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

galljga1

seamus wrote: »

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.

Does anybody know whether this has been covered by the Children and Family Relationships Act?

galljga1

traprunner wrote: »

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.

I believe the husband is the legal 'father' regardless who the biological father is.

Maximus Alexander

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.

So?

gingerhousewife

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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?

Off-topic, but this remains the case even years after the couple are divorced (happened to a friend of mine in the last couple of months), if the woman has not remarried. An affidavit is required to put a father other than the ex-husband on the birth cert!

Bannasidhe

gingerhousewife wrote: »

Off-topic, but this remains the case even years after the couple are divorced (happened to a friend of mine in the last couple of months), if the woman has not remarried. An affidavit is required to put a father other than the ex-husband on the birth cert!

:eek:

GCU Flexible Demeanour

gingerhousewife wrote: »

Off-topic, but this remains the case even years after the couple are divorced (happened to a friend of mine in the last couple of months), if the woman has not remarried. An affidavit is required to put a father other than the ex-husband on the birth cert!

This sounds strange.

http://www.treoir.ie/information-registration.php

If you are/were married to a man who is NOT the father of your baby and you want to put the birth father's name on the birth certificate

In order to proceed you must have a sworn statement from the father swearing he is the father and have either:

• a sworn statement from your husband saying he is not the father

or

• deed of separation and a sworn statement from you saying you were living apart from your husband for more than 10 months before the birth of your child

or

• an Irish divorce dated or stating that you were living apart from your husband at least 10 months before your child was born. (To make sure a foreign divorce is valid it must be referred to the General Register Office.)

or

• any court order which names the father as father.

Just to be clear, the birth father has to consent to being named if he's not married to the mother in any case. But, if they're divorced/separated for ten months the husband should be out of the picture.

galljga1

gingerhousewife wrote: »

Off-topic, but this remains the case even years after the couple are divorced (happened to a friend of mine in the last couple of months), if the woman has not remarried. An affidavit is required to put a father other than the ex-husband on the birth cert!

That's mad Ted.

gingerhousewife

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

This sounds strange.

Just to be clear, the birth father has to consent to being named if he's not married to the mother in any case. But, if they're divorced/separated for ten months the husband should be out of the picture.
[/LIST]

This particular couple had been divorced since 2007, having been separated since 2003. The birth cert in question was sought in February of this year. I agree, the husband *should* be out of the picture, but evidently that is not the case, as my friend had to obtain an affidavit in order not to have her ex-husband's name on the birth cert.

Anyway I won't drag the topic off course any further, this could be discussed in another thread.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

gingerhousewife wrote: »

This particular couple had been divorced since 2007, having been separated since 2003. The birth cert in question was sought in February of this year. I agree, the husband *should* be out of the picture, but evidently that is not the case, as my friend had to obtain an affidavit in order not to have her ex-husband's name on the birth cert.

Anyway I won't drag the topic off course any further, this could be discussed in another thread.

No bother, and I agree there's no point in going into details - but it does seem odd, and suggests some other complication was in the picture.

K-9

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.

That's a reason to update the presumption in the law. Nothing has been done about it for decades despite its stupidity and old fashionedness. Gay marriage makes it more likely it will be dealt with.

Family law needs a whole revamp and that would come under that.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

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.

No under current law, because only a man and women can be married, the man is presumed and listed as the father.

A yes vote introduces confusion - which is not specified or catered for in law. The married couple are considered the parents/legal guardians irrespective of the biological status - and there is no current capacity to have 3 on the birth cert (and in any case which of the married couple could you legally get rid of)

I am fed up with the consequences on children being disclaimed by the Yes side. There are legal conseququences which have not been discussed/debated and this is wholly wrong.

gk5000

K-9 wrote: »

That's a reason to update the presumption in the law. Nothing has been done about it for decades despite its stupidity and old fashionedness. Gay marriage makes it more likely it will be dealt with.

Family law needs a whole revamp and that would come under that.

Your voting now, not later.

The law should be fixed before we change the constitution.

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

A yes vote introduces confusion - which is not specified or catered for in law. The married couple are considered the parents/legal guardians irrespective of the biological status - and there is no current capacity to have 3 on the birth cert (and in any case which of the married couple could you legally get rid of)

Quote it so. Quote the piece of law which will require two men or two women to be listed on a birth cert.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

K-9 wrote: »

That's a reason to update the presumption in the law.

It isn't, really. It's just typically how it's done. Here, and in other jurisdictions.

It would actually be ridiculous if we got to the stage of expressing amazement that a married woman had just given birth to her husband's child.

I'd like to see them try to win a referendum using that line.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

seamus wrote: »

Quote it so. Quote the piece of law which will require two men or two women to be listed on a birth cert.

I'm getting out of this thread. (It's been a pleasure.) But in a vain attempt to rescue humanity from it's ignorance, the attached article might give you a hint that there just are complications in these arrangements

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/21/us-usa-california-lgbt-rights-idUSKBN0GL04J20140821

<...>
In March, a baby in Tennessee became the first child in that state to have two women listed on her birth certificate, although one was in the spot marked "father."

In Florida last year, a judge approved an adoption of a baby girl that listed three people as parents on her birth certificate: a lesbian couple and a gay man, who was the sperm donor for the baby but sought a bigger role in his daughter’s life.

California already allows same-sex couples to put their names on a child's birth certificate, offering the choices of Mother/Parent and Father/Parent, <..>

Some people are living very different lives, and the law has to accommodate that one way or the other. The first step is just noticing these issues exist. Others have tried things that may or may not be good. We might even learn from that experience.

seamus

An article about family law issue in Tennessee is not relevant here. We're talking about Irish legislation.

gk5000

gk5000 wrote: »

No under current law, because only a man and women can be married, the man is presumed and listed as the father.

A yes vote introduces confusion - which is not specified or catered for in law. The married couple are considered the parents/legal guardians irrespective of the biological status - and there is no current capacity to have 3 on the birth cert (and in any case which of the married couple could you legally get rid of)

I am fed up with the consequences on children being disclaimed by the Yes side. There are legal consequences which have not been discussed/debated and this is wholly wrong.

Can we debate and discuss them then? What are they?

gk5000

Deleted User wrote: »

Can we debate and discuss them then? What are they?

The legal consequences for children and their parentage, as per the post you quoted.

Legally we shall allow 2 men or 2 women to marry and any children produced shall be deemed to be of the marriage - so we have the case of 2 men or 2 women on the birth cert - because how can u discriminate against what would be legally married people.

seamus

gk5000 wrote: »

The legal consequences for children and their parentage, as per the post you quoted.

Which you don't seem to be capable of showing any evidence for.

timetogo

gk5000 wrote: »

No under current law, because only a man and women can be married, the man is presumed and listed as the father.

A yes vote introduces confusion - which is not specified or catered for in law. The married couple are considered the parents/legal guardians irrespective of the biological status - and there is no current capacity to have 3 on the birth cert (and in any case which of the married couple could you legally get rid of)

I am fed up with the consequences on children being disclaimed by the Yes side. There are legal conseququences which have not been discussed/debated and this is wholly wrong.

I don't understand the problem. Is it that on a birth cert there's a Father & Mother field? Could this not be changed to Parents with two fields.
While I was at it I'd change the form to Biological Parents with a mother & father and have a second field for legal guardians / parents / whatever for the parents who have adopted.
I'm sure that's against the constitution for some reason and would need another vote.

galljga1

seamus wrote: »

An article about family law issue in Tennessee is not relevant here. We're talking about Irish legislation.

The point is still valid Seamus. I have no doubt that complications will arise in this country and that there are elements that have not been thought out but legislation will be introduced to cover them if and when they arise, that is if it is not already covered in existing legislation.
I tried to follow the ramifications of the Children and Family Relationships Act but along with introducing legislation to cover donor assisted human reproduction, it makes significant changes to 9 acts dating back to 1964 and a number of other miscellaneous changes. To be honest, I ain't no legal brain and got tied up in knots and did not have the patience to analyse each change.

The bottom line is that further legislative change may be required but I do not think it is a reason to vote no.

Greyian

gk5000 wrote: »

The legal consequences for children and their parentage, as per the post you quoted.

Legally we shall allow 2 men or 2 women to marry and any children produced shall be deemed to be of the marriage - so we have the case of 2 men or 2 women on the birth cert - because how can u discriminate against what would be legally married people.

Except that would make sense.

In existing heterosexual marriages, we were taking about assumed paternity. In this case, the woman's husband is assumed to be the father, despite the fact that this isn't necessarily the case (just because a man and woman are married does not mean the man is the biological father). As a result, what the birth cert is really saying in that case is who is responsible for the child (there have been instances of men, who are friends of a pregnant woman, offering to put their names on the birth cert and take responsibility as a father to the child).

In the case of homosexual marriages, this could work identically. The birth cert would record the parents (i.e. the two men, or the two women) who would care for, raise, provide for, take responsibility for etc. the child.

Simply change any reference of mother/father on the birth cert to parent, and there are no issues whatsoever.

gk5000

seamus wrote: »

Which you don't seem to be capable of showing any evidence for.

I don't have the legislation to hand, except that it was highlighted recently in the case whereby the person was trying to change their gender and the birth cert office would not produce a new one with a different sex.

But it is the way it is. All children of a marriage are automatically decided to be of that marriage i.e. that the father and mother of the marriage are the father and mother on the birth cert.

So, it is the de-facto situation....unless you care to counter.

MrWalsh

gk5000 wrote: »

I don't have the legislation to hand, except that it was highlighted recently in the case whereby the person was trying to change their gender and the birth cert office would not produce a new one with a different sex.

Im sorry, but what has gender change on a birth cert got to do with parentage on a birth cert?

gk5000

Greyian wrote: »

Except that would make sense.

In existing heterosexual marriages, we were taking about assumed paternity. In this case, the woman's husband is assumed to be the father, despite the fact that this isn't necessarily the case (just because a man and woman are married does not mean the man is the biological father). As a result, what the birth cert is really saying in that case is who is responsible for the child (there have been instances of men, who are friends of a pregnant woman, offering to put their names on the birth cert and take responsibility as a father to the child).

In the case of homosexual marriages, this could work identically. The birth cert would record the parents (i.e. the two men, or the two women) who would care for, raise, provide for, take responsibility for etc. the child.

Simply change any reference of mother/father on the birth cert to parent, and there are no issues whatsoever.

But now :
- You deny the biological parent(s)
- You accept there are consequences for children which have not been fully addressed.

So to me that is a reason to vote no - to make sure the law is fully capable prior to changing the constitution

gk5000

MrWalsh wrote: »

Im sorry, but what has gender change on a birth cert got to do with parentage on a birth cert?

The point is you cannot just arbitarily decide what you want on your birth cert. It is according to either law or practice.

Bannasidhe

gk5000 wrote: »

But now :
- You deny the biological parent(s)
- You accept there are consequences for children which have not been fully addressed.

So to me that is a reason to vote no - to make sure the law is fully capable prior to changing the constitution

But the existing system can and does often deny a biological parent by assuming a woman's husband is the father.

MrWalsh

gk5000 wrote: »

But now :
- You deny the biological parent(s)

But this is already the case with a heterosexual married woman where her husband is not her childs father?!

Why dont you just come out and say why you are voting no instead of desperately trying to find some legal loop to justify it?

gk5000

gk5000 wrote: »

The legal consequences for children and their parentage, as per the post you quoted.

Legally we shall allow 2 men or 2 women to marry and any children produced shall be deemed to be of the marriage - so we have the case of 2 men or 2 women on the birth cert - because how can u discriminate against what would be legally married people.

Okay. And what's the problem with that?

That the box that says Mother/Father will need to be renamed?

Can't see why that should be a problem.

MrWalsh

gk5000 wrote: »

The point is you cannot just arbitarily decide what you want on your birth cert. It is according to either law or practice.

So we change law or practice - I dont where there is a new problem here, the system is already fraught with problems.