And it begins... (bigot brigade anti-SSM leaflets) - ### Mod Warning in 1st Post ###

keithclancy

Daith wrote: »

Not quite. The Supreme Court interpreted the constitution as to mean marriage is between a man and woman. However they pointed out that it's not their job to legislate.

There is actually no reason why it couldn't be legislated and referred to the President to test it's constitutionality.

However it could still be used as a political thing for future elections such as in France.

So while I dislike it and think the chances of future parties wanting to make SSM illegal is small, a referendum would be the safest option.

I think the constitutional route is the best way to go.

The Germans for example had problems with Taxation and Social Security since many of the laws did not fit with same sex couples.

E.G.
Parental Leave
Tax Classes based on encouragement for people to have children and encourage population growth

If its in the Constitution at least a Court can rule the situation as unconstitutional.

You cannot plan for situations further down the road, things can happen that are not covered in legislation.

For example what if there is a situation where Social Security payments are applied differently because of Gender ? I.E. Female/Female and Female/Male are treated differently than Male/Male couples (hypothetically speaking)

At least in that case the court could refer to the constitution.

Peist2007

osarusan wrote: »

Either your sarcasm monitor is broken, or mine is.

Mine is the one that's broken. Sorry Flogg

floggg

keithclancy wrote: »

I think the constitutional route is the best way to go.

The Germans for example had problems with Taxation and Social Security since many of the laws did not fit with same sex couples.

E.G.
Parental Leave
Tax Classes based on encouragement for people to have children and encourage population growth

If its in the Constitution at least a Court can rule the situation as unconstitutional.

You cannot plan for situations further down the road, things can happen that are not covered in legislation.

For example what if there is a situation where Social Security payments are applied differently because of Gender ? I.E. Female/Female and Female/Male are treated differently than Male/Male couples (hypothetically speaking)

At least in that case the court could refer to the constitution.

I don't see why a constitutional amendment is required to resolve any six if hypothetical difficulty.

The constitution already requires equality, so if there was a gender related difference it would likely be unconstitutional unless objectively justified and proportionate.

Also, other countries have been able to easily and successfully introduce marriage equality through legislation without any significant consequential problems arising.

Germany doesn't hve marriage equality yet btw.

Beano

floggg wrote: »

I don't see why a constitutional amendment is required to resolve any six if hypothetical difficulty.

The constitution already requires equality, so if there was a gender related difference it would likely be unconstitutional unless objectively justified and proportionate.

Also, other countries have been able to easily and successfully introduce marriage equality through legislation without any significant consequential problems arising.

Germany doesn't hve marriage equality yet btw.

but the constitution also defines marriage as between a man and a woman. so the constitution needs to be changed.

keithclancy

floggg wrote: »

I don't see why a constitutional amendment is required to resolve any six if hypothetical difficulty.

The constitution already requires equality, so if there was a gender related difference it would likely be unconstitutional unless objectively justified and proportionate.

Also, other countries have been able to easily and successfully introduce marriage equality through legislation without any significant consequential problems arising.

Germany doesn't hve marriage equality yet btw.

If that was the case then unmarried fathers in Ireland would have legal rights in respect of their child as they could just point to the constitution and say its discriminatory.

In Germany they are still tackling the topic of adoption, but equal taxation has been applied in that if one is working and the other not the person working can go into Tax Class 3, the same as a Male/Female couple.

Daith

Beano wrote: »

but the constitution also defines marriage as between a man and a woman. so the constitution needs to be changed.

No it doesn't.

One eyed Jack

Beano wrote: »

but the constitution also defines marriage as between a man and a woman. so the constitution needs to be changed.

It actually doesn't believe it or not. It doesn't even define marriage. It doesn't even define the family. It's literally just been taken as a given since the inception of the constitution that the family is the fundamental social structure of society, and that the family is protected by the institution of marriage.

Marriage equality wasn't even considered because homosexuality was already deemed illegal somewhere else in the constitution at the time.

You're right though, constitutional change is necessary, because if it were only legislative change, this would leave the way open for said legislation to be challenged at the earliest opportunity.

My issue with this whole referendum is that I have concerns that politicians will yet again include some clause that will appease the RCC, because they really don't have the balls to ignore the influence of the RCC Hierarchy and draft legislation that applies to all citizens of this country regardless of their religious beliefs.

Beano

Daith wrote: »

No it doesn't.

the judges in the supreme court disagree with you.

Daith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It actually doesn't believe it or not. It doesn't even define marriage. It doesn't even define the family. It's literally just been taken as a given since the inception of the constitution that the family is the fundamental social structure of society, and that the family is protected by the institution of marriage.

I'm in no way a legal expert but I do wonder what would happen if a same sex family were to take a case that weren't protected by marriage.

I guess it would amount to the same thing. Judges decide a marriage is a man, woman and children and the government need to legislate or change it.

Daith

Beano wrote: »

the judges in the supreme court disagree with you.

No they wouldn't. It's not defined in our Constitution.

Beano

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It actually doesn't believe it or not. It doesn't even define marriage. It doesn't even define the family. It's literally just been taken as a given since the inception of the constitution that the family is the fundamental social structure of society, and that the family is protected by the institution of marriage.

Marriage equality wasn't even considered because homosexuality was already deemed illegal somewhere else in the constitution at the time.

ok then i was incorrect to say "define". but the interpretation of the supreme court is that the constitution should be read in the context of marriage being between a man and a woman. after all, at the time it was framed no other possibilities were imaginable.

Beano

Daith wrote: »

No they wouldn't. It's not defined in our Constitution.

but they already have.

Daith

Beano wrote: »

but they already have.

It's not in our constitution. Jeez. The Judges interpreted the document. Two different things.

No judge in Ireland would say marriage is defined in our constitution. You already said you were incorrect.

One eyed Jack

Beano wrote: »

ok then i was incorrect to say "define". but the interpretation of the supreme court is that the constitution should be read in the context of marriage being between a man and a woman. after all, at the time it was framed no other possibilities were imaginable.

Can't think of the various cases off the top of my head but both here and in the UK (our laws are based on UK law), there were legal challenges mounted previously to clarify the wording of the constitution, and it was judged in those cases that the family was regarded as the relationship between a man and a woman, and that marriage was the institution which gave the family protection of society.

Don't quote me on it but I think these cases were before homosexuality was decriminalised. They were definitely before civil partnerships and cohabitation legislation was introduced (2010).

floggg

Beano wrote: »

but the constitution also defines marriage as between a man and a woman. so the constitution needs to be changed.

It doesn't.

Beano

floggg wrote: »

It doesn't.

yeah, that has already been established. do try to keep up.

One eyed Jack

Daith wrote: »

I'm in no way a legal expert but I do wonder what would happen if a same sex family were to take a case that weren't protected by marriage.

I guess it would amount to the same thing. Judges decide a marriage is a man, woman and children and the government need to legislate or change it.

No legal expert myself, but this is why I have an issue with the Government suggesting that the Children and Families bill will address those issues.

floggg addressed this before but I still think that it would have been better to have this referendum out of the way first, and then draft legislation based on the outcome of that. floggg suggested that all will need to be done if the referendum passes is to change the wording of the legislation from "civil partnerships" to "marriage".

Something still tells me it's never going to be that simple and straightforward.

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No legal expert myself, but this is why I have an issue with the Government suggesting that the Children and Families bill will address those issues.

floggg addressed this before but I still think that it would have been better to have this referendum out of the way first, and then draft legislation based on the outcome of that. floggg suggested that all will need to be done if the referendum passes is to change the wording of the legislation from "civil partnerships" to "marriage".

Something still tells me it's never going to be that simple and straightforward.

Nope.

I said there is no need for a referendum, and all that was required was a legislative change.

But I did say all pre-existing legislation could be easily amended - either by the global change suggested or amending each piece individually (likely by making reference to applicable legislation in a schedule to the act.

The global change would be easiest.

rainbow kirby

The Irish version of the constitution takes precedence, and the word "teaghlach" is used, which means household or family in general. Nowhere is it explicitly defined in the constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman. The Zappone judgement came down to whether the constitution should be "read as intended" or "read as written".

silverharp

looks like the rantings or some Nordi or American happy clappers here. the more the better , should push the yes vote even higher

floggg

keithclancy wrote: »

If that was the case then unmarried fathers in Ireland would have legal rights in respect of their child as they could just point to the constitution and say its discriminatory.

In Germany they are still tackling the topic of adoption, but equal taxation has been applied in that if one is working and the other not the person working can go into Tax Class 3, the same as a Male/Female couple.

Single fathers is a tricky example. As I recall, the constitutional references to marriage (undefined) and role of the mother cause issues.

However, if marriage equality is introduced, same sex marriages will be protected equally.

Equal tax is already provided for through CPs so shouldn't cause an issue.

I really can't see any possible issues. Fathers rights is the last real differential treatment between the sexes under irish law that I am aware of. So unless there is some weird quirk whereby lesbian parents are treated better than gay male parents - and that would only apply where one of the parents was a biological parent - I can't see an issue.

One eyed Jack

floggg wrote: »

Single fathers is a tricky example. As I recall, the constitutional references to marriage (undefined) and role of the mother cause issues.

However, if marriage equality is introduced, same sex marriages will be protected equally.

Equal tax is already provided for through CPs so shouldn't cause an issue.

I really can't see any possible issues. Fathers rights is the last real differential treatment between the sexes under irish law that I am aware of. So unless there is some weird quirk whereby lesbian parents are treated better than gay male parents - and that would only apply where one of the parents was a biological parent - I can't see an issue.

As I understand it so far, the Children and Families bill is supposed to be addressing those guardianship issues (as well as IVF and surrogacy issues), but I haven't seen anything approaching a final draft yet. I've never viewed the issues surrounding guardianship as simply a father's rights issue, because in all cases, the family courts are basing their judgment on what's in the best interests of the children, and not simply what the parents feel are their rights, so my focus has always been primarily on the child's rights, and the welfare of the children, regardless of their parent's issues.

I can see plenty of issues arising from the new Children and Families bill for a lot of these advocacy groups in that previously they weren't advocating for the rights of homosexual fathers, and now, the new legislation may cause them to confront their own prejudices.

It's an issue I see with a lot of these advocacy groups that have a specific profile that they often don't take account of the fact that people are far more complex than just one single aspect of themselves, and if someone doesn't fit their exact profile, they don't want to know, which can cause many people to go ignored or be swept to one side.

keithclancy

floggg wrote: »

Single fathers is a tricky example. As I recall, the constitutional references to marriage (undefined) and role of the mother cause issues.

However, if marriage equality is introduced, same sex marriages will be protected equally.

Equal tax is already provided for through CPs so shouldn't cause an issue.

I really can't see any possible issues. Fathers rights is the last real differential treatment between the sexes under irish law that I am aware of. So unless there is some weird quirk whereby lesbian parents are treated better than gay male parents - and that would only apply where one of the parents was a biological parent - I can't see an issue.

That's why I said an amendment to the constitution was a better idea than adding it to legislation.

I'd still prefer to see it enshrined as a right and clearly stipulated in the constitution rather than see some poor sod fall into a legal grey area they never though of and spend years trying to fight the situation in court.

floggg

keithclancy wrote: »

That's why I said an amendment to the constitution was a better idea than adding it to legislation.

I'd still prefer to see it enshrined as a right and clearly stipulated in the constitution rather than see some poor sod fall into a legal grey area they never though of and spend years trying to fight the situation in court.

But I don't believe any constitutional amendment dealing with marriage equality would necessarily cure any constitutonal issues re single fathers so any issue in that regard may likely remain.

Fathers rights is certainly something that needs to be addresses, though a separate issue.

LorMal

Peist2007 wrote: »

What do you mean context? If someone says they have been insulted it should be very simple to point out where the insult lies. You said posters on this thread insulted you yet you are the only one throwing out insults. Why are you doing so?

You are doing it again!! This time it's 'you said posters on this thread insulted you'........
No I didn't.

Brian Shanahan

hoodwinked wrote: »

to be honest they are the people who changed my attitude towards religion to the point i agreed to have our daughter baptized (as my husband desperately wanted to) purely because of their attitudes and it's the kind of attitude i'd love for them to pass onto her, but while priest's like him aren't the norm they are the prevailing attitudes coming forward in younger priests in the church, while like other professions the older outdated views are dying out. the sooner the better imo.

A) Would it not have been better to let your daughter choose whether she wanted to be part of a religion instead of imposing your choice on her before she could object? And remember there is no way to officially leave the rcc.

The church is getting more backwards and conservative, not less. They know they've lost Europe and North America (and huge swaths of Latin America too) so now they are tailoring their message to the backwards homophobes in Africa which is the last great bastion of rcc growth. Don't believe the soft soaping of Bergoglio, the true message of the rcc is "Stone all gheys!" and it will continue to be so until the rotten, evil and corrupt empire dies its final death.

Brian Shanahan

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Someone with secret studies that go against the common conclusion of people who know what they are doing. Care to share?

I'm guessing one Mark Regnerus was involved in said "studies".

david75

DUBLIN PRIEST, MARTIN DOLAN, BRAVELY TOLD HIS CONGREGATION THAT HE WAS GAY AFTER SHOWING SUPPORT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, AND WAS MET WITH A STANDING OVATION FROM PARISHIONERS.


Last weekend, Father Martin Dolan of the Church of St Nicholas of Myra in Dublin’s city centre, urged his congregation to vote Yes in this year’s same-sex marriage referendum, revealing in his sermon, “I’m gay myself.”

Proud parishioners stood and applauded the priest for his controversial revelation. Liz O’Connor, a community youth worker, told the Irish Sun, “We are all very proud of Martin. Because he has admitted that he is gay doesn’t change the person that he was before he said it.”

While most parishioners commended Father Dolan, some called for his removal from the church.



“I wouldn’t like to see him being moved for the statement he made. That would be horrendous,” O’Connor contested.

“He should be supported. He has done nothing wrong. If he’s moved, there would be uproar in this parish. He’s still the same man today. Martin has always been an advocate of people’s rights, and even spoke about the child abuse in the Church.

“There’s not many [priests] that would come out because they’re afraid of the bishops and that, but Martin is his own man. That’s what he believes in.”

A source in the Catholic Church reportedly told The Irish Sun, “It was very brave. He said he was gay. That was it…no bones about it. There’s a lot of gay priests but nobody will actually get up and say it.”

The Dublin Archdiocese refuse to comment until speaking with Father Dolan.

david75

from a friends mother

My mother was there last Saturday.its our local church.she said the reaction was overwhelming positive from everyone there on Saturday.told everyone he would be in a relationship with a man if he wasn't a priest.young and old stood to there feet and applauded
ed his honesty.over the years he has been a very open priest about all things wrong with the church.he speaks his mind on all subjects.

Smart Bug

david75 wrote: »

DUBLIN PRIEST, MARTIN DOLAN, BRAVELY TOLD HIS CONGREGATION THAT HE WAS GAY AFTER SHOWING SUPPORT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, AND WAS MET WITH A STANDING OVATION FROM PARISHIONERS.


Last weekend, Father Martin Dolan of the Church of St Nicholas of Myra in Dublin’s city centre, urged his congregation to vote Yes in this year’s same-sex marriage referendum, revealing in his sermon, “I’m gay myself.”

Proud parishioners stood and applauded the priest for his controversial revelation. Liz O’Connor, a community youth worker, told the Irish Sun, “We are all very proud of Martin. Because he has admitted that he is gay doesn’t change the person that he was before he said it.”

While most parishioners commended Father Dolan, some called for his removal from the church.



“I wouldn’t like to see him being moved for the statement he made. That would be horrendous,” O’Connor contested.

“He should be supported. He has done nothing wrong. If he’s moved, there would be uproar in this parish. He’s still the same man today. Martin has always been an advocate of people’s rights, and even spoke about the child abuse in the Church.

“There’s not many [priests] that would come out because they’re afraid of the bishops and that, but Martin is his own man. That’s what he believes in.”

A source in the Catholic Church reportedly told The Irish Sun, “It was very brave. He said he was gay. That was it…no bones about it. There’s a lot of gay priests but nobody will actually get up and say it.”

The Dublin Archdiocese refuse to comment until speaking with Father Dolan.

I can't find a reference to this in an Irish news publication
Found foreign/UK references