceived by others. Having been around a while (ahem), and can remember how it was pre-1993, and the euphoria of simple change, I'm very pleased with this societal mark of recognition. Yes, it could be better, yes, it probably will be, but we will be celebrating what this step means for us, and the validation it gives our relationship to all who matter to us. For the moment, that's good enough for me.

Congratulations! I wish you and your partner a long and happy partnership.

Killer_banana

greyed wrote: »

The new programme for government commits to establishing a 'Constitutional convention' which is to provide a report within 12 months on various constitutional reforms, including "Provision for same-sex marriage".

This looks like progress, no?... or am I being naive? :P It seems FGs right wing social tendencies have been significantly influenced by Labour.

Labour wanted to hold a referendum on the issue but Fine Gael didn't agree so the compromised with a constitutional convention. It's better than nothing but as said on the radio (no idea what station, Dad just had it on in the car the last day) any recommendations made by the convention can be completely ignored by the government if they want. Still if Labour keep pushing for it we might get somewhere. I guess only time will tell.

baby and crumble

Yep, myself and the gf (well, fiancee now, I guess!) are planning our ceremony. We're treating it as a statement of love and commitment and to safegaurd our rights as next of kin etc. I don't want to pretend to be her sister to visit her in hospital. I proposed last year and we went to our first wedding fair 2 weeks ago, and I have to say the reactions we got from the vendors there were amazing. No-one batted an eyelid at all. It was great.

TBH neither of us want 'marriage', never did. We see marriage as a religious notion which we want nothing to do with. This suits us perfectly. The only thing that isn't right, in my opinion, is that childrens rights aren't protected with civil partnership. But that's a long way off in my future, and part of me thinks- why cut off my nose to spite my face? I want to the legal and moral rights that being in a state registered union will give me, like the tax benefits, next of kin rights and all the rest. No, it's not perfect, it's still a separate system. But the only way, I think, that change will come in small steps. When people get used to seeing two girls planning a registration, two seeing 2 guys in an engagement notice in the Irish Times, then it becomes the norm. Anyway, most people are calling it marriage anyway. I still tell people I'm engaged, and for shorthand sake, we're planning a wedding.

But in reality it's just going to be the mother of all parties. :cool:

atgate

Here's what I think. We deserve Civil Marriage but realistically all we could get from the last government was Civil Partnership. I doubt refusing the law change would have got us further.

If someone owes me €100 and say they can only pay me €80 I'll take the €80 and pursue them for the €20 - in fact it strengthens my case for the balance.

So we have CP and when the Children's amendment to the constitution happens and the guardianship bill is passed there really won't be any rational argument against Civil Marriage even if you're a member of the Iona Institute

I also don't agree with the argument that we'll lose momentum in Civil Marriage because we accept Civil Partnership. I for one will fight even harder after my CP ceremony (which is happening alarmingly soon).

generalmiaow

My parents only got married two years ago, in a civil ceremony in town, and it was lovely. It had everything good that a church wedding has - but they had much more control over it, the staff were very pleasant and there was no big moralising sermon in the middle. They had already been together for 34 years or so but hadn't married for various reasons. Now their friends are getting partnershipped (two men, they have been together for many years) in a few weeks. They are treating it as a wedding.

Apart from the legal meaning of the partnership, where I agree that full marriage recognition is the way forward and it can't happen soon enough, their being able to have the same ceremony as my parents is great, it really is better. One positive thing for them is that I'm sure in a year or two they will have another wedding!

bodice ripper

my partner of 12 years and I are not getting partnershipped.

A) because it is not good enough
because we have concerns that it may negatively affect her chances to get a US visa, as we heard tell that having a gay marriage or civil partnership to a us citizen (ie me) is seen as an incentive to over-stay your visa.


we are going to have a ceremony in front of friends and family to tell them that *we* regard ourselves as married.