Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

Bannasidhe

seamus wrote: »

Because they're minor matters. Every amendment brings legal issues that require alignment after the fact, we don't debate these unless they will have a significant impact. As CramCycle says, if you believe you're the only person who has thought of these, then you're delusional.

You haven't explained how a tiny and resolvable legal matter is a good reason for voting no?

One assumes GCU votes against every single change to the Constitution as any change could lead to government regulating something or other.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

CramCycle wrote: »

I have stated in a previous post about the legal system will most likely deal with the apparent issue you have brought up but you seem to have ignored that. <..>

Apologies if you feel ignored, but I think its more than an "apparent" issue. Issues do arise when we try to apply the same set of concepts to straight and gay marriages - and they don't easily resolve into "sure, that can't apply here". Again, I'd point to the UK - a similar legal system - finding it just couldn't apply the same concept to the two situations.

Now, there's any amount of ways it could be resolved (and any other issues, like presumption of paternity). But none is proposed. That suggests to me, very clearly, that implications are just not being addressed. If there's a Government legal assessment, its not informing debate.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

One assumes GCU votes against every single change to the Constitution as any change could lead to government regulating something or other.

Ah, yeah, garble my point about what "in accordance with law" means as if you didn't understand it.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Apologies if you feel ignored, but I think its more than an "apparent" issue. Issues do arise when we try to apply the same set of concepts to straight and gay marriages - and they don't easily resolve into "sure, that can't apply here". Again, I'd point to the UK - a similar legal system - finding it just couldn't apply the same concept to the two situations.

Now, there's any amount of ways it could be resolved (and any other issues, like presumption of paternity). But none is proposed. That suggests to me, very clearly, that implications are just not being addressed. If there's a Government legal assessment, its not informing debate.Ah, yeah, garble my point about what "in accordance with law" means as if you didn't understand it.

Still with the snide digs .

You are assuming that the AG hasn't thought of any potential repercussions which will have to be addressed in legislation following on from this amendment but in other referendums on different topics they have?

Every single amendment requires changes in legislation - why do you assume this hasn't been taken into account this time?

MrWalsh

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Now, there's any amount of ways it could be resolved (and any other issues, like presumption of paternity). But none is proposed. That suggests to me, very clearly, that implications are just not being addressed. If there's a Government legal assessment, its not informing debate.

So what? Why would that be a reason to vote No?

Im not seeing much sense in your posts tbh. Constant doom mongering framed in pseudo intellectual wordy posts that dont say much at all about anything relevant but thats about it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Still with the snide digs .

Well, still the deliberate misrepresentation of my posts.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are assuming that the AG hasn't thought of any potential repercussions which will have to be addressed in legislation following on from this amendment but in other referendums on different topics they have?

Every single amendment requires changes in legislation - why do you assume this hasn't been taken into account this time?

Because the wording seems to rule out the most obvious solution, which is to treat gay and straight marriages differently.

And, no, I'm not willing to take it on trust.

And can I remind folk that the original Irish version of the wording was changed, with some suggestion that the normal checking procedures applied to amendments had not been carried out. As it's all a bit of a rush.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MrWalsh wrote: »

So what? Why would that be a reason to vote No?

If you can't appreciate why the law should be coherent, no conversation is possible.

Go on, vote yes. Rah rah. Equality. And stuff.

traprunner

So your No vote will be more of a protest vote just until the government prove beyond any doubt that the amendments required to legislation ready?

MrWalsh

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If you can't appreciate why the law should be coherent, no conversation is possible.

Go on, vote yes. Rah rah. Equality. And stuff.

You haven't demonstrated that the law will be incoherent. You've raised minor niggles that can be ironed out later.

Maximus Alexander

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If you can't appreciate why the law should be coherent, no conversation is possible.

Go on, vote yes. Rah rah. Equality. And stuff.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'd be of the opinion that none of the amendments made to the constitution to date should ever have carried. They got it right the first time, and, where they didn't - it's better to live with the consequences now than to change anything, for fear that we may have to alter legislation later.

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Apologies if you feel ignored, but I think its more than an "apparent" issue. Issues do arise when we try to apply the same set of concepts to straight and gay marriages - and they don't easily resolve into "sure, that can't apply here". Again, I'd point to the UK - a similar legal system - finding it just couldn't apply the same concept to the two situations.

Now, there's any amount of ways it could be resolved (and any other issues, like presumption of paternity). But none is proposed. That suggests to me, very clearly, that implications are just not being addressed. If there's a Government legal assessment, its not informing debate.Ah, yeah, garble my point about what "in accordance with law" means as if you didn't understand it.

No need to apologies, it just felt like you were avoiding responding to anyone who made a point that disagreed with yours but was difficult to respond too.

I have explained, how the legal system works around the issues you have mentioned (which are again, not actually issues, particularly the consummation one, unless you have found a legal definition yet, not a religious one). Most of these resolutions require nothing from government, a few may require direction from the AG office and none that I am aware of require legal changes wit the exception of those that required legal changes anyway.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, still the deliberate misrepresentation of my posts.Because the wording seems to rule out the most obvious solution, which is to treat gay and straight marriages differently.

But that seems to insinuate that one groups are different than the other in the eyes of the law. So far, legally or otherwise, have you provided a solid reason why they should be treated differently. Most of the points in regards paternity etc. are irrelevant to this change in the constitution, the points on consummation have clearly been shown to be nonsensical as homosexuals can have sexual intercourse, as well as heterosexuals can have sexual intercourse that does not fit in with your very narrow view of what is consummation.

And, no, I'm not willing to take it on trust.

If they are not, that is a fault of the AG and not of the referendum, as has been asked, what do you think they do?

And can I remind folk that the original Irish version of the wording was changed, with some suggestion that the normal checking procedures applied to amendments had not been carried out. As it's all a bit of a rush.

A minor oversight that was clearly explained and very understandable, the change was to stop people looking for a technicality that did not exist and waste time looking for a technicality that was not there. Most agreed that the original wording would not have caused the issues suggested but that it might cause a horrendous waste of time by some idiots looking for an issue. The fact that it was highlighted and changed, does more to instill confidence in the procedure than not.

uck51js9zml2yt

I heard vradkar last night saying that if the result was a No, he would be devestated . going on to say that why should a majority dictate to a minority over what happens.
He forgot to mention that that's exactly what would happen if it got passed. With the majority of yes voters imposing their will upon a minority.
Sorry to dissolution you Leo, but that's how democracy works.
For the record, I'm voting No. ....waits now to be called all sorts of names by the yes voters.!!

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, still the deliberate misrepresentation of my posts.Because the wording seems to rule out the most obvious solution, which is to treat gay and straight marriages differently.

And, no, I'm not willing to take it on trust.

And can I remind folk that the original Irish version of the wording was changed, with some suggestion that the normal checking procedures applied to amendments had not been carried out. As it's all a bit of a rush.

I am not deliberately misrepresenting anything.
I am either disagreeing or seeking clarification both of which are standard practice on a discussion forum.

I am not the only person who has done either of those things and neither of those things gives you licence to be snide. If I have misunderstood a point then please clarify where I have misunderstood.


Perhaps you will also clarify if it is only in the case of this particular referendum you do not trust government to sort out technicalities or does your lack of trust extend to all referendums seeking to make an amendment?

CramCycle

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

I heard vradkar last night saying that if the result was a No, he would be devestated . going on to say that why should a majority dictate to a minority over what happens.

Not what he said, what he said was that it would be a majority telling a minority they have no right to be equal.

He forgot to mention that that's exactly what would happen if it got passed.

Only if you didn't read his statement, if you had it would e that in case of a yes, it would be another move towards equality for all.

For the record, I'm voting No. ....waits now to be called all sorts of names by the yes voters.!!

And so you are entitled to, I am not sure about other threads but there has been little name calling on her as far as I know. If you stated your reasons, it might make for an interesting conversation but if you don't want to discuss it, I'd wonder why you told anyone what way you plan to vote.

Bannasidhe

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

I heard vradkar last night saying that if the result was a No, he would be devestated . going on to say that why should a majority dictate to a minority over what happens.
He forgot to mention that that's exactly what would happen if it got passed. With the majority of yes voters imposing their will upon a minority.
Sorry to dissolution you Leo, but that's how democracy works.
For the record, I'm voting No. ....waits now to be called all sorts of names by the yes voters.!!

No name calling just a question.

Do you believe

ARTICLE 40

1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

should be enforced?

It currently isn't.

gk5000

MrWalsh wrote: »

Umm, this referendum will have no impact on birth certs no matter which way the vote goes.

Currently a heterosexual married couple have to put the husband as father on a birthcert even if he is not the father because all children born within a marriage are seen as the husbands children. But this referendum has nothing to do with having children or birth certs.

Its simply about allowing same sex couples to marry, you know, because civil partnerships are not equal to marriage.

The consequences are that any children born to the (gay) marriage would have either two women or two men on the birthcert.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

Why are you bringing children into this?

This referendum has nothing to do with children. Maybe go and read the proposed amendment and then re-consider your position?

As I've said - consequences - you cannot wish them away.

The consequences are that any children born to the (gay) marriage would have either two women or two men on the birthcert.

Edit to add: And the real reason to vote no is that many people do not understand the above consequences - and all I wish is for this to be out in the open and discussed as opposed to being continually dismissed as you have.

traprunner

gk5000 wrote: »

The consequences are that any children born to the (gay) marriage would have either two women or two men on the birthcert.

How accurate are birth certs at the moment? Without DNA tests (or appearing on Jeremy Kyle) it's the mothers word as to who the father is.

Winston Tart Rain

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

For the record, I'm voting No. ....waits now to be called all sorts of names by the yes voters.!!

Keep waiting - because generally it does not actually happen. You will find the majority of people who even reply to your post (so far I am the only one so its 1 for 1 so far) will merely inquire as to your reasoning. Even on after hours - let alone this forum which I have noticed is a little stricter on what it deems to be personal attack and not.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

traprunner wrote: »

So your No vote will be more of a protest vote just until the government prove beyond any doubt that the amendments required to legislation ready?

That's some of it, certainly, but I'd itemise it this way:

• Any amendment to the Constitution creates uncertainty. For that reason, a proposal for change has to overcome a level of materiality before I'd back it. I'm afraid I just don't see that level of materiality here.
• If there's a protest element to the vote, its that there are more pressing issues requiring an amendment (specifically termination of unviable pregancy) that I expect this proposal is attempting to distract from.
• I don't like the Oireachtas getting an explicit power to regulate marriage. I'd want to know what the limits of this power will be (there don't seem to be any under the wording). No, I don't expect that a resurgent Catholic political force will re-criminalise contraception any time soon. I just see the right of married couples to access contraception under the Constitution as something that should not be disturbed. Ditto for the wider concept of marital privacy. Collectively, we needed it the past, and may need it in the future.
• I'd like to know the shape of any legislation planned following the amendment. I'd like to see it's consistency with the wording proposed; in particular, if there are areas where straight and gay marriages will need different treatment, or where measures applying to all marriages might need to change.

I don't necessarily have a problem with change, but I most certainly want to know what I'm expected to sign up to. On that point, as we know the Irish wording is actually the one that counts. I can't read the new one. But I found this interesting

http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=490

The Government has decided to revise the Irish wording for the Marriage Referendum after criticism over the first version published.

In preparing the first draft particular wording and phrasings were used in an effort to avoid breaking with the consistency of language in use throughout the text <...>

the Government have rowed back against the previous attempt to maintain consistency in the Irish text of the Constitution and have embraced the literal translation approach which traditionally has been avoided. <...>

This is just the kind of rigorous adherence to quality control that gives me such confidence in the depth of technical competence applied in support of this proposal.

gk5000

traprunner wrote: »

How accurate are birth certs at the moment? Without DNA tests (or appearing on Jeremy Kyle) it's the mothers word as to who the father is.

No - a married man is automatically considered the father of any children born to the women -

That shall be well confused by this referendum.

gk5000

gk5000 wrote: »

As I've said - consequences - you cannot wish them away.

The consequences are that any children born to the (gay) marriage would have either two women or two men on the birthcert.

Edit to add: And the real reason to vote no is that many people do not understand the above consequences - and all I wish is for this to be out in the open and discussed as opposed to being continually dismissed as you have.

And is this a negative or a positive consequence?

Could you enlighten us on the consequences described in the edit?

Bannasidhe

gk5000 wrote: »

The consequences are that any children born to the (gay) marriage would have either two women or two men on the birthcert.

Can you please show me the section of the Children and Family Relationships Act - which is the legislation dealing with children - states this?

Currently we have a 'consequence' that the man named on the birth cert is not the biological father but is merely the mother's husband. This is done automatically when a woman is married even if the couple are separated and in new relationships awaiting a divorce. Is that a reason to ban heterosexual marriage?

Imagine how many now adults have the 'wrong' father on their birthcert dating back to pre-divorce days!

Hoffmans

Theres a lot more to this than as bull mick would say
" a couple a quares gettin hitched"

traprunner

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's some of it, certainly, but I'd itemise it this way:

• Any amendment to the Constitution creates uncertainty. For that reason, a proposal for change has to overcome a level of materiality before I'd back it. I'm afraid I just don't see that level of materiality here.
• If there's a protest element to the vote, its that there are more pressing issues requiring an amendment (specifically termination of unviable pregancy) that I expect this proposal is attempting to distract from.
• I don't like the Oireachtas getting an explicit power to regulate marriage. I'd want to know what the limits of this power will be (there don't seem to be any under the wording). No, I don't expect that a resurgent Catholic political force will re-criminalise contraception any time soon. I just see the right of married couples to access contraception under the Constitution as something that should not be disturbed. Ditto for the wider concept of marital privacy. Collectively, we needed it the past, and may need it in the future.
• I'd like to know the shape of any legislation planned following the amendment. I'd like to see it's consistency with the wording proposed; in particular, if there are areas where straight and gay marriages will need different treatment, or where measures applying to all marriages might need to change.

I don't necessarily have a problem with change, but I most certainly want to know what I'm expected to sign up to. On that point, as we know the Irish wording is actually the one that counts. I can't read the new one. But I found this interestingThis is just the kind of rigorous adherence to quality control that gives me such confidence in the depth of technical competence applied in support of this proposal.

Thank's for your reply. I see where you are coming from much more clearly now.

traprunner

gk5000 wrote: »

No - a married man is automatically considered the father of any children born to the women -

That shall be well confused by this referendum.

It's no different than at the moment. Just because a woman is married does not in any way mean that the child is the fathers. So my question is still valid about the accuracy of birth certificates regardless of single, married, gay or surrogacy.

MrWalsh

gk5000 wrote: »

The consequences are that any children born to the (gay) marriage would have either two women or two men on the birthcert.

Can you link me to this please, I cant seem to find it in any legislation?

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

The consequences are that any children born to the (gay) marriage would have either two women or two men on the birthcert.

This is demonstrably false.

1. Where a woman gives birth to a child while married her husband is presumed to be the father. "Husband" and "father" are sex-specific, there is no way that the woman's wife could be listed as the "father" on the birth cert.

2. Since men cannot give birth, a man cannot be listed on a birthcert as a mother. In the case of a gay couple, the biological father will be listed on the birthcert.

traprunner

seamus wrote: »

2. Since men cannot give birth, a man cannot be listed on a birthcert as a mother. In the case of a gay couple, the biological father will be listed on the birthcert.

I'll pre-empt it....what if they mix their semen and inseminate a woman and can't tell who the biological father is?

seamus

traprunner wrote: »

I'll pre-empt it....what if they mix their semen and inseminate a woman and can't tell who the biological father is?

Tongue-in-cheek I know, but the most recent act actually resolves that issue, once paternity can be proven on the balance of probabilities. So a DNA test would be sufficient proof of paternity.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

CramCycle wrote: »

<...> Most of the points in regards paternity etc. are irrelevant to this change in the constitution, the points on consummation have clearly been shown to be nonsensical <..>

Again, I don't recognize that to be the case. If the wording says "without distinction", that suggests without distinction. You'll appreciate, the level at which we establish relevance matters. If we say "this can't apply in a marriage of two men (or two women)", that could mean "it therefore cannot apply to any marriage, as there can be no distinction on grounds of gender". As I read your argument, it would requires us to say (for the sake of argument) "this cannot apply to a man, so it will only apply to marriages that contain women", which seems to create a distinction on grounds of gender - which specifically not allowed.

CramCycle wrote: »

Most agreed that the original wording would not have caused the issues suggested but that it might cause a horrendous waste of time by some idiots looking for an issue. The fact that it was highlighted and changed, does more to instill confidence in the procedure than not.

Not really. Maybe the first wording was right. I know nothing of Irish, but I was interested in the article I found above. What it suggests to me is that the Irish wording was changed largely for PR reasons. That's actually not a reason to have confidence in the system, as it suggests technical expertise will be ignored in favour of spin on the very basic matter of the binding legal text.