Tánaiste announces that gay marriage will be on the Constitutional Convention

Coeurdepirate

http://www.labour.ie/blog/2012/07/01/time-has-come-to-move-on-gay-marriage-says-gilmore/

"I don't believe that it should ever be the role of the State to pass judgement on whom a person falls in love with, or whom they want to spend their life with. That is why the issue of same-sex marriage is to be included for consideration by the Constitutional Convention. I believe in gay marriage. The right of gay couples to marry is, quite simply, the civil rights issue of this generation, and, in my opinion, its time has come."

Hamhide

well it's about time

wonderfulname

We knew that before they were even voted in?

Coeurdepirate

wonderfulname wrote: »

We knew that before they were even voted in?

Did we?

1ZRed

I'm not one to get politics but does this mean it won't be put to public vote and just be added to the constitution?


If any bit of that is wrong, bare in mind I have zero of a clue about this kind of thing

Anyway it's good news!:)

wonderfulname

The convention was in the manifesto, and that it would cover marriage equality.

I'm not saying its old news and shouldn't be put up or anything, just wondering how much mileage labour can get out of this, I'm getting a bit sick of hearing about it, the convention had a large bearing on my vote, and not just because of the marriage issue, I'd like them to shut up and get on with it to be brutally honest.

It is brilliant to hear all these positive political sentiments of late, and it does do good, but it's starting to ring hollow for me.

wonderfulname

1ZRed wrote: »

I'm not one to get politics but does this mean it won't be put to public vote and just be added to the constitution?


If any bit of that is wrong, bare in mind I have zero of a clue about this kind of thing

Anyway it's good news!:)

No. It will be discussed by the convention, it may be recommended, it may be put to vote. I don't blame you for taking it up differently, that quote makes it sound like he's putting pen to paper and single handedly bringing about full marriage equality by morning.

Azure_sky

I hope you have your snorkels ready.

Coeurdepirate

I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but isn't this good news, something to be happy about? We finally have equal rights at our fingertips and everyone's bitching about it. Fair enough the government has been going on about it for a few months, but at least now we have some certainty, we now know that it will be considered. I actually just don't understand some people.

GarIT

I'm sure this will never affect me but its good to hear that after all these years people are finally getting closer to the equal rights that they deserve.

stephen_n

wonderfulname wrote: »

The convention was in the manifesto, and that it would cover marriage equality.

I'm not saying its old news and shouldn't be put up or anything, just wondering how much mileage labour can get out of this, I'm getting a bit sick of hearing about it, the convention had a large bearing on my vote, and not just because of the marriage issue, I'd like them to shut up and get on with it to be brutally honest.

It is brilliant to hear all these positive political sentiments of late, and it does do good, but it's starting to ring hollow for me.

There is a large difference between manifesto and manifest though! No increase in student fees was in the same document was it not? Any political promise that comes to fruition is worth noting :-) I just hope that if it makes it to a referendum, that the opinion poles will be proven right and it will be passed.

ninty9er

Putting it in the convention is just posturing when there's a political consensus. The only reason this is being held up is because FG voted at its Ard-Fheis to put it in the convention.

edit:
Positive all the same.

Conor30

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but isn't this good news, something to be happy about? We finally have equal rights at our fingertips and everyone's bitching about it. Fair enough the government has been going on about it for a few months, but at least now we have some certainty, we now know that it will be considered. I actually just don't understand some people.

Who's bitching about it?

DazMarz

While I think this is very cool, but in all fairness.... Labour are only bringing this up now because their popularity in the opinion polls. Drumming up support from a (fairly sizable) minority group.

Not saying it's not good, but there's a bit of cynicism involved with it being brought up at this juncture.

Pedant

Eww, you read the Labour Party's blog! EWWWW!!

Anyway, we all know that marriage equality will happen in the next, say, 2-3 years so there's nothing really stopping it, not even the mad raving religious clowns can stop it now.

Annasopra

DazMarz wrote: »

While I think this is very cool, but in all fairness.... Labour are only bringing this up now because their popularity in the opinion polls. Drumming up support from a (fairly sizable) minority group.

Not saying it's not good, but there's a bit of cynicism involved with it being brought up at this juncture.

Not exactly true. Labour had policy on partnership rights as far back as 1997 long before any other party. Labours LGBT section have existed since 2004 and have done a huge amount of campaigning on LGBT rights generally. ( Labour LGBT has marched at every Dublin Pride and other parades (Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford, Sligo, Belfast) GCN polling showed a few years ago that Labour attracted the highest LGBT vote.

I think it also says a lot about the work of Labour that they openly endorsed a motions from two trans delegates last year

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAgL6soPe9g&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUA97GIdPCU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

floggg

People really are cynical these days.

This is big news and a great development. Sure, it was in the manifesto but it's easy to say things in an opposition party manifesto, it's another thing to actually implement it. This statement won't change the law, but it shows a clear intent to move that way.

Gilmore may have supported marriage equality before but never to my mind in the office of Tanaiste. He's the second ranking person in the Government. His statements carry a lot more weight now than in opposition or even just as a back bencher and politician. This is being reported around the world, being are taking note - home and abroad.

The target market for these statements isn't necessarily LGBT people, it's everybody else who doesn't really have any vested issue in marriage equality. Everytime stories like this are reported, more people take not of the issue, think about the inequality and become less apathetic to the issue. It also softens the stance of some of those who are hostile to the idea without ever having put much thought into it.

And marriage equality won't happen in the next 2 - 3 years unless those of us who support it do something to help the cause. Best believe if it comes to a public vote (which it shouldn't - rights shouldn't be subject to public votes) the anti equality crowd will be out in force, pressurising TDs and stirring up hatred and opposition. We need to mobilise support for equality to show those people are a small minority and don't represent public opinion.

1ZRed

^ what I don't get is why straight people should get to decide and vote for what we're entitled to, like they're above us.

I never understood that. The people that would fight against equal rights have nothing to gain but just stop something that doesn't effect them, will never effect them and will not impact their life in anyway.

I've always likened not being heterosexual to being the new black but because sexuality is not seen as blatantly obvious as skin colour, the area is slow and stagnant to progress compared to the rights movement of black people.
Seriously? These movements spawned around the same time and still there are breaches of human rights now regarding homosexual people that are just overlooked and sometimes encouraged to stay that way by some people.
Why the hell should someone vote for something I should have by human right. It's a non issue for me, I should have it without any questioning based on one fact - that I am human and therefore deserving of it.

stephen_n

1ZRed wrote: »

^ what I don't get is why straight people should get to decide and vote for what we're entitled to, like they're above us.

I never understood that. The people that would fight against equal rights have nothing to gain but just stop something that doesn't effect them, will never effect them and will not impact their life in anyway.

I've always likened not being heterosexual to being the new black but because sexuality is not seen as blatantly obvious as skin colour, the area is slow and stagnant to progress compared to the rights movement of black people.
Seriously? These movements spawned around the same time and still there are breaches of human rights now regarding homosexual people that are just overlooked and sometimes encouraged to stay that way by some people.
Why the hell should someone vote for something I should have by human right. It's a non issue for me, I should have it without any questioning based on one fact - that I am human and therefore deserving of it.

Do you think that gay people should have a separate constitution and only vote on gay issues? Let's not even try to figure out who decides which are gay issues and which are hetero, shall we.

floggg

I think the point is not that straight people shouldn't be able to vote on a "gay" issue, but rather that the recognition of human rights should never be at mercy of any majority or other group. If something is seen as a recognised human right, it's not in the gift of the majority to grant it to a minority, it should be recognised as a freedom to which all people in a free society are entitled.

Personally, I'd love to see the Supreme Court rule in favour of marriage equality in the courts. That would be much more powerful and vindicating than a referendum as it would be a recognition that equality is something we are entitled to, not something we have to ask for.

I see Alan Shatter has stated that he "wouldn't disagree" with Gilmore. We now have the Tanaiste and the Minister for Justice indicating support for marriage equality.

Thats why Gilmore's statement is important - its starts dialogue and brings attention to the issue. And if it helps to bring FG, the only major political party yet to endorse marriage equality, around to the cause, then brilliant.

28064212

floggg wrote: »

Personally, I'd love to see the Supreme Court rule in favour of marriage equality in the courts. That would be much more powerful and vindicating than a referendum as it would be a recognition that equality is something we are entitled to, not something we have to ask for

That assumes that the Supreme Court will rule against the High Court and interpret the constitution as protecting the right to gay marriage. This is far from certain, even unlikely.

The constitution needs to be rewritten to enshrine it as a right, and that will need a referendum

1ZRed

stephen_n wrote: »

Do you think that gay people should have a separate constitution and only vote on gay issues? Let's not even try to figure out who decides which are gay issues and which are hetero, shall we.

floggg wrote: »

I think the point is not that straight people shouldn't be able to vote on a "gay" issue, but rather that the recognition of human rights should never be at mercy of any majority or other group. If something is seen as a recognised human right, it's not in the gift of the majority to grant it to a minority, it should be recognised as a freedom to which all people in a free society are entitled.

^
That was pretty much my point even if it might not have been fully clear. I think there shouldn't be any debate about it and just make it my right without even a second guess or with the opinions of the other majority included. I don't want a separate constitution, I just think that these things shouldn't be put in front of people to vote on because it's pretty much a basic entitlement that people should have.

28064212

1ZRed wrote: »

^
That was pretty much my point even if it might not have been fully clear. I think there shouldn't be any debate about it and just make it my right without even a second guess or with the opinions of the other majority included. I don't want a separate constitution, I just think that these things shouldn't be put in front of people to vote on because it's pretty much a basic entitlement that people should have.

The constitution is what enshrines our rights. The constitution can only be amended by a referendum

baby and crumble

Good to see cross-party, high level support for gay marriage- Justice Minister Alan Shatter has also come out in favour and support of full gay marriage as an equality issue.

http://www.thejournal.ie/gay-marriage-ireland-shatter-gilmore-506853-Jul2012/

Annasopra

1ZRed wrote: »

^
That was pretty much my point even if it might not have been fully clear. I think there shouldn't be any debate about it and just make it my right without even a second guess or with the opinions of the other majority included. I don't want a separate constitution, I just think that these things shouldn't be put in front of people to vote on because it's pretty much a basic entitlement that people should have.

I see where you are coming from but it is absolutely necessary to have a debate in order to change public policy in this area. Unfortunately our opponents have managed to drag this out for an extremely long time and use the constitution against us. I think if we want change in this particular area we either have to wait possibly another 8/10 years for a supreme ct judgement which could go against us anyway or we look for a constitutional referendum at this juncture.

28064212

mango salsa wrote: »

I think if we want change in this particular area we either have to wait possibly another 8/10 years for a supreme ct judgement

The KAL case is due to be heard this year - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0509/1224315799791.html

Annasopra

28064212 wrote: »

The KAL case is due to be heard this year - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0509/1224315799791.html

WAS due to be heard this year. It's going back to the high court. Given that the timing so far is about 8/9 years It could be another possible 8/9 years stuck in high court then supreme court.

http://www.thejournal.ie/zappone-and-gilligan-launch-fresh-legal-challenge-to-same-sex-marriage-ban-476348-Jun2012/

28064212

mango salsa wrote: »

WAS due to be heard this year. It's going back to the high court. Given that the timing so far is about 8/9 years It could be another possible 8/9 years stuck in high court then supreme court.

http://www.thejournal.ie/zappone-and-gilligan-launch-fresh-legal-challenge-to-same-sex-marriage-ban-476348-Jun2012/

They weren't permitted to add new grounds to their argument, but they're still going ahead with the original case: http://www.thejournal.ie/gilligan-and-zappone-vow-to-continue-with-supreme-court-appeal-261350-Oct2011/

Annasopra

28064212 wrote: »

They weren't permitted to add new grounds to their argument, but they're still going ahead with the original case: http://www.thejournal.ie/gilligan-and-zappone-vow-to-continue-with-supreme-court-appeal-261350-Oct2011/

No. They were not permitted to add new grounds in the Supreme Court. They are not pursuing the original case. As of June 2012 (not October 2011) They are going back to the High Court.

http://www.marriagequality.ie/justlove/aboutcase/updates/2012/06/06/zappone-and-gilligan-issuing-fresh-legal-challenge/

28064212

mango salsa wrote: »

No. They were not permitted to add new grounds in the Supreme Court. They are not pursuing the original case. As of June 2012 (not October 2011) They are going back to the High Court.

http://www.marriagequality.ie/justlove/aboutcase/updates/2012/06/06/zappone-and-gilligan-issuing-fresh-legal-challenge/

Thanks, I couldn't find anything on the current status.

Hopefully something will actually come out of the Constitution Convention, but sadly, I suspect that the fact that a case is on the books will just provide an excuse for "plans" to be shelved

floggg

28064212 wrote: »

That assumes that the Supreme Court will rule against the High Court and interpret the constitution as protecting the right to gay marriage. This is far from certain, even unlikely.

The constitution needs to be rewritten to enshrine it as a right, and that will need a referendum

I wasn't saying what will happen, I was stating what I'd like to see happen. I realise that the Supreme Court might not necessarily take that view.

That said, the SC has often taken a different view on issues than the HC. If they always reached the same conclusion, there wouldnt be any need for the SC, would there.

Personally, I'm not convinced by the argument that the Constitution does prevent marriage equality. Any such arguments are based on Article 41 whereby the state guarantees to protect the family and the institution of marriage. Nowhere though are "family" or "marriage" defined, and the certainly defined on a one man one woman basis.

It's a principle of constitutional interpretation that you apply the meaning of any word or term in the Constitution used at the date of the hearing, not back in 1937.

I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that marriage and family could be read as including same sex relationships/families today. I think this point was touched on in the KAL case but it was found that not enough countries embraced same sex marriage to justify interpreting Article 41 to include them. More and more countries now do provide for it, though maybe till the UK and a few more EU states bring it in, maybe there's not enough to convince the SC.

stephen_n

Of course it is a fundemental human right but the constitution is there for a reason and affords more protection to minorities than it undermines.

Some muppet from the IONA institute was on the last word treading out the same tired old arguments against gay marriage I found myself getting very annoyed that Matt Cooper gave him such an easy ride and hardly let the representative from GLEN speak at all!

floggg

mango salsa wrote: »

I see where you are coming from but it is absolutely necessary to have a debate in order to change public policy in this area. Unfortunately our opponents have managed to drag this out for an extremely long time and use the constitution against us. I think if we want change in this particular area we either have to wait possibly another 8/10 years for a supreme ct judgement which could go against us anyway or we look for a constitutional referendum at this juncture.

I guess it depends on how you view the issue. I see it as an issue of human rights, equality and dignity and respect. I don't see why I should have to persuade or convince anybody that I or my relationships deserve the same rights that others are automatically given or that my relationship isn't disordered, inferior, a threat to society or in any inferior, less valid and meaningful or worthy of the same respect.

If interracial marriage or racial integration was put to a vote in the sixties in the USA it would have lost in many states. It would be an affront to tell black Americans that they should have to persuade white America to grant then equality and that they weren't entitled to it until they could. For the same reason I think it's an affront that we have to persuade the Irish public of the merits of equality and that's why I'd rather the courts did it.

That said, the most important thing is that equality is achieved, regardless of how it's done.

28064212

floggg wrote: »

Personally, I'm not convinced by the argument that the Constitution does prevent marriage equality.

The problem is that it's not enough for the Constitution to "not prevent" it, it has to explicitly defend it. One possible outcome from the SC is that they decide it's a legislative decision on what family and marriage is. That means laws allowing gay marriage would be possible immediately, but equally that they could be overturned by a future government.

Unless the Supreme Court explicitly interprets "marriage" in the constitution to include gay marriage, a referendum should be the next step

floggg

stephen_n wrote: »

Of course it is a fundemental human right but the constitution is there for a reason and affords more protection to minorities than it undermines.

Some muppet from the IONA institute was on the last word treading out the same tired old arguments against gay marriage I found myself getting very annoyed that Matt Cooper gave him such an easy ride and hardly let the representative from GLEN speak at all!

A constitution can be wrong.

In any event I don't agree with the idea that it's he constitution prohibits it.

floggg

28064212 wrote: »

floggg wrote: »

Personally, I'm not convinced by the argument that the Constitution does prevent marriage equality.

The problem is that it's not enough for the Constitution to "not prevent" it, it has to explicitly defend it. One possible outcome from the SC is that they decide it's a legislative decision on what family and marriage is. That means laws allowing gay marriage would be possible immediately, but equally that they could be overturned by a future government.

Unless the Supreme Court explicitly interprets "marriage" in the constitution to include gay marriage, a referendum should be the next step

There is a distinction. But if the SC determines that it's not prohibited (which I believe to be the case) then other provisions of the Constitution become relevant - particularly the equality provision.

The Constitution does permit differing treatment for different groups, but there has to be a good reason for any such difference.

The Prop 8, DOMA, Massachusetts cases etc show that there is very little objectively justifiable justification for denying marriage equality, particularly where civil partnerships are permitted. Therefore if it's not prohibited by the Constitution, I think it will be hard in this day and age to stand over thr differing treatment.

Conor30

1ZRed wrote: »

^ what I don't get is why straight people should get to decide and vote for what we're entitled to, like they're above us.

I never understood that. The people that would fight against equal rights have nothing to gain but just stop something that doesn't effect them, will never effect them and will not impact their life in anyway.

I've always likened not being heterosexual to being the new black but because sexuality is not seen as blatantly obvious as skin colour, the area is slow and stagnant to progress compared to the rights movement of black people.
Seriously? These movements spawned around the same time and still there are breaches of human rights now regarding homosexual people that are just overlooked and sometimes encouraged to stay that way by some people.
Why the hell should someone vote for something I should have by human right. It's a non issue for me, I should have it without any questioning based on one fact - that I am human and therefore deserving of it.

Well said.

giveth

Maybe we can also have a referendum on straight marriage at the same time.
Would highlight how ridiculous it is to vote on such a thing.

stephen_n

floggg wrote: »

A constitution can be wrong.

In any event I don't agree with the idea that it's he constitution prohibits it.

The constitution is wrong that's why it requires an amendment!

Annasopra

stephen_n wrote: »

The constitution is wrong that's why it requires an amendment!

Not necessarily

Mark200

ninty9er wrote: »

Putting it in the convention is just posturing when there's a political consensus. The only reason this is being held up is because FG voted at its Ard-Fheis to put it in the convention.

edit:
Positive all the same.

Actually no, it was always the plan to put it in the convention... the motion at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis was to prioritise it in the convention - IE speed it up!

I believe it was in Labour's manifesto to hold a referendum on the issue, I would have been surprised if Gilmore hadn't supported it. But at the same time, it's still important and historic for him to say as Tanaiste that he does support equal marriage, swiftly followed by the Fine Gael Minister for Justice (and Equality) concurring.

It has similarity to how Obama came out with his support - he couldn't keep it quiet after his deputy and a member of his cabinet both came out in support of gay marriage.

Now there are calls for Enda to come out with his support...

It's quite interesting how groups can lobby for these changes for years and it can all come seemingly out of nowhere in a short period of time.

stephen_n

mango salsa wrote: »

Not necessarily

Well it may not be wrong but it's certainly unclear and open to interpretation which will require a referendum even if the supreme court does make a ruling?

toexpress

I think one of the most interesting things about this whole story is that Minister Shatter has come out in support of this as well.

Fine Gael now have an LGBT section and marched in Pride so it's a huge progress in the right direction when we have the Minister for Justice, a member of the senior government party supporting this move it's got to be a step in the right direction

Annasopra

stephen_n wrote: »

Well it may not be wrong but it's certainly unclear and open to interpretation which will require a referendum even if the supreme court does make a ruling?

Not necessarily. The supreme court could rule that marriage equality is not in fact an attack upon the institution of marriage and that it could in fact be permitted under the constitution.

stephen_n

mango salsa wrote: »

Not necessarily. The supreme court could rule that marriage equality is not in fact an attack upon the institution of marriage and that it could in fact be permitted under the constitution.

Oh right I didn't think that was the issue, I thought it was based on the loose definition of what marriage is in the constitution and how that could be interpreted.

Annasopra

stephen_n wrote: »

Oh right I didn't think that was the issue, I thought it was based on the loose definition of what marriage is in the constitution and how that could be interpreted.

Well yes it's both. The loose definition plus the fact that the constitution says

(3.1) The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

28064212

mango salsa wrote: »

Not necessarily. The supreme court could rule that marriage equality is not in fact an attack upon the institution of marriage and that it could in fact be permitted under the constitution.

If they rule that way, a referendum should still happen (IMO). There's a difference between gay marriage not being explicitly banned, and actually enshrined as a right. A future government could overturn legislation, unless the SC specifically interprets marriage in the constitution as including gay marriage

stephen_n

mango salsa wrote: »

Well yes it's both. The loose definition plus the fact that the constitution says

(3.1) The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

That was the main thrust of the Iona inst. guy earlier on the definition of the family. Which is why absolute clarity is required.

Annasopra

28064212 wrote: »

If they rule that way, a referendum should still happen (IMO). There's a difference between gay marriage not being explicitly banned, and actually enshrined as a right. A future government could overturn legislation, unless the SC specifically interprets marriage in the constitution as including gay marriage

There could be various different types of rulings.

28064212

mango salsa wrote: »

There could be various different types of rulings.

I agree, but (again, IMO) there are three main ones:

1. Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution
2. Gay marriage is against the Constitution
3. Gay marriage is not prevented, but is not explicitly a right

Unless they make the first ruling, I think a referendum should be held

Annasopra

28064212 wrote: »

I agree, but (again, IMO) there are three main ones:

1. Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution
2. Gay marriage is against the Constitution
3. Gay marriage is not prevented, but is not explicitly a right

Unless they make the first ruling, I think a referendum should be held

I personally don't really think marriage should be given special constitutional protection but anyway that's an aside.