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

pwurple

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

The system doesn't actually do that AFAIK.

Currently, the birth cert is supposed to have the biological parents, and the guardianship (which is a different thing entirely) is assumed to go to the spouse of the mother. Donor gametes are supposed to be listed on the birth cert, so that a child can determine their biological parentage in the future. Of course this is completely unenforceable, as most donor gametes come from outside this jurisdiction, and are anonymous.

I think it will work ok for gay married women who have children. But I can forsee an issue for gay married men who have children.


Reproductive law is a mess here.

galljga1

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.

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.

Are we not making assumptions here?
GK have you read the Children and Family Relationships Act? It covers surrogacy, assisted reproduction, adoption, parentage, guardianship, access and much more. I have tried to follow its impact on other acts but to be honest, I do not have the time at the moment (or a legal brain).
No idea of the impact to birth certs past present or future but I would hope some of the fine brains involved in introducing this legislation would have thought this through.

gk5000

MrWalsh wrote: »

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

Yes, so why:
- have they not changed the law already?
- why does the yes side claim there is no impact on children etc.?

To me it is improper, ill-advised or downright irresponsible to change the constitution before understanding the whole consequences - especially when those consequnces shall be on children.

gk5000

galljga1 wrote: »

Are we not making assumptions here?
GK have you read the Children and Family Relationships Act? It covers surrogacy, assisted reproduction, adoption, parentage, guardianship, access and much more. I have tried to follow its impact on other acts but to be honest, I do not have the time at the moment (or a legal brain).
No idea of the impact to birth certs past present or future but I would hope some of the fine brains involved in introducing this legislation would have thought this through.

You would hope so, but I doubt that is the case, so send them back to the drawing board...with a NO vote. That is the responsible thing to do.

I have not read any of the above, but are fairly sure it does not impact on regular married parentage.

MrWalsh

gk5000 wrote: »

Yes, so why:
- have they not changed the law already?
- why does the yes side claim there is no impact on children etc.?

To me it is improper, ill-advised or downright irresponsible to change the constitution before understanding the whole consequences - especially when those consequnces shall be on children.

Bit dramatic no? There may be minor details that need to be ironed out legally. Cant see it being any worse than things already are.

Society moves forward, the law catches up to reflect societal norms. We can live with a few anomalies to be ironed out if the majority agree that same sex couples can marry as that is the bigger picture - wouldnt you agree?

NewCorkLad

gk5000 wrote: »

Yes, so why:
- have they not changed the law already?
- why does the yes side claim there is no impact on children etc.?

To me it is improper, ill-advised or downright irresponsible to change the constitution before understanding the whole consequences - especially when those consequnces shall be on children.

You have not shown that there will be any consequences on children, you are only speculating that there might be.

Are you sure that all your worries are not already dealt with in the Children & Family Relationships Act?

gk5000

gk5000 wrote: »

You would hope so, but I doubt that is the case, so send them back to the drawing board...with a NO vote. That is the responsible thing to do.

I have not read any of the above, but are fairly sure it does not impact on regular married parentage.

...

Bannasidhe

pwurple wrote: »

The system doesn't actually do that AFAIK.

Currently, the birth cert is supposed to have the biological parents, and the guardianship (which is a different thing entirely) is assumed to go to the spouse of the mother. Donor gametes are supposed to be listed on the birth cert, so that a child can determine their biological parentage in the future. Of course this is completely unenforceable, as most donor gametes come from outside this jurisdiction, and are anonymous.

I think it will work ok for gay married women who have children. But I can forsee an issue for gay married men who have children.


Reproductive law is a mess here.

I don't know if it still does that but it certainly did in pre-divorce days. I know several people who discovered as adults that their listed father (i.e mother's husband) was not their biological father. It wasn't a case of the mother lying but of an automatic assumption on the part of the registrar.

CramCycle

gk5000 wrote: »

Yes, so why:
- have they not changed the law already?
- why does the yes side claim there is no impact on children etc.?

Because the issues you mention are already issues, they will not disappear with a no vote and they will not be fixed by a yes vote. All of the problems you have mentioned already exist, until the Children & Family Relationships Act and associated legislation come into force, will continue to exist.

traprunner

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Renaming the box would have huge implications for future genealogists. Only if they are renamed to 'biological mother' and 'biological father' would they be of use. The parents (if not the biological mother or father) have no business being on the birth cert.

timetogo

traprunner wrote: »

Renaming the box would have huge implications for future genealogists. Only if they are renamed to 'biological mother' and 'biological father' would they be of use. The parents (if not the biological mother or father) have no business being on the birth cert.

These don't sound like insurmountable issues (or even that difficult).

MrWalsh

traprunner wrote: »

Renaming the box would have huge implications for future genealogists. Only if they are renamed to 'biological mother' and 'biological father' would they be of use. The parents (if not the biological mother or father) have no business being on the birth cert.

More boxes are needed then to reflect how society has changed in recent years due to medical advances. Nothing to do with same sex marriage btw, but to do with reproductive medicine.

pwurple

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't know if it still does that but it certainly did in pre-divorce days. I know several people who discovered as adults that their listed father (i.e mother's husband) was not their biological father. It wasn't a case of the mother lying but of an automatic assumption on the part of the registrar.

Oh yes, I know of those as well. Plus adoptive parents being listed on the birth cert instead of biological parents during the mother/baby homes. A whole lot of mucking about really, and a lot of children who grew up with the consequences. Closed adoptions, and not knowing who your parents are is a total mind-melt, so I hope whatever people do, they keep it open.

I *think* it's covered here in the family bill what would happen for 2 married men, who use an Irish surrogate...

Head 12: Parentage in cases of surrogacy.
Provide along the following lines:
(1) If a child is born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement with the use of
human reproductive material provided by a man only, and the birth
mother is declared under Head 13(9) not to be a parent, the parents of the
child are the man and a person who:
(a) was married to or in a civil partnership with or cohabiting in an
intimate and committed relationship with that man at the time of
the child’s conception, and
(b) consented to be a parent of a child born as a result of a surrogacy
arrangement and did not withdraw that consent before the child’s
conception.
(2) If a child is born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement with the use of
human reproductive material provided by a woman only, and the birth
mother is declared under Head 13(9) not to be a parent, the parents of the
child are the woman and a person who:
(a) was married to or in a civil partnership with or cohabiting in an
intimate and committed relationship with that woman at the time of
the child’s conception, and
(b) consented to be a parent of a child born as a result of a surrogacy
arrangement and did not withdraw that consent before the child’s
conception.
(3) If a child is born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement with the use of
human reproductive material provided by a man and a woman, and the
birth mother is declared under Head 13(9) not to be a parent, the parents
of the child are the man and the woman.

gk5000

CramCycle wrote: »

Because the issues you mention are already issues, they will not disappear with a no vote and they will not be fixed by a yes vote. All of the problems you have mentioned already exist, until the Children & Family Relationships Act and associated legislation come into force, will continue to exist.

No, I do not think they shall be fixed by this new law.

The point is we should not change the constitution until we are sure of the consequences of that change, and make sure we fix all when we are doing it.

gk5000

pwurple wrote: »

Oh yes, I know of those as well. Plus adoptive parents being listed on the birth cert instead of biological parents during the mother/baby homes. A whole lot of mucking about really, and a lot of children who grew up with the consequences. Closed adoptions, and not knowing who your parents are is a total mind-melt, so I hope whatever people do, they keep it open.

I *think* it's covered here in the family bill what would happen for 2 married men, who use an Irish surrogate...

But two women could get married and have babies without surrogacy, so how is that covered?

galljga1

I am in two minds about posting this as I do not wish to muddy the waters or mislead anyone. I have taken snippets from the recent act which I hope no one will take out of context. It can be explored here http://familylawirelandhq.com/


Parentage
The parents of a child are his or her birth mother and biological father unless the child has been adopted within the meaning of the Adoption Act 2010 or the child was born as a result of assisted reproduction, including through surrogacy. (3) Where a child is born as a result of assisted reproduction including through surrogacy, parentage of the child shall be determined in accordance with Part 3,

Now, there is too much in Part 3 to copy in here and I am not going to synopsyse it as I have no legal background and do not want to mislead people.

Parentage in cases of assisted reproduction other than surrogacy
The husband, civil partner or cohabitant of the mother is considered to be the other parent of the child if he or she has given a consent which remains valid at the time the procedure leading to implantation takes place.


definition of “father”
the definition of “father” from the 1964 Act (which is used for the purposes of assessing what fathers are automatically guardians of their children) now includes a category of non-marital fathers who cohabit with the child’s mother for at least 12 months prior to the child’s birth, where that cohabitation ends 57 (if applicable) not more than 10 months prior to the child’s birth. This will significantly expand the range of fathers who are automatically guardians of their children without the need to take any further action.

There is so much more in this act. It is worth going through if you have any queries. It's a bit bamboozling but may put some minds at ease. It will of course give others nightmares.

Greyian

gk5000 wrote: »

No, I do not think they shall be fixed by this new law.

The point is we should not change the constitution until we are sure of the consequences of that change, and make sure we fix all when we are doing it.

Except that there are issues which already exist, so what you're suggesting is that we don't make any progress, until we fix an existing issue.

galljga1

gk5000 wrote: »

You would hope so, but I doubt that is the case, so send them back to the drawing board...with a NO vote. That is the responsible thing to do.

I have not read any of the above, but are fairly sure it does not impact on regular married parentage.

Well that is just nonsense then.

"but I would doubt that is the case"...."I have not read any of the above"

If you have doubts, read the bill, if you still have doubts, raise them.

Maximus Alexander

gk5000 wrote: »

No, I do not think they shall be fixed by this new law.

The point is we should not change the constitution until we are sure of the consequences of that change, and make sure we fix all when we are doing it.

I presume you have voted No in every referendum to date for which you have been eligible to do so?

uck51js9zml2yt

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

I've seen the homophobic accusations on other threads and the put downs of those who dare to say no.

So onto my reasoning. On the phone so it will be short.
For to consider homosexuals as not being treated as equal under current legislation one needs to believe that people are born homosexual.
I don't believe this.
As a practicing christia I beleive God is tge ultimate authority on the mater. I believe Gods view of homosexuality that it is sin and not the way God intended.
I also believe its a lie which people believe and then give themselves over to.
For the basis of my belief read St Paul's letter to the Romans. For those who don't know , Paul was previously a Jewish religious leader and learned. Not just an ignorant fisherman like Peter. He was also a Roman citizen so had prestige and upbringing. He was very much a critical thinker and able to debate with the most able men of his day.

Its not something to be stoned for as was the case under the old testament law but as we are now in the new testament era, its dealt with by repentance and faith towards God.
Its no worse a sin than any other sin and the remedy is the same.
People who want to say that Jesus never condemded homosexuality ignore the point that He never approved of it either. Anytime He mentioned marriage it was in the context of a man and woman.

Do I think less of my niece and her wife?,No.
Do I approve of their way of life? No.

In brief, that's some of my reasoning.

galljga1

gk5000 wrote: »

No, I do not think they shall be fixed by this new law.

The point is we should not change the constitution until we are sure of the consequences of that change, and make sure we fix all when we are doing it.

Read the act, then give an 'informed' opinion.

Maximus Alexander

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Do I think less of my niece and her wife?,No.
Do I approve of their way of life? No.

My question would be, why do you believe that their way of life should be subject to your approval?

galljga1

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

I've seen the homophobic accusations on other threads and the put downs of those who dare to say no.

So onto my reasoning. On the phone so it will be short.
For to consider homosexuals as not being treated as equal under current legislation one needs to believe that people are born homosexual.
I don't believe this.
As a practicing christia I beleive God is tge ultimate authority on the mater. I believe Gods view of homosexuality that it is sin and not the way God intended.
I also believe its a lie which people believe and then give themselves over to.
For the basis of my belief read St Paul's letter to the Romans. For those who don't know , Paul was previously a Jewish religious leader and learned. Not just an ignorant fisherman like Peter. He was also a Roman citizen so had prestige and upbringing. He was very much a critical thinker and able to debate with the most able men of his day.

Its not something to be stoned for as was the case under the old testament law but as we are now in the new testament era, its dealt with by repentance and faith towards God.
Its no worse a sin than any other sin and the remedy is the same.
People who want to say that Jesus never condemded homosexuality ignore the point that He never approved of it either. Anytime He mentioned marriage it was in the context of a man and woman.

Do I think less of my niece and her wife?,No.
Do I approve of their way of life? No.

In brief, that's some of my reasoning.

Well, there we go....that's that settled.

timetogo

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

one needs to believe that people are born homosexual.
I don't believe this.

Each to his own I suppose. For me I'm heterosexual. I believe I was born that way I don't believe I chose to be heterosexual. I don't believe I could choose to be gay. Your post seems to think it's a choice and just a sin. If it wasn't a sin could you choose to be gay? Even if it was demanded in the bible could you choose to be gay?

MrWalsh

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

For to consider homosexuals as not being treated as equal under current legislation one needs to believe that people are born homosexual.
I don't believe this.

So tell me about when you chose to be heterosexual then?

Im not really concerned what religion has to say on the matter, it is civil marriage under discussion.

pwurple

gk5000 wrote: »

But two women could get married and have babies without surrogacy, so how is that covered?

I think that one is even more straightforward.

The biological parents are listed on the birth cert, one of whom is the birth mother, the other is the sperm donor. The mother's spouse is the guardian.

Greyian

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

For to consider homosexuals as not being treated as equal under current legislation one needs to believe that people are born homosexual.
I don't believe this.

I'd be curious what you think of homosexuality in non-human animals in that case.

seamus

traprunner wrote: »

Renaming the box would have huge implications for future genealogists. Only if they are renamed to 'biological mother' and 'biological father' would they be of use. The parents (if not the biological mother or father) have no business being on the birth cert.

The new Act basically ensures the record is as whole as possible. Complete heritage records will be maintained and available to children of donors once they reach the age of 18.

From what I understand surrogacy isn't entirely covered by the new act, and the woman who gives birth to the child is considered the biological mother. I will admit to not having read it fully though, it's quite complicated.

Surrogacy is complicated, especially for genealogy, as in theory a surrogate child may have up to five parents - the birth mother, the biological mother, the biological father and two intended parents.

Bannasidhe

traprunner wrote: »

Renaming the box would have huge implications for future genealogists. Only if they are renamed to 'biological mother' and 'biological father' would they be of use. The parents (if not the biological mother or father) have no business being on the birth cert.

Not necessarily.

I have worked with an incredible historian and genealogist named Ken Nicholls and he has compiled a very comprehensive list of the genealogies of Gaelic and Old English families without the existence of any central registry.

I managed to reconstruct the genealogies of the main branches of the MacUilliam á Búrca of Mayo from 1160 to 1726 using a verity of English and Irish sources and this was in a culture where a woman 'named' the father of her child - who was not necessarily her husband, it being a sexually liberal society.

I put myself through college by working for Eneclann (among other jobs) and on more than one occasion we would find a death cert for a father named on a birth cert that was dated more than 9 months before the birth... or a father that couldn't be traced at all at all - no birth/baptismal/marriage/death..nuttin...like they didn't exist...

It's certainly not a reason to vote No.

pwurple

seamus wrote: »

Surrogacy is complicated, especially for genealogy, as in theory a surrogate child may have up to five parents - the birth mother, the biological mother, the biological father and two intended parents.

Don't forget about the new reproductive technology, with three gametes!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11432058/Three-parent-babies-House-of-Lords-approves-law-despite-fears-children-could-be-sterile.html