How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

endacl

gravehold wrote: »

The question is will yes effect adoption like the no sides says and the answer is yes. Yes people are saying it has no effect so should be verboten to talk about.

The yes side are wrong on this in the debates

You do realise that if you took an hour off from posting, the Internet would become measurably smarter?

One eyed Jack

gravehold wrote: »

So the married straight couple get preference over the gay couple who cannot adopt

It wasn't because a couple were gay that they weren't eligible for adoption btw. Heterosexual cohabiting couples were also prohibited from applying jointly to adopt a child (my friend who is cohabiting with her boyfriend for years, had to apply solely to adopt a child they had fostered. They could not apply as a couple).

The relevant section of the Children and Family Relationship Act 2015 you're looking for is this bit -

The Bill amends the Adoption Act 2010 to extend its provisions
to civil partners and cohabiting couples. Civil partners and cohabiting
couples, where the latter have lived together for three years, will
have the right to apply jointly to adopt a child. It provides for such
couples to be subject to the same assessment processes and eligibility
criteria as for married couples. It also makes provisions for a civil
partnered or a same-sex cohabiting couple to place a child for
adoption where that child is the child of both of them. The Bill
provides for civil partners and cohabiting couples to be eligible for
adoptive leave.

Source: https://www.iasw.ie/attachments/Children_and_Family_Relationships_Bill_Explanatory_Memorandum_2015.pdf

The situation for unmarried couples under the terms of the Adoption Act 2010 are set out below -

Unmarried couples may not jointly adopt a child. A joint adoption by a couple is only possible where that couple is married and living together. This rule prevents an unmarried couple from jointly adopting a child even where one of the parties is the biological or legal parent of the child. There are no proposals to change adoption law in Ireland to permit adoption by unmarried couples.

Under the adoption legislation, it is possible for a single person to adopt if the Adoption Authority considers it desirable and it must regard the welfare of the child as its first and paramount consideration. This means that if you are living with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner, you may apply to the Authority to adopt a child in your own right, intending to raise the child with your partner. However, your partner would have no legal rights in relation to the child. The fact you are in a relationship is relevant only when evaluating circumstances that might affect the child's welfare.

For a foreign adoption to be recognised in Ireland, it must comply with the definition of adoption in Irish law. This means that the rule that only married couples may jointly adopt will apply.

Source: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/cohabiting_couples/adoption_and_unmarried_couples.html

Maximus Alexander

endacl wrote: »

You do realise that if you took an hour off from posting, the Internet would become measurably smarter?

That's bullying. :eek:

gravehold

Hyzepher wrote: »

Please stop peddling this untruth. At the moment there is no order of preference between eligible groups.

aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html


(a) a married couple living together; this is the only circumstance where the law permits the adoption of a child by more than one person;


(b) a married person alone; in this circumstance the spouse’s consent to adopt must be obtained unless they are living apart and are separated under (i) a court decree or (ii) deed of separation or (iii) the spouse has deserted the prospective adopter or (iv) conduct on the part of the spouse results in the prospective adopter with just cause leaving the spouse and living apart;


(c) the mother, father or relative of the child (relative meaning a grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt of the child and /or the spouse of any such person, the relationship to the child being traced through the mother or the father);


(d) a widow or widower

Only way a gay can adopt in from there is as sibling and he cannot do it as a couple his his bf.

Married couples get preference

gravehold

endacl wrote: »

You do realise that if you took an hour off from posting, the Internet would become measurably smarter?

I work from the internet I am working right now.

seamus

Gravehold, you're either wilfully ignorant or plain lying.

So what do I call you? Ignoramus, or liar?

mickydoomsux

gravehold wrote: »

I work from the internet I am working right now.

Are you a Cyberminer?

Lt J.R. Bell

floggg wrote: »

The SC accepted the common law definition without considering the same sex issue because it was never asked the question.If and when it is asked the question (unlikely now) it would then be necessary to reconsider the issue from a different angle which may we produce different results.

The old case will be persausive, but it will not be bound by it as it did not consider the issue.

The constitution is also a living document - something referenced in the high court case.

Indeed the HC indicated its decision may have been different if more countries had allowed for same sex marriage. At that time there were only 6 or 7. Now we are up to circa 20 - including most of the common law systems usually cited by the irish courts including NZ, Canada, UK and Scotland, South Africa and most of the US (which soon may be all of it).

So I would be fairly confident that the SC would at least find same sex marriage compatible with the Constitution, if not constitutionally required.

And I never failed to acknowledge the previous cases (they were referred to in posts I'm sure I quoted). I just (accurately) pointed out that they had never considered this issue. Which made you choke on your sandwich even though you agreed with me.

And I believe they were going back to the HC after that SC ruling to start the process over as the SC denied them the opportunity to add arguments to the appeal.

If I recall correctly the original question is pretty narrow and applied to Revenue recognition only, rather than any wider question.

There is absolutely no basis for believing that this Current Composition of the Supreme Court would accept that marriage = gays too, even when using the living document interpretation tool. Hence, the "choking on the sambo"

Most of the Common Law jurisdictions have abortion on demand, we don't , so to suggest that just because they have it , our Courts would follow suit is not guaranteed. They still have to considered the other interpretation tools. Also, gay marriage is still not universally accepted. To suggest otherwise is bonkers (let's remember, very few of those States dared to put the matter before the people and made a big deal of it in their pre election manifesto) Wow a whole 20 countries, out of how many ?

Despite the denials of some posters, including gay into marriage would be dramatically redefining it. It would create a new human right for gays. It's being over 20 years since the Supreme Court, some of whom are still sitting, were prepared to recognise new rights, despite the living document interpretation tool. Not saying it's beyond impossible, what is saying is, there is a certain attitude in the Current Court about "over stepping" the mark into "judicial activism". I am not saying that is right or acceptable, I am just predicting the likelihood of what would happen. You don't just get rid of a traditional understanding of a term in one quick swoop on foot of "science" and "evidence" that has NOT being accepted by even the ECtHR or seriously challenged in a Court of Law


"Different angles " Eh, the Living Document Interpretation Tool , is more or less the only angle

The HC acknowledged that other countries didn't have SSM. It did not say things would be different if....... That was not it's remit. It was asked to take the Constitution as a living document in light of the laws there and then on the day of the hearing, and not what might happen in other countries a few days later... It found that their arguments did not in fact match with the official position on ssm in other jurisdictions

endacl

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

That's bullying. :eek:

Not really. It won't be read and considered. Like all the other responses they've had.

eviltwin

gravehold wrote: »

aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html


(a) a married couple living together; this is the only circumstance where the law permits the adoption of a child by more than one person;


(b) a married person alone; in this circumstance the spouse’s consent to adopt must be obtained unless they are living apart and are separated under (i) a court decree or (ii) deed of separation or (iii) the spouse has deserted the prospective adopter or (iv) conduct on the part of the spouse results in the prospective adopter with just cause leaving the spouse and living apart;


(c) the mother, father or relative of the child (relative meaning a grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt of the child and /or the spouse of any such person, the relationship to the child being traced through the mother or the father);


(d) a widow or widower

Only way a gay can adopt in from there is as sibling and he cannot do it as a couple his his bf.

Married couples get preference

That list is not an order of preference, you know that right?

gravehold

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wasn't because a couple were gay that they weren't eligible for adoption btw. Heterosexual cohabiting couples were also prohibited from applying jointly to adopt a child (my friend who is cohabiting with her boyfriend for years, had to apply solely to adopt a child they had fostered. They could not apply as a couple).

The relevant section of the Children and Family Relationship Act 2015 you're looking for is this bit -




Source: asw.ie/attachments/Children_and_Family_Relationships_Bill_Explanatory_Memorandum_2015.pdf[/url]
,
The situation for unmarried couples under the terms of the Adoption Act 2010 are set out below -



Source: citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/cohabiting_couples/adoption_and_unmarried_couples.html[/url]

No want's a mother and father a married couple

Ave Sodalis

eviltwin wrote: »

That list is not an order of preference, you know that right?

It's been pointed out to her about 20 times at this stage...

Maximus Alexander

gravehold wrote: »

aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html


(a) a married couple living together; this is the only circumstance where the law permits the adoption of a child by more than one person;


(b) a married person alone; in this circumstance the spouse’s consent to adopt must be obtained unless they are living apart and are separated under (i) a court decree or (ii) deed of separation or (iii) the spouse has deserted the prospective adopter or (iv) conduct on the part of the spouse results in the prospective adopter with just cause leaving the spouse and living apart;


(c) the mother, father or relative of the child (relative meaning a grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt of the child and /or the spouse of any such person, the relationship to the child being traced through the mother or the father);


(d) a widow or widower

Only way a gay can adopt in from there is as sibling and he cannot do it as a couple his his bf.

Married couples get preference

The premise of your post is out of date.

gravehold

eviltwin wrote: »

That list is not an order of preference, you know that right?

Where can the gay couple adopt

jimdublin15

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It will be extremely difficult to discriminate between married gays and married straights , if gays are allowed to marry.

If this was not a serious topic I would laugh ... wait I've printed the line out on A3 sized paper for at my desk with a note saying "Need I say more: Vote Yes"

eviltwin

gravehold wrote: »

Where can the gay couple adopt

They couldn't when that was printed, that now can.

Not a NSA agent

Put couples made up of man and woman as the top priority.

Tada. I just fixed the issue. No mention of marriage so you can discriminate away. Why you would want to is another question. It wasnt exactly difficult to work it out.

gravehold

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The premise of your post is [justice.ie/en/JELR/Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Act%202015.pdf/Files/Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Act%202015.pdf"]out of date[/URL].

point is that is easily reverted if you vote no, if you vote yes you are stuck with gay marriage adoption

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

Where can the gay couple adopt

Under the Children and Family Relationships Act.

Honestly, will you ever get a grip and stop posting nonsense.

Maximus Alexander

gravehold wrote: »

Where can the gay couple adopt

Here.

gravehold

eviltwin wrote: »

They couldn't when that was printed, that now can.

Still can't not in force yet, and czn be reverted back easily by the next government if you vote no now.

smash

gravehold wrote: »

point is that is easily reverted if you vote no, if you vote yes you are stuck with gay marriage adoption

So what's the issue?

Hyzepher

gravehold wrote: »

aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html


(a) a married couple living together; this is the only circumstance where the law permits the adoption of a child by more than one person;


(b) a married person alone; in this circumstance the spouse’s consent to adopt must be obtained unless they are living apart and are separated under (i) a court decree or (ii) deed of separation or (iii) the spouse has deserted the prospective adopter or (iv) conduct on the part of the spouse results in the prospective adopter with just cause leaving the spouse and living apart;


(c) the mother, father or relative of the child (relative meaning a grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt of the child and /or the spouse of any such person, the relationship to the child being traced through the mother or the father);


(d) a widow or widower

Only way a gay can adopt in from there is as sibling and he cannot do it as a couple his his bf.

Married couples get preference

This is untrue (bit bolded)

Maximus Alexander

gravehold wrote: »

point is that is easily reverted if you vote no, if you vote yes you are stuck with gay marriage adoption

a) Why would you want it reversed? Do you hate children?

b) You're wrong. The legislation can still be changed.

Zubeneschamali

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If there's some residual "children's" benefit left in Article 41, is the question more to identify it and ask why it should be denied to non-marital children?

Here are the seven key issues identified by the All-Party Oireachteas Committee on the Constitution in their 10th progress report, back in 2006, looking at this section of the Constitution. This referendum only addresses one:

The family: how to define it

The most important issue – the strategic one – relates to the definition of the family. It is clear from the submissions to the committee that there is no unanimity as to what comprises a family. Definitions include the family based on the Catholic sacrament of matrimony, families formed subsequent to divorce and remarriage, as well as families not based on marriage.

Cohabiting heterosexual couples

A second issue is whether in view of the considerable and growing
incidence of cohabitation the state can adequately deal with the problems that may arise in relationships if constitutional recognition is limited to relationships based on marriage.

Same-sex couples

A third issue is whether or not the definition of family in the Constitution should be extended to allow for same-sex marriage.

Children

A fourth issue is whether or not explicit protection for children should be written into Article 41 of the Constitution.

The natural or birth father

A fifth issue concerns the extent to which the Constitution should recognise the role of men, both their rights and responsibilities, in relation to their children born outside of marriage.

Lone parents

A sixth issue arises from the need to ameliorate the difficult position in which lone parents typically find themselves. Should the definition of the family be extended to provide protection for lone parents?

Woman in the home

A seventh issue concerns the extent to which it is exclusively the work of the ‘woman in the home’ which deserves recognition in the Constitution. Although the numbers of both men and women who work full time in the home have declined, men and women contribute to the life of the home, as well as to the workplace. As the thrust of policy is to move women out of the home and into the workforce, and as men are already predominantly engaged in the workforce, there is a possibility that children may be deprived of parental care in their most vulnerable years. Should the work of both men and women in the home receive constitutional protection?

gravehold

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Put couples made up of man and woman as the top priority.

Tada. I just fixed the issue. No mention of marriage so you can discriminate away. Why you would want to is another question. It wasnt exactly difficult to work it out.

This would fall under discrimination by the hrc

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

Still can't not in force yet, and czn be reverted back easily by the next government if you vote no now.

Why would it be reverted?

It was brought in to reflect changes in modern society. There is nothing in the pipeline to have it reverted.

gravehold

smash wrote: »

So what's the issue?

Vote no if you are against gay adoption, the yes side saying the referendum has no effecton adoption is a lie

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

Vote no if you are against gay adoption, the yes side saying the referendum has no effecton adoption is a lie

Youre totally wrong.

smash

gravehold wrote: »

Vote no if you are against gay adoption, the yes side saying the referendum has no effecton adoption is a lie

What you're saying is a lie. Gay couples will be allowed to adopt disregarding this referendum.