Septic Party Seeks the Gay Vote

foggy_lad

At the Fianna Fail ard fheis these crooks have voted to now support Gay Marriage and Adoption after blocking both for years! crooks turncoats and traitors is all the party consists of now!

They will bend over and do whatever it takes now to get a bit of support after they brought the country to its knees!

L.Jenkins

Ha, see there ard fheis turn out. They expected 3000 and there were nothing but a handful sitting about. It 'could be possible' that FF may follow the PDs out the door.

Aurongroove

worlds funniest thread title.

Pacifist Pigeon

Fianna Fáil:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQDiKGRut80

L.Jenkins

The auld Fianna Fail party line up, I think Brian Cowan just bearly got the head in in the bottom left corner.

Annasopra

Senator Averil Power is also introducing a bill to get rid of the employment equality exemption for lgb people in schools/hospitals etc - she's leaving out the T so yes they want equality for some but not others

L1011

mango salsa wrote: »

Senator Averil Power is also introducing a bill to get rid of the employment equality exemption for lgb people in schools/hospitals etc - she's leaving out the T so yes they want equality for some but not others

Have you read the proposed heads? Its a bill to remove the exemption at hiring time but leave it in place for dismissals etc and was initially drafted to cover education only! Basketcase of a bill by a basketcase party.

The proper way to do it is to remove the exemption clause and that's it. It'll prevent ANY of the equality provisions being broken, end of. Tiny change to the existing bill.


FF have realised that some of their old, rural voters are going to follow wherever O'Cuiv ends up shortly and they also (somehow) aren't stupid enough to not notice that they have zero TDs in Dublin, Meath, North Kildare and Wicklow = the entire commuter belt, about a third of the country population wise, and the engine of what's left of our economy. So they're willing to cut adrift a few old core supporters in the hope of recovering what they once had in the East.

Their TD in Louth wouldn't have got elected if he wasn't Ceann Comhairle and their TD in Kildare South wouldn't have got elected if FG or Labour ran a second candidate - so the FF-free belt should be a lot bigger.

wonderfulname

mango salsa wrote: »

she's leaving out the T so yes they want equality for some but not others

I noticed that alright, its painfully obviously intentional when you read the text, almost as though it was there in the original draft and someone came along and crossed out any reference. Kinda defeats the purpose really, actually even just the fact that it's an amendment rather than a removal does that, there are a lot more people affected by that ugly bit of legislation than just LGBs, we're just more vocal on it, doubt she even understood what she was proposing.

Pacifist Pigeon

"Fianna Fáil has always supported gay marriage" - Fianna Fáil spokesperson.

Annasopra

MYOB wrote: »

Have you read the proposed heads? Its a bill to remove the exemption at hiring time but leave it in place for dismissals etc

really? that's not my reading of it

www.cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2012/02/EMPLOYMENT-EQUALITY-AMENDMENT-BILL-2012.docx

floggg

Seriously? Whatever about their past wrongs, they come out and make a loud and positive declaration in support of LGB rights and all people can do is b1tch and moan?

How about saying they have a long long long way to go in reforming their policies, methods and image but this is a positive step and is to be welcomed?

Not everybody in FF was a crony who ruined politics. There is a new generation off FF politicians emerging and I'd rather spend my time applauding good work that they do (while criticising the bad) then harping on about past wrongs.

FF were always going to move in this direction as the country did. I am just surprised that they did it so soon and is hopefully a sign that the younger more progressive wing of the party is coming to the fore.

That makes it 3 of the 4 largest parties more or less in favour of marriage equality which is amazing.

L.Jenkins

floggg wrote: »

How about saying they have a long long long way to go in reforming their policies, methods and image but this is a positive step and is to be welcomed?

I honestly think they have along way to go before ever being re-eleccted. Of course, that's if the Irish don't suffer from short term memory loss in the mean time. So I think, they'll have more than enough time to get it right.

Dr. Baltar

floggg wrote: »

Seriously? Whatever about their past wrongs, they come out and make a loud and positive declaration in support of LGB rights and all people can do is b1tch and moan?

How about saying they have a long long long way to go in reforming their policies, methods and image but this is a positive step and is to be welcomed?

Not everybody in FF was a crony who ruined politics. There is a new generation off FF politicians emerging and I'd rather spend my time applauding good work that they do (while criticising the bad) then harping on about past wrongs.

FF were always going to move in this direction as the country did. I am just surprised that they did it so soon and is hopefully a sign that the younger more progressive wing of the party is coming to the fore.

That makes it 3 of the 4 largest parties more or less in favour of marriage equality which is amazing.

Well done Fianna Fáil for jumping on the bandwagon. Yes it's good but they won't be getting my vote EVER. Never forget. Never forgive.

wonderfulname

floggg wrote: »

Seriously? Whatever about their past wrongs, they come out and make a loud and positive declaration in support of LGB rights and all people can do is b1tch and moan?

How about saying they have a long long long way to go in reforming their policies, methods and image but this is a positive step and is to be welcomed?

Not everybody in FF was a crony who ruined politics. There is a new generation off FF politicians emerging and I'd rather spend my time applauding good work that they do (while criticising the bad) then harping on about past wrongs.

FF were always going to move in this direction as the country did. I am just surprised that they did it so soon and is hopefully a sign that the younger more progressive wing of the party is coming to the fore.

That makes it 3 of the 4 largest parties more or less in favour of marriage equality which is amazing.

I didn't once think about FF 'ruining' politics when I saw this, I'm disgusted by these pro gay moves because because they're not being made because they're right, they're transparently being made to change the party image and gain votes, I'm not going to give them a pat on the back for that, I'll recognise the statistical benefit, but that's it.

floggg

I wouldn't necessarily be so sceptical about whether they believe this is the right move or are just hoping to gain political mileage.

Ogra FF passed a similar motion two years ago or so. Most of the younger generation are pro marriage equality and this motion is probably at least partially a reflection of thr fact that the younger and more progressive elements of FF are coming to the fore as the party rebuilds.

Even if they are doing this as a cynical ploy for votes, it's still an exteemy significant move in my book. Unlike labour, who have an urban and more socially liberal support base, FF have a traditionally conservative support. FF coming out in favour of marriage equality will bring some of those supporters along with them.

It also I would hope put more pressure on FG on the marriage equality issue. Now the three biggest parties in the Dail are pro-marriage equality. FG will be under increased pressur to take a declared position, and they may not want to cast themselves as firmly anti-marriage equality when they know from recent surveys that the majority of the electorate, and particularly the younger electorate, are in favour of it.

I think it's also significant that FF are taking a declared position which is contrary to the catholic churches position. It's a fairly significant reflectin of the churches diminishing influence, when they are willing to risk a "catholic" backlash. I'm told Labour and FG were taken aback by the amount of flack they got over the Vatican embassy closing, which might have deterred politicians from taking any contrary stances for a while.

Pacifist Pigeon

Actions speak louder than words.

Conor30

floggg wrote: »

Seriously? Whatever about their past wrongs, they come out and make a loud and positive declaration in support of LGB rights and all people can do is b1tch and moan?

How about saying they have a long long long way to go in reforming their policies, methods and image but this is a positive step and is to be welcomed?

Not everybody in FF was a crony who ruined politics. There is a new generation off FF politicians emerging and I'd rather spend my time applauding good work that they do (while criticising the bad) then harping on about past wrongs.

FF were always going to move in this direction as the country did. I am just surprised that they did it so soon and is hopefully a sign that the younger more progressive wing of the party is coming to the fore.

That makes it 3 of the 4 largest parties more or less in favour of marriage equality which is amazing.

They're just making the point, that, after all their years in power ( and being against gay marriage), it's funny how they're now claiming to support gay marriage. It's not difficult to see some cynicism in this, even if one if a FF supporter. FF have always been populist, in my opinion. So maybe the fact that a substantial majority of Irish people support gay marriage, that FF feel they can safely jump on the bandwagon.
Mind you, Labour claim to support gay marriage - we still await them to actually do something about that too!

The fact that FF state that they support marriage equality is to be applauded, of course.

I suppose it's called politics for a reason!

Conor30

mango salsa wrote: »

Senator Averil Power is also introducing a bill to get rid of the employment equality exemption for lgb people in schools/hospitals etc - she's leaving out the T so yes they want equality for some but not others

At least it's still a move in the right direction. It's more than Labour and FG have done.

floggg

Conor30 wrote: »

At least it's still a move in the right direction. It's more than Labour and FG have done.

Indeed. Hopefully the T will follow but it's still progress.

glic71rods46t0

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Well done Fianna Fáil for jumping on the bandwagon. Yes it's good but they won't be getting my vote EVER. Never forget. Never forgive.

How christian of you:rolleyes:. But don't worry your hardline stance on FF is totally unnecessary. They are a small fringe morally bankrupt party now looking to suck up a few votes.
You have nothing to fear Dr Baltar - the government have no intentions of legalising gay marriage anytime soon.

floggg

62sqlgc0fkrx4m wrote: »

How christian of you:rolleyes:. But don't worry your hardline stance on FF is totally unnecessary. They are a small fringe morally bankrupt party now looking to suck up a few votes.
You have nothing to fear Dr Baltar - the government have no intentions of legalising gay marriage anytime soon.

Really? They have committed to looking at it as part of the Constitutional Convention, and all recent opinion polls show strong support for its introduction. It's a matter of when not if

Annasopra

Conor30 wrote: »

At least it's still a move in the right direction. It's more than Labour and FG have done.

No - it's a very cynical move to look for the so called pink vote while deliberately leaving transgender employees out in case of controversy - Equality for some but not for others is not equality.

foggy_lad

floggg wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily be so sceptical about whether they believe this is the right move or are just hoping to gain political mileage.

Ogra FF passed a similar motion two years ago or so. Most of the younger generation are pro marriage equality and this motion is probably at least partially a reflection of thr fact that the younger and more progressive elements of FF are coming to the fore as the party rebuilds.

Even if they are doing this as a cynical ploy for votes, it's still an exteemy significant move in my book. Unlike labour, who have an urban and more socially liberal support base, FF have a traditionally conservative support. FF coming out in favour of marriage equality will bring some of those supporters along with them.

It also I would hope put more pressure on FG on the marriage equality issue. Now the three biggest parties in the Dail are pro-marriage equality. FG will be under increased pressur to take a declared position, and they may not want to cast themselves as firmly anti-marriage equality when they know from recent surveys that the majority of the electorate, and particularly the younger electorate, are in favour of it.

I think it's also significant that FF are taking a declared position which is contrary to the catholic churches position. It's a fairly significant reflectin of the churches diminishing influence, when they are willing to risk a "catholic" backlash. I'm told Labour and FG were taken aback by the amount of flack they got over the Vatican embassy closing, which might have deterred politicians from taking any contrary stances for a while.

Fianna Failed is surely no longer one of the biggest parties in the Dail? FG then Labour then Sinn Fein and then the collection of independants could probably out-vote the party that brought Ireland to its knees! Young or old members, they will never change their old ideals and the young crowd are well trained in party politics and defending the party but they are wasting their time,

The Republican Party were outed as traitors!

glic71rods46t0

floggg wrote: »

Really? They have committed to looking at it as part of the Constitutional Convention, and all recent opinion polls show strong support for its introduction. It's a matter of when not if

emm - I don't see the government showing any signs of supporting a position that you claim is supported by the majority - why would politicans take such a contrary position I wonder?
Poorly constructed poll questions and a naive benign understanding of the concept of gay marriage I suspect. Meanwhile, those in power avoid the issue as they see no gain from it - just like that earlier poster who said never forget and never forgive - I don't see the LGBT community as an attractive constituency for mainstream political parties apart from fringe parties like FF "whoring" for support

L1011

mango salsa wrote: »

really? that's not my reading of it

www.cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2012/02/EMPLOYMENT-EQUALITY-AMENDMENT-BILL-2012.docx

It may have been changed AGAIN. Link isn't working right now, I'll try again later.

Conor30 wrote: »

At least it's still a move in the right direction. It's more than Labour and FG have done.

Both the Labour Minister for Education and the FG Minister for Health have stated they want the exemption for their respective areas removed (Quinn ages ago, Reilly in the Medical Times a few weeks ago). It'll be gone, properly, without any FF intervention shortly.

L1011

62sqlgc0fkrx4m wrote: »

emm - I don't see the government showing any signs of supporting a position that you claim is supported by the majority - why would politicans take such a contrary position I wonder?

As stated, its very much on the agenda for the Constitutional Convention and is in the legislation pipeline anyway should the AG decide that it doesn't need a referendum.

glic71rods46t0

MYOB wrote: »

As stated, its very much on the agenda for the Constitutional Convention and is in the legislation pipeline anyway should the AG decide that it doesn't need a referendum.

so a sure thing then??? What was all the "noise" about so?
Is the Fine Gael parlimentary party in favour of legislation for gay marriage?

L1011

62sqlgc0fkrx4m wrote: »

so a sure thing then??? What was all the "noise" about so?
Is the Fine Gael parlimentary party in favour of legislation for gay marriage?

The FG parliamentary party is against many things that they're going to be doing to ensure they stay in government.

If the AG rules that its not against the Constitution, expect the single line that mentions mixed-gender to be deleted from the Civil Registration Act, 2004 and legislation to allow the transfer of civil partnerships to civil marriages and to repeal the civil partnership elements of the Civil Partnership & Certain Rights & Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010.

If the AG rules that it is either obviously or possibly against the Constitution, it'll go to the Constitutional Convention to discuss whether to put it as one of the many referenda that could entail and then its down to the people.

There's no way that it being found to be unconstitutional (which, I must add, it has NOT been found to be despite FF's insistance) can be worked around without a referendum.

glic71rods46t0

MYOB wrote: »

The FG parliamentary party is against many things that they're going to be doing to ensure they stay in government.

If the AG rules that its not against the Constitution, expect the single line that mentions mixed-gender to be deleted from the Civil Registration Act, 2004 and legislation to allow the transfer of civil partnerships to civil marriages and to repeal the civil partnership elements of the Civil Partnership & Certain Rights & Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010.

If the AG rules that it is either obviously or possibly against the Constitution, it'll go to the Constitutional Convention to discuss whether to put it as one of the many referenda that could entail and then its down to the people.

There's no way that it being found to be unconstitutional (which, I must add, it has NOT been found to be despite FF's insistance) can be worked around without a referendum.

Are you confident of either situation? (Genuinely interested in your perspective. I am not gay and have been anti gay marriage but not trolling here)

Pride Fighter

Cynical vote getting excercise IMO. It was at Labour's insistence that homosexuality was decriminalised in 1993 (David Norris' case also was a factor) and it was at the Green's insistence Civil Partnership was introduced.

Actions speak louder than words or 'policy documents' that will never be implemented cause everyone hates you for betraying our nation. What does matter is what you do and FF is responsible for the constitution, a sexist, misogynistic document. Also FF has been in government 62 of the last 80 years and did not do a tap for LGBT rights, ever.

Dont be fooled folks.

L1011

62sqlgc0fkrx4m wrote: »

Are you confident of either situation? (Genuinely interested in your perspective. I am not gay and have been anti gay marriage but not trolling here)

The constitutional element relies entirely on how fluent the judges are in Irish - the standard opinion is that there is no constitutional ban in Irish and there's a poor English translation of the Irish that changes some critical words. Irish takes legal precedence.

If there's ruled to be no ban, it'll happen, and very shortly afterwards.

Referendum wise, I'm unsure whether it'd pass. However, its fairly inevitable that it'd go to referendum, and on a day with rakes of others. Could end up relying on the same "wet day" that got Divorce passed in a very different Ireland 17 years ago.

L1011

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Also FF has been in government 62 of the last 80 years and did not do a tap for LGBT rights, ever.

The Employment Equality legislation was also from FG pre-election in 1997 and the Probhibition of Incitement to Hatred act and Equal Status Acts were PD pushed elements of those Dail, before anyone tries to cite these.

FF on their own has never had any interest in LGBT protection/rights until when its forced in to a corner now and sees the (recently) very pro LGBT SF eating its dinner.

wonderfulname

Conor30 wrote: »

At least it's still a move in the right direction. It's more than Labour and FG have done.

It's not at all a move in the right direction, it's not a move in any direction. It wouldn't even fix anything, I can see nothing changing with it by technicality, i.e. sure you can teach if you're gay, but only if you're gay and celibate, as per catholic teachings. It's just a token move, the only thing that would actually do anything is the complete removal of section 37.

FG and Labour have been in government how long exactly? There's still 4 years of this government to go, have a bit of patience. As has been pointed out the constitutional convention is on it's way and the matter is yet to come out of the supreme court so things are happening.

LegacyUser

MYOB wrote: »

There's no way that it being found to be unconstitutional (which, I must add, it has NOT been found to be despite FF's insistance) can be worked around without a referendum.

Err, have you heard of the Zappone v Revenue case in which the Irish High Court found that our constitution, as currently worded, does not permit gay marriage?? This case is due to be heard by our Supreme Court this year and they will probably (being a rather conservative/deferential court) uphold the judgment.

I study law in college and, unfortunately, the consensus amongst our constitutional lecturers is that the constitution will need to be amended to allow it - there are just too many cases (and the wording of various related articles of the constitution itself) which point to it defining 'marriage' as between a man and a woman.

Btw I am totally in favour of gay marriage but it really is quite clear to me that we need a referendum to change the wording.

wonderfulname

I believe that's what MYOB was referring to, you've just said the same thing in a more negative manner - we don't know yet.

L1011

Stramae34 wrote: »

Err, have you heard of the Zappone v Revenue case in which the Irish High Court found that our constitution, as currently worded, does not permit gay marriage?? This case is due to be heard by our Supreme Court this year and they will probably (being a rather conservative/deferential court) uphold the judgment.

I'm aware of the case and I'm also aware of the fact that it has not gone to the Supreme Court and as such has not actually tested the constitution.

Stramae34 wrote: »

I study law in college and, unfortunately, the consensus amongst our constitutional lecturers is that the constitution will need to be amended to allow it - there are just too many cases (and the wording of various related articles of the constitution itself) which point to it defining 'marriage' as between a man and a woman.

There is only one issue, namely that there is a dodgy English translation where the word "family" has been put in place for what should be "household". There is nothing else in the constitution that can be interpreted as a ban at all.

Stramae34 wrote: »

Btw I am totally in favour of gay marriage but it really is quite clear to me that we need a referendum to change the wording.

Its not clear to actual constitutional lawyers, or else we wouldn't still have ongoing cases over it.

LegacyUser

MYOB wrote: »

I'm aware of the case and I'm also aware of the fact that it has not gone to the Supreme Court and as such has not actually tested the constitution.

Its not clear to actual constitutional lawyers, or else we wouldn't still have ongoing cases over it.

You should know that the High Court is perfectly entitled to make findings as to the meaning of constitutional provisions (as long as it doesn't go against a pre-existing supreme court judgment) - these are binding and can stand unless and until the Supreme Court overturns it. I think you are getting confused with an "article 26" reference whereby only the Supreme Court can consider the constitutionality of legislation which the President hasn't yet signed into law. The High Court can hear and adjudicate on all other constitutional questions.

There is other case law in which the Irish courts have explicitly defined marriage as being between one man and one woman (albeit when not remotely considering the issue of gay marriage) - look it up. Look, I wanted to believe our Constitution can allow for marriage equality too but there is just too much precedent (and contradictory language in the constitution itself) for an Irish court to suddenly turn around and say "oh wait actually the 1937 Constitution does allow marriage between two men or two women".

There is the concept of a 'living constitution' in which provisions of a constitution (no matter how old) should be interpreted in light of modern attitudes etc: But even adopting this approach it would be inconsistent and plain wrong to interpret the marriage provisions in the suggested manner.

LegacyUser

wonderfulname wrote: »

I believe that's what MYOB was referring to, you've just said the same thing in a more negative manner - we don't know yet.

No, he explicitly said that it had *not* been deemed to be unconstitutional. This is not true, in the High Court case of Zappone v Revenue it had already been held that our Constitution, in its current wording, does not allow it; ie it is unconstitutional. As I said, this is on appeal to the Supreme Court so we wait to see whether they will uphold this interpretation.

floggg

Stramae34 wrote: »

Err, have you heard of the Zappone v Revenue case in which the Irish High Court found that our constitution, as currently worded, does not permit gay marriage?? This case is due to be heard by our Supreme Court this year and they will probably (being a rather conservative/deferential court) uphold the judgment.

I study law in college and, unfortunately, the consensus amongst our constitutional lecturers is that the constitution will need to be amended to allow it - there are just too many cases (and the wording of various related articles of the constitution itself) which point to it defining 'marriage' as between a man and a woman.

Btw I am totally in favour of gay marriage but it really is quite clear to me that we need a referendum to change the wording.

My understanding of Zappone case was that the HC found that the constitution didn't require marriage equality, but that's a very different thing from saying its unconstitutional. The Constitution didn't require decriminalisation of gay sex but gay sex wasn't unconstitutional.

Fencer, we get it, you dont like gay marriage, your one of the 27% (and droppin) percent. Much like cyclists, we're here to stay though, and we will have marriage EQUALITY. I don't care who you spend your life with. Stop obsessing over who I spend mine with.

Dark Chocolate

The time to do something, and be shown to be genuine and sincere, was when they were in power, and they could walk the walk. But now, when they're on their knees and crippled, they try talk the talk and expect people, that they gave not a second thought for, to fall for their weasel words.

L1011

Stramae34 wrote: »

You should know that the High Court is perfectly entitled to make findings as to the meaning of constitutional provisions (as long as it doesn't go against a pre-existing supreme court judgment) - these are binding and can stand unless and until the Supreme Court overturns it.

And this case has been appealed to the SC...

The constitution wasn't written with any intent to ban something they didn't conceive existing and the claim that it bans it is based on a specific interpretation of a specific clause and nothing else.