That other little mishap by the government today

Mint Sauce

So as well as legalising Ecstasy again today, the government nearly also made it illegal to get married.



Don't have any links, but heard it on Newstalk earlier, that the draft Os Gaeilge version of the Same Sex Marriage Act, may have actually made marriage between a man and woman unconstitutional.

Seriously, you could not have made some of this stuff up today.

Sheep Lover

The marriage is null and void and I can get mashed on mushrooms legally all in the one day, they get my vote next time around.

Aongus Von Bismarck

Mint Sauce wrote: »

So as well as legalising Ecstasy again today, the government nearly also made it illegal to get married.



Don't have any links, but heard it on Newstalk earlier, that the draft Os Gaeilge version of the Same Sex Marriage Act, may have actually made marriage between a man and woman unconstitutional.

Seriously, you could not have made some of this stuff up today.

The Government did neither.

G_R

Mint Sauce wrote: »

So as well as legalising Ecstasy again today, the government nearly also made it illegal to get married.



Don't have any links, but heard it on Newstalk earlier, that the draft Os Gaeilge version of the Same Sex Marriage Act, may have actually made marriage between a man and woman unconstitutional.

Seriously, you could not have made some of this stuff up today.

Exactly how is the courts declaring a law which was passed in the late 70's unconstitutional the fault of the government, out of curiosity?

Paz-CCFC

The whole "illegalising" heterosexual marriage was basically started by some Irish Times journalist reading a single word of the text in isolation and taking it totally out of context to try to prove a bullsh*t point. A number of constitutional lawyers and lecturers sent in a letter to the editor to say that the point raised had little actual merit when taken into account the jurisprudential context and techniques of interpretation. The intended text would very likely have been fine.

To say heterosexual marriage was "nearly" illegalised is a load of hyperbolic nonsense, much like what the journalist was spouting.

Mint Sauce

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

The Government did neither.

Okay so it was the courts that made Ecstasy legal again, but was it not the government or the Oireachtas that tried to make it illegal back in 1977?

As for the SameSex Marriage Referendum, if the government is changing the wording, who wrote the orriginal draft then?

The government is changing the wording of the Irish version of the referendum on the same-sex marriage.

It follows concerns that the wording in Irish could inadvertently make it unconstitutional for a man and woman to marry each other.

The original wording in Irish said two people could marry, irrespective of whether they were both men or women - but may have accidentally outlawed marriages between people of the opposite sex.

A change in the Irish wording was agreed at Cabinet today, and will be published by the government later.

http://www.newstalk.com/News

G_R

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Okay so it was the courts that made Ecstasy legal again, but was it not the government or the Oireachtas that tried to make it illegal back in 1977?

Well yeah, but in 77. Kinda difficult to blame it on the current government.

As for the SameSex Marriage Referendum, if the government is changing the wording, who wrote the orriginal draft then?



http://www.newstalk.com/News

It seems like it's being done for more of a "just in case" tbh. Would you rather they left it potentially open to being challenged?

Mint Sauce

Grand_Rajnah wrote: »

Well yeah, but in 77. Kinda difficult to blame it on the current government.



It seems like it's being done for more of a "just in case" tbh. Would you rather they left it potentially open to being challenged?

I'm quite happy they are changing it for a 'just in case'. Espcially if it comes to the law or our constitution.

Kevin McCloud

Jack Lynch smoked a pipe.

Valetta

Mint Sauce wrote: »

So as well as legalising Ecstasy again today, the government nearly also made it illegal to get married.



Don't have any links, but heard it on Newstalk earlier, that the draft Os Gaeilge version of the Same Sex Marriage Act, may have actually made marriage between a man and woman unconstitutional.

Seriously, you could not have made some of this stuff up today.

Congratulations. You just achieved the impossible.

floggg

Grand_Rajnah wrote: »

Exactly how is the courts declaring a law which was passed in the late 70's unconstitutional the fault of the government, out of curiosity?

From what I understand of the ruling, the original 1970s Act was not declared unconstitutional at all. Rather it was the ministerial orders made under that legislation which were struck down as as unconstitutional use of legislative power.

So it wasn't even a particular government or Oireachtas to blame - rather it was the various Ministers who made the Order concerned (and the Dept Officials, Parliamentary Draftsmen, and legal advisors who assisted the process) who should be "blamed".

Or the OP could accept that passing some unconstitutional legislation is an occupational hazard of legislating (otherwise why have a Supreme Court vested with the power to strike down legislation) and not get our collective knickers in a twist.

Hoop66

Mint Sauce wrote: »

So as well as legalising Ecstasy again today, the government nearly also made it illegal to get married.



Don't have any links, but heard it on Newstalk earlier, that the draft Os Gaeilge version of the Same Sex Marriage Act, may have actually made marriage between a man and woman unconstitutional.

Seriously, you could not have made some of this stuff up today.

Is that the new Irish version of Windows?

PizzamanIRL

We need to start paying these lads more so they will do a better job. Take it out of the taxpayers pockets.

fran17

Mint Sauce wrote: »

So as well as legalising Ecstasy again today, the government nearly also made it illegal to get married.



Don't have any links, but heard it on Newstalk earlier, that the draft Os Gaeilge version of the Same Sex Marriage Act, may have actually made marriage between a man and woman unconstitutional.

Seriously, you could not have made some of this stuff up today.

Yet another example of this shambolic government putting been seen as progressive and PC before the needs of its people.
They stopped heterosexual couples from availing of civil partnerships so I guess they have form in such matters.

whisky_galore

That will annoy the half dozen people that will actually go to the trouble of reading that in Irish. Maybe one of them will write a letter to the papers...in Irish...to complain.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

Yet another example of this shambolic government putting been seen as progressive and PC before the needs of its people.
They stopped heterosexual couples from availing of civil partnerships so I guess they have form in such matters.

Yes, heterosexuals were definitely the ones short changed by the decision to allow same sex couples only access a second tier form of marriage. :rolleyes:

fran17

whisky_galore wrote: »

That will annoy the half dozen people that will actually go to the trouble of reading that in Irish. Maybe one of them will write a letter to the papers...in Irish...to complain.

It's our native language so yes it's rather important I'd say.Just goes to show the contempt they hold the public with.

Guy:Incognito

fran17 wrote: »

.Just goes to show the contempt they hold the public with.

You're really trying hard to whip up the outrage arent you.

whisky_galore

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You're really trying hard to whip up the outrage arent you.

The outrage is strong with this one.

fran17

floggg wrote: »

Yes, heterosexuals were definitely the ones short changed by the decision to allow same sex couples only access a second tier form of marriage. :rolleyes:

It's discrimination none the less.But you are correct in saying that gay couples already have access to marriage so this referendum is nothing more than a popularity exercise.So I would see this vote as a way of marking there cards.If it's anything like the Lisbon treaty they'll run it again if it fails no doubt and we all remember that.

fran17

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You're really trying hard to whip up the outrage arent you.

I'm simply judging them on there merits.Respecting them as much as they do us.

circadian

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You're really trying hard to whip up the outrage arent you.

It's part of his portfolio for when he applies to the Indo for an intership.

Guy:Incognito

fran17 wrote: »

It's discrimination none the less.But you are correct in saying that gay couples already have access to marriage so this referendum is nothing more than a popularity exercise.So I would see this vote as a way of marking there cards.If it's anything like the Lisbon treaty they'll run it again if it fails no doubt and we all remember that.

I'll give you this, your certainly thinking outside the box to justify voting no in a referendum that shouldn't have any opposition.

Anyway, would you not be "marking the cards" of all parties that support it?

hmmm

This is a referendum on the Constitution which has massive impacts for lots of Irish people. It'd be nice if we could vote on the merits, and not allow it to become a "vote no if you hate the gobumint" - that's how we get another 50 years of those useless wasters in the Seanad.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

It's discrimination none the less.But you are correct in saying that gay couples already have access to marriage so this referendum is nothing more than a popularity exercise.So I would see this vote as a way of marking there cards.If it's anything like the Lisbon treaty they'll run it again if it fails no doubt and we all remember that.

I feel for you Fran. The refusal of the State to discriminate against you on equal terms as vulnerable minority groups must be very damaging to your self esteem.

It reminds me of when I was in junior infants and the bullies from 6th class picked on all my friends except for me. I felt so left out.




We have access to a second tier form of marriage. Not the real deal. You know this - given the copious amount of time you've spent arguing against it and other moves towards equality.

fran17

floggg wrote: »

I feel for you Fran. The refusal of the State to discriminate against you on equal terms as vulnerable minority groups must be very damaging to your self esteem.

It reminds me of when I was in junior infants and the bullies from 6th class picked on all my friends except for me. I felt so left out.




We have access to a second tier form of marriage. Not the real deal. You know this - given the copious amount of time you've spent arguing against it and other moves towards equality.

Floggg your an intelligent guy,the only reason this issue is being put before the people is as a thinly veiled attempt to boost popularity.They practically legalise abortion and no referendum,even today they are rushing through pretty serious legislation in 24 hours.This government are in bad need of poll boost and this happened to be it.
As for real marriage,well that's a whole thread in itself.

biko

Mint Sauce wrote: »

So as well as legalising Ecstasy again today, the government nearly also made it illegal to get married.

Don't have any links

Mint Sauce wrote: »

you could not have made some of this stuff up today.

Without sources you kinda did

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

Floggg your an intelligent guy,the only reason this issue is being put before the people is as a thinly veiled attempt to boost popularity.They practically legalise abortion and no referendum,even today they are rushing through pretty serious legislation in 24 hours.This government are in bad need of poll boost and this happened to be it.
As for real marriage,well that's a whole thread in itself.

Do you think the introduction of marriage equality by legislation would be constitutonal? Why?

Assuming the Oireachtas has the power to legislate for marriage equality, how would putting it before the people boost their popularity more than introducing it by legislation (for which they could claim direct credit).

If that isn't what you meant by an "attempt to boost popularity" then explain what you did mean.


Do you think the "abortion" legislation (which only applies in cases of a threat to the mothers life) is unconstitutional? Why?

I personally believe a referendum isn't required, but if I am correct then cowardice is the only reason not to do so.

Somehow do I don't think you have given any actual reasoning to your ramblings