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

shruikan2553

Whats preventing 2 people from marrying if they are related, the same gender or one is under 18 if not regulating marriage? If people are worried about regulating marriage then they are a bit late to voice their concerns.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I never mentioned impotent, if a woman or man had an accident that left them unable to conceive a child should they be allowed marry? Are you claiming that their marriage would be void due to them being unable to conceive?

Infertility per se does not make a marriage voidable. But if a marriage can't be consummated, it is voidable.

Similarly, a SSM cannot be consummated. These are important concepts in determining marriage validity at present. As you'll notice, debate hasn't even touched on what the amendment will mean for them.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

sup_dude wrote: »

No, the amendment allows for same sex couples to marry. There is still nothing in it about contraception.

You are dodging the issue.

scary

So again to fixdepitchmark and GCU

are you against this because you believe the referendum doesn't make sense constitutionally or are you simply against same sex marriage. Cards on the table and be honest rather than the faffing about with vague arguments.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Whats preventing 2 people from marrying if they are related, the same gender or one is under 18 .

Just the Courts, really.

Timberrrrrrrr

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Infertility per se does not make a marriage voidable. But if a marriage can't be consummated, it is voidable.

Similarly, a SSM cannot be consummated. These are important concepts in determining marriage validity at present. As you'll notice, debate hasn't even touched on what the amendment will mean for them.

Please define consummated.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

scary wrote: »

So again to fixdepitchmark and GCU

are you against this because you believe the referendum doesn't make sense constitutionally or are you simply against same sex marriage. Cards on the table and be honest rather than the faffing about with vague arguments.

Because it doesn't make sense, obviously.

sydthebeat

consummated means to have sexual intercourse

is this the best the 'no' side can come up with?

scary

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Because it doesn't make sense, obviously.

so if the wording and placement did make sense would you be happy to see it implemented? bottom line referendum or not are you for or against same sex marriage?

Ave Sodalis

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You are dodging the issue.

No, I'm not. The referendum doesn't change contraceptive laws. Speaking of dodging issues, I seen you conveniantly left out the first part of my post too.

shruikan2553

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Just the Courts, really.

Marriage is regulated then. If the "in accordance with law" was removed it could be argued that people could take part in these other marriages.

ressem

According to the Law reform paper
http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/r101Family%281%29.pdf

1.02 At present the terms generally used to describe family relationships in Ireland are guardianship, custody and access. This terminology pre-dates the formation of the State in 1922 and is, therefore, language inherited from English common law. There is no statutory definition of any of these terms, although the Commission noted in the Consultation Paper that the terms appear to be well understood among practitioners and academics working in the family law area.

So by that description, can the terms guardianship, custody and access be applied to a civil partnership of two people? I'd say yes, a relationship of mutual guardianship and custody.

If anything, the existing constitution is incorrect when it says " the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded,". Families are wider than that, historically it would include household staff; people and yes, even the family pets adopted into the household.

This definition also makes it obvious that it's possible to have a married couple that are no longer family, as common sense and some of the previous posts have detailed.

B_Wayne

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

:rolleyes:

If you think continuation of our society is not important - you just don't get it.

Maybe you think - your life is just about you.

Perhaps you will not understand the sacrifice it takes to raise a child.

But - once your happy.

That is why this debate is so flawed

It is about me me versus - others.

Can you refer to how society has collapsed in the places where same sex marriage is currently possible?

Bannasidhe

B_Wayne wrote: »

Can you refer to how society has collapsed in the places where same sex marriage is currently possible?

All depends on how one defines 'society' I suppose.

If one is deeply conservative and religious then a liberal/secular society will result in the death of the society on believes in said she musingly.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Please define consummated.

As I understand it, the current legal meaning of consummation is penile penetration of the vagina, which cannot be partial but does not necessarily involve insemination.

How will it be defined after this referendum? Will hetero marriages continue to be voidable on grounds of non-consummation? If so, presumably all SSMs will be voidable. However, the amendment wording precludes any distinction on grounds of gender, so it would seem that the same rule will have to apply to both.

Ditto for the presumption of paternity. As the concept can only coherently apply to children of hetero marriages, does this mean the concept will cease to apply after the vote?

More simply, are you able to coherently explain what you expect me to vote yes to?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

scary wrote: »

so if the wording and placement did make sense would you be happy to see it implemented? bottom line referendum or not are you for or against same sex marriage?

I've already quite clearly answered that point. I will repeat, but can you please digest the response, instead of hectoring because it doesn't conform to your preconceptions of how the discussion should play out.

I don't see the law as having a role in making people good. So I don't see the purpose of this amendment to be "for" or "against" SSM. As I said on another thread, I don't care if a woman wants to have a relationship with her pet doberman, even if I've a mild interest in seeing the photos.

We can take it as given that people will have same sex relationships. The point is about what legal provision needs to be made for that. Possibly that can be achieved without any referendum at all.

What hasn't happened yet is any kind of dispassionate analysis. Possibly, marriage is an inherently hetero institution, as an amount of the concepts become farcical when applied to same sex relationships - such as the presumption of paternity, or consummation.

A starting point would be to identify if there actually is any substantial legal gap relating to same sex couples. I don't mean the lengthy spam list of every section of every act that uses the term spouse, as at this stage even cohabiting couples enjoy some legal reliefs.

We need a cogent answer to the question "What's the point of this referendum". And cogent doesn't mean a retreat into mood music about equality.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

sup_dude wrote: »

No, I'm not. The referendum doesn't change contraceptive laws. Speaking of dodging issues, I seen you conveniantly left out the first part of my post too.

I obviously saw no particular merit in the first part of your post, but feel free to pursue the matter explicitly.

To my eyes, you seem deliberately obtuse. I'm very clearly pointing out that the Constitution has protected married people from unwarranted intrusion by the Oireachtas in their private lives. The wording of this referendum seems to end, or at least significantly reduce, that protection.

Timberrrrrrrr

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

As I understand it, the current legal meaning of consummation is penile penetration of the vagina, which cannot be partial but does not necessarily involve insemination.

How will it be defined after this referendum? Will hetero marriages continue to be voidable on grounds of non-consummation? If so, presumably all SSMs will be voidable. However, the amendment wording precludes any distinction on grounds of gender, so it would seem that the same rule will have to apply to both.

Ditto for the presumption of paternity. As the concept can only coherently apply to children of hetero marriages, does this mean the concept will cease to apply after the vote?

More simply, are you able to coherently explain what you expect me to vote yes to?

Any evidence to back this up?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/civil_annulment/nullity_of_marriage.html

Voidable marriage

To prove to the court that your marriage is voidable, you must show one of the following grounds:

At the time of the marriage ceremony, either party was impotent. You must show that either you or your spouse was unable to consummate the marriage. You cannot obtain a declaration of nullity because one of you is infertile or because one of you is simply refusing to consummate the marriage. It must be the case that one of you is incapable of sexual intercourse.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Marriage is regulated then. If the "in accordance with law" was removed it could be argued that people could take part in these other marriages.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

The point I'm making is that the Oireachtas currently don't have an explicit power to regulate marriages. So when the Oireachtas passed a law prohibiting contraceptives, the Courts were able to strike it down.

I don't know if this answers your question, but the phrase "in accordance with law" is being added to allow the Oireachtas to regulate marriage. The Courts decided that the current wording doesn't create a right to marriage that includes same sex couples. At the same time, the Courts didn't absolutely rule out the possibility that the Oireachtas could pass legislation allow SSM without a referendum.

As I understand it, the formal justification for including the phrase is "to be sure to be sure" that the Oireachtas can make a law in this area. But the effect of that is to compromise the Constitution protection for all marriages.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Any evidence to back this up?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/civil_annulment/nullity_of_marriage.html

What evidence do you want?

Is this good enough?

http://www.familylawireland.ie/void-or-voidable-%E2%80%93-nullity-of-marriage/

Marriages can be deemed voidable. Grounds for voidable marriages are:
Incurable psycho-sexual impotence
Inability to enter into and sustain a normal marital relationship.

By their very nature nullity cases can be excruciating to sit through. A forensic examination of other people’s sex lives can be very hard on the nerves of all concerned. In a straight forward physical sense, for a marriage to be consummated there must be penetration of the female by the male which cannot be partial and which does not require insemination as part of the process. I will leave you to squirm with that one. Sometimes a person may not in fact be impotent but just not able to consummate with a particular person. This is referred to as psycho sexual which is, to put it mildly, difficult to prove one way or the other. There is an exceptionally fine line between wilful refusal and psychological repugnance. And so you have Judges saying things like a man of stronger constitution would have overcome his wife’s reservations which is another way of saying ….? You got it!

With respect, at some stage you just have to come to terms with the fact that this issue can't be framed the way you'd like to be framed.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

After nearly five posts in a row, I'm giving it a rest. Thanks to all for a discussion that I've found helpful in deepening my consideration of this topic. If I'm still a No vote at the end of it, at least its a considered No.

Best of luck to all in making your own judgments on the matter.

MrWalsh

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What evidence do you want?

Is this good enough?With respect, at some stage you just have to come to terms with the fact that this issue can't be framed the way you'd like to be framed.

The only argument you seem to be making is "eewww gays".

There are a lot of differences between civil partnership and marriage.

The law has nothing to do with making people feel good. What's important is that all people are treated equally under our constitution.

Bannasidhe

Government already 'regulates' marriage because the terms and conditions are contained within legislation. Legislation which can be 'tweaked' by government should it desire.
While it would be impossible without a Referendum to dispense with Marriage there is nothing in the constitution which states there has to be, for example, any particular inheritance/taxation breaks for married couples etc. Nor is there any clear cut definition of exactly what Marriage consists of - simply that it exists and is the foundation of the equally ill defined family.

Everything that we consider part and parcel of marriage is contained in legislation. Therefore, Government already regulates it.

bopper

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

As I understand it, the current legal meaning of consummation is penile penetration of the vagina, which cannot be partial but does not necessarily involve insemination.

How will it be defined after this referendum? Will hetero marriages continue to be voidable on grounds of non-consummation? If so, presumably all SSMs will be voidable. However, the amendment wording precludes any distinction on grounds of gender, so it would seem that the same rule will have to apply to both.

Out of interest, is this a genuine concern for you if the yes vote passes?

scary

Is this good enough?
Quote:
http://www.familylawireland.ie/void-...y-of-marriage/

Marriages can be deemed voidable. Grounds for voidable marriages are:
Incurable psycho-sexual impotence
Inability to enter into and sustain a normal marital relationship.

By their very nature nullity cases can be excruciating to sit through. A forensic examination of other people’s sex lives can be very hard on the nerves of all concerned. In a straight forward physical sense, for a marriage to be consummated there must be penetration of the female by the male which cannot be partial and which does not require insemination as part of the process. I will leave you to squirm with that one. Sometimes a person may not in fact be impotent but just not able to consummate with a particular person. This is referred to as psycho sexual which is, to put it mildly, difficult to prove one way or the other. There is an exceptionally fine line between wilful refusal and psychological repugnance. And so you have Judges saying things like a man of stronger constitution would have overcome his wife’s reservations which is another way of saying ….? You got it!



Consummation of marriage is sexual intercourse between the married couple, this article only refers to the current legal form of marriage between a man and woman and therefor describes that form of sexual intercourse, intercourse is defined as vaginal, anal and oral. So a same sex married couple can in fact consummate their marriage if the referendum is passed.

Annasopra

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think the first issue with this referendum is actually not about SSM as such. It's that we're being asked to give the Oireachtas the explicit power to regulate marriage. That would look to me to be something that undermines the right to marital privacy, which guarantees (for example) that married couples currently have Constitutional protection of their right to contraception.

Can you please explain how?

Bannasidhe

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The suggestion GCU seems to be making is that introducing this sentence into the constitution would mean all constitutional rights on marriage are overridden and no longer be claimed because the legislature can regulate against them.

Oh I understand what he is saying but he has failed to show where in the Constitution such rights are defined.
Any explicit rights are the result of legislation.

sydthebeat

If all the arguments in this thread are what the no side purport to be "considered" well then it's only reinforced my decision to vote yes because at heart I do not have the right to withhold a civil entitlement that is accessible to me from anyone else on grounds of their sexuality.

That to me is the very definition of discrimination.

Ozymandius2011

Its about an equal right to marry the gender you are attracted to - something presently denied to gay people.

It's about an end to the following discrimination relative to people in civil partnerships:


- Unlike married couples, civil partners in joint tenancy of a home previously owned by one or both marriage partners must pay a land registration fee. Married couples are not so required.

- The provisions of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1979 do not apply to civil partners. This means that hardship of a civil partner cannot be taken account of in the event of a grant to repair damage to the house or build a new one if the old house is damaged. In contrast it is taken account for married couples. This means civil partners have reduced access to a housing grant to repair their homes or build replacement ones in the event of damage.

- The provisions of the Housing Act 1966 do not apply to civil partners. So the income of a civil partner cannot be taken into account when determining eligibility for a housing allowance.

- Civil partners must pay a penalty for transferring or leasing to the other partner a home built using a grant in the House Regulation 1980. No such penalty for a spouse.

- The protections of the 1933 Land Act from compulsory acquisition of land apply to spouses but not to civil partners.

- Civil partners have no right of access to the District Court for family-law proceedings allowed to spouses under the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act, 1976.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MrWalsh wrote: »

That's important is that all people are treated equally under our constitution.

Fine as a slogan, but I notice no-one is able to explain what a yes vote actually means in any substantial sense.

scary wrote: »

So a same sex married couple can in fact consummate their marriage if the referendum is passed.

bopper wrote: »

Out of interest, is this a genuine concern for you if the yes vote passes?

It's a genuine issue and, as scary's post indicates, not understood at all here. I think the presumption of paternity is a more general concern. There's probably other concepts as well which just don't coherently apply to same sex unions.

In the UK, they kicked to touch on this topic.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/05/gay-marriage-some-inequalities-remain

Those who draft the parliamentary bills have been unable to define what constitutes consummation of a same-sex union. Consequently there is no provision for divorce on the grounds of non-consummation of a gay marriage.

That problem also means that same-sex couples who wish to divorce will not be able to cite adultery with someone of the same sex – the civil servants similarly struggled to find a definition of adultery between two men or two women.

Adultery will, nonetheless, be a permitted grounds for divorce if it follows sexual intercourse between one of the couple and someone of the opposite sex. <..>

The concern I'd have is in the UK they've no written Constitution, so they can embed this kind of ludicrously inconsistent stuff in their legal code if they need to. However, our proposed amendment seems to rule out any distinction being made between gay marriages and straight marriages, which just conflicts with the reality that they can't be legislated for identically.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh I understand what he is saying but he has failed to show where in the Constitution such rights are defined.
Any explicit rights are the result of legislation.

You certainly haven't demonstrated that you understand, as you aren't saying anything about the point I've made.

The amendment would seem to disapply Constitutional limitations on what the Oireachtas can put into marriage legislation. If you truly understand that point, speak to it.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It's about an end to the following discrimination relative to people in civil partnerships:

Ah, yeah, the spam list of every section of every act that says "spouse".

Like folk say, if we were truly interested in ensuring security of tenure for all forms of family, we wouldn't be fetishing about marriage.