Septic Party Seeks the Gay Vote

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.