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

constance tench

bee06 wrote: »

Maybe your interpretation of the article but realistically the article is open to all kinds of interpretation. Without a specific definition of "the family" then the family is different things to different people and in my opinion no one had the right to impose their definition onto anyone else.

It may be inferred from Article 41 that all citizens are 'the Family' and are already constitutionally protected.

Btrippn

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The simple reality is most yes voters are voting yes because they've a vague idea that a gay couple can be shoehorned into the same civil marriage rights and entitlements as a hetro couple.

Anything else they just don't want to hear.

I could try to be polite about it, but this is absolutely the most miserable referendum process I've ever had the misfortune to experience. Remind me when the vote takes place, so that I can count the days until it's over and I can look at a news site again without the risk of seeing a mention of it.

Most people are voting Yes because they realise it means a lot to a proportion of the Irish public. They are being selfless. They also feel that it doesn't affect their own lives significantly enough to vote no.

Marriage in general promotes stability and has other benefits that are not outlined in the legal documentations that you seem to focus on. You are very articulate but you have limited perception and have approached this referendum with very little empathy.

You're life will not change in any way after this "miserable referendum" ends, regardless of the result, I don't understand why you're getting so annoyed.

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The simple reality is most yes voters are voting yes because they've a vague idea that a gay couple can be shoehorned into the same civil marriage rights and entitlements as a hetro couple.

Not just shoehorned but if the Irish public vote Yes in the majority they will find that they won't be shoehorned but will be flat out entitled to the same civil marriage rights and entitlements as every other Irish person.

Some would have you believe that there are items in law that don't make such a thing possible. Those people clearly have no idea how the law works in regards to the constitution.

If a law doesn't apply to a person for whatever reason, it simply does not apply.

If someone is concerned about the meaning of a word in law and how it may apply to them or a group of the population or the population as a whole, it can be tested in court, this will result in the law becoming inoperable, the court deciding on a definition of the word for legal clarity (which can be tested) or for the government to write into law a definition of said word that makes the law operable.

If the law suddenly becomes unconstitutional because of a change to the constitution, while there is an onus on the government of the day to amend it (there are several on the books I am sure), it can also be treated as inoperable (something that is done on a daily basis with several laws) or it can be tested in the supreme courts.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

CramCycle wrote: »

Not just shoehorned but if the Irish public vote Yes in the majority they will find that they won't be shoehorned but will be flat out entitled to the same civil marriage rights and entitlements as every other Irish person.

Grand. That means every one of them will be a voidable marriage, as the concept of consummation still applies - it just can't be fulfilled.

Maximus Alexander

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand. That means every one of them will be a voidable marriage, as the concept of consummation still applies - it just can't be fulfilled.

I presume consummation is defined in the same part of the constitution that defines marriage?

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand. That means every one of them will be a voidable marriage, as the concept of consummation still applies - it just can't be fulfilled.

Can you give a link to the act or law that defines consummation? It is commonly accepted in the current climate, legally, as the act of penetration by the male of the female (can't find it saying vaginal anywhere), but that is more for a short cut as up until now that is the only scenario that has been brought up as far as I know. No one has brought a case where the wife using other appendages or instruments, penetrated the man, or whether the penetration has been elsewhere (i.e. not vaginal).

Legally though, it is, as far as I know, simply the stated act of sexual intercourse. I hate to break it to you. But both hetero and homo couples are capable of sexual intercourse. I cannot find where the act is defined in law, if you could that would be great, clears alot up, but I know plenty of couples who have engaged in sexual intercourse without a penis entering a vagina.

Obviously, your concerns will be easily addressed in a court room if the legislation is passed and a judge, on the first annulment sought on these grounds, the judge can interpret the spirit of the law and decide whether or not sexual intercourse had or had not taken place.

Following on from this though, if there is an issue, this will be addressed in time by the legal system and the government. Personally, I can't see the issue. I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe or can see proof that what you are saying is either correct or an issue.

Greyian

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand. That means every one of them will be a voidable marriage, as the concept of consummation still applies - it just can't be fulfilled.

If the definition of consummation was changed to include oral, anal or vaginal intercourse, then it would be applicable to hetero- and homosexual marriages.

There's also the question of whether consummation of marriage is terribly important today. I don't think people are as committed to maintaining their virtue until their wedding night anymore.

seamus

Look at all this vague, archaic and easily-changed law that brings up some minor questions when applied in the case of same-sex marriage! Ye Gods, what are we going to do if a "Yes" vote succeeds? Change the laws?! You can't do that!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Greyian wrote: »

If the definition of consummation was changed to include oral, anal or vaginal intercourse, then it would be applicable to hetero- and homosexual marriages.

If it's that simple, can I suggest you look into why they didn't do that in the UK when they faced exactly the same problem.

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If it's that simple, can I suggest you look into why they didn't do that in the UK when they faced exactly the same problem.

Can I ask then, if it is an issue (which by the way, you still have not shown it to be), why do you look to the UK for issues when solutions to a minor and in the eyes of many, non existent, issues are provided.

Greyian

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If it's that simple, can I suggest you look into why they didn't do that in the UK when they faced exactly the same problem.

According to Wikipedia, failure to consummate a marriage is not grounds for annulment of a marriage in England/Wales (Paragraph 4 of schedule 4 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013).

Interestingly, "Other common law jurisdictions, such as Australia, have abolished the legal concept of consummation."

So we could get rid of consummation, change the definition of consummation, or as others have already said, only make the law operable in such cases where it makes sense to do so.



Also, I thought this was very interesting:

Wikipedia wrote:

In a 2001 report, the Law Society’s Law Reform Committee of Ireland advocated for abolishing the concept of a voidable marriage altogether (since divorce had been introduced in 1996) and criticized the consummation ground, writing the following:

"The rationale behind this ground is not immediately apparent. It is not concerned with the capacity of either or both parties to procreate, still less with the ability of the parties to satisfy each other sexually during the marriage. [...] It remains a rather curious anomaly in the law, a relic perhaps of medieval times, when the first act of intercourse was thought to 'mark' a new bride as the 'property' of her husband. Whatever its origins, it is not entirely clear what modern purpose this ground serves and it is suggested that it should be dispensed with."

And you can see the full document regarding nullity of marriage reform here.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If it's that simple, can I suggest you look into why they didn't do that in the UK when they faced exactly the same problem.

Did they have a referendum to change their written Constitution too?

MrWalsh

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If it's that simple, can I suggest you look into why they didn't do that in the UK when they faced exactly the same problem.

They still introduced same sex marriage in the UK despite this "problem" - and as far as I can tell the earth is still turning on its axis.

seamus

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If it's that simple, can I suggest you look into why they didn't do that in the UK when they faced exactly the same problem.

As far as I can tell the only people who had an issue with this were the tiny subset of Catholics who wanted to be able to get a legal annulment rather than a divorce, lest their God get confused and accidentally smite someone who got a divorce instead of an annulment.

It was a minor issue in the UK for which they applied a minor workaround.

Pretty clear though that it was some hetereosexual marriages who needed this special workaround, not the homosexual ones.

Greyian

MrWalsh wrote: »

They still introduced same sex marriage in the UK despite this "problem" - and as far as I can tell the earth is still turning on its axis.

GDP growth in the UK was at its lowest in 3 years in the first 3 months of this year.

Clearly a result of same-sex marriage.

Or maybe the lizard people, I can never remember which evil conspiracy agenda is being blamed for what anymore.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

seamus wrote: »

It was a minor issue in the UK for which they applied a minor workaround.

Greyian wrote: »

According to Wikipedia, failure to consummate a marriage is not grounds for annulment of a marriage in England/Wales (Paragraph 4 of schedule 4 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013).

It's not grounds to annul a same sex marriage. It is still a ground in straight marriages. That's the point - the UK haven't been able to apply the same legal code to both. But that's what our amendment will oblige us to do.

Greyian wrote: »

So we could get rid of consummation, change the definition of consummation, or as others have already said, only make the law operable in such cases where it makes sense to do so.

Oh, conceivably we could. Conceivably we could also abolish the presumption of paternity, and just require all married couples to register their children through the same procedures that apply to other couples.

But none of those actions are actually being proposed. We'd want to do something; nothing is being done.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did they have a referendum to change their written Constitution too?

MrWalsh wrote: »

They still introduced same sex marriage in the UK despite this "problem" - and as far as I can tell the earth is still turning on its axis.

These questions are best answered together.

UK has no written Constitution. They are never obliged to hold a referendum on anything. That means Parliament can pretty much pass whatever laws they want, without needing to worry about them being tested against a higher document (apart from EU law, which trumps all domestic laws including the Irish Constitution.)

The issue is that our Constitution will (on the basis of the proposed wording) mean the Oireachtas cannot make any distinction based on gender when framing marriage law. Hence, it's not clear what solutions can actually be implemented. Certainly, no-one is saying how these known problems will be dealt with.

traprunner

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's not grounds to annul a same sex marriage. It is still a ground in straight marriages. That's the point - the UK haven't been able to apply the same legal code to both. But that's what our amendment will oblige us to do.Oh, conceivably we could. Conceivably we could also abolish the presumption of paternity, and just require all married couples to register their children through the same procedures that apply to other couples.

But none of those actions are actually being proposed. We'd want to do something; nothing is being done.These questions are best answered together.

UK has no written Constitution. They are never obliged to hold a referendum on anything. That means Parliament can pretty much pass whatever laws they want, without needing to worry about them being tested against a higher document (apart from EU law, which trumps all domestic laws including the Irish Constitution.)

The issue is that our Constitution will (on the basis of the proposed wording) mean the Oireachtas cannot make any distinction based on gender when framing marriage law. Hence, it's not clear what solutions can actually be implemented. Certainly, no-one is saying how these known problems will be dealt with.

If the people of Ireland have the sense to pass this change in the constitution then we can face the minor details (end of the world from your perspective) together like adults.

seamus

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's the point - the UK haven't been able to apply the same legal code to both. But that's what our amendment will oblige us to do.

Oh no!

So?

So let's remove the concept of annulment for inability to consummate. It's an anachronism anyway and repugnant to the constitution. The number of people who avail of it is tiny because most people have the good sense to have sex before marriage. If you don't, then you don't deserve a special "out" for making a dumb decision.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

traprunner wrote: »

If the people of Ireland have the sense to pass this change in the constitution then we can face the minor details (end of the world from your perspective) together like adults.

You haven't understood the issue. Just go back and read it, because I'm not explaining it again.

seamus wrote: »

So let's remove the concept of annulment for inability to consummate. It's an anachronism anyway and repugnant to the constitution. The number of people who avail of it is tiny because most people have the good sense to have sex before marriage. If you don't, then you don't deserve a special "out" for making a dumb decision.

As I said, the significance is it will make all same sex marriages voidable.

There's any amount of ways it could be resolved, however farcical. The point is that none of them is being presented at present. The circus is doing its thing, as if these issues didn't exist.

MrWalsh

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There's any amount of ways it could be resolved, however farcical. The point is that none of them is being presented at present. The circus is doing its thing, as if these issues didn't exist.

Thats because the bigger issue - the one that means we treat same sex couples equally as we do opposite sex couples by allowing them legal recognition of marriage - is far more important than a silly little minor detail that can be ironed out later.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

UK has no written Constitution. They are never obliged to hold a referendum on anything. That means Parliament can pretty much pass whatever laws they want, without needing to worry about them being tested against a higher document (apart from EU law, which trumps all domestic laws including the Irish Constitution.)

Indeed.

Yet here you are weally wallying about how no one bar yourself has considered the implications of making a change to our written Constitution and using comparisons to the UK which doesn't have a written Constitution to bolster your argument.

Any chance you could demonstrate that marriage isn't already regulated by government while I have you?

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's not grounds to annul a same sex marriage. It is still a ground in straight marriages. That's the point - the UK haven't been able to apply the same legal code to both. But that's what our amendment will oblige us to do.

And, as has now being explained multiple times, it is possible to apply this to same sex marriages, but you seem to be ignoring this.

Oh, conceivably we could. Conceivably we could also abolish the presumption of paternity, and just require all married couples to register their children through the same procedures that apply to other couples.

Problem solved, look how well things can work if we work together

But none of those actions are actually being proposed. We'd want to do something; nothing is being done.These questions are best answered together.

It is difficult for a government to action legislation that is currently not needed, once it is needed it can be enacted quite quickly (although Ireland has a terrible track record for certain things). But pleas re read my earlier post on how the law actually works in regards to the (IMO, non-) issues you have raised.

UK has no written Constitution. They are never obliged to hold a referendum on anything. That means Parliament can pretty much pass whatever laws they want, without needing to worry about them being tested against a higher document (apart from EU law, which trumps all domestic laws including the Irish Constitution.)

Not so much trumps it but more that the constitution allows for the supremacy of EU law where necessary for our continued membership. If the EU law is not a deciding factor on our continued membership, then it is a non issue, is my understanding, admittedly though, I didn't vote in that one or read up on it at the time.

The issue is that our Constitution will (on the basis of the proposed wording) mean the Oireachtas cannot make any distinction based on gender when framing marriage law. Hence, it's not clear what solutions can actually be implemented. Certainly, no-one is saying how these known problems will be dealt with.

It quite clearly implies that if gender is an issue, which again, you have not shown in any post you have made. Then they are guided to make it a non issue, which can be achieved, if necessary (which again you have not shown it is in terms of consummation) by the many suggestions already made in this thread.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yet here you are weally wallying about how no one bar yourself has considered the implications of making a change to our written Constitution and using comparisons to the UK which doesn't have a written Constitution to bolster your argument.

Ah, here you are again trying to pick a random point and cling on to it as if it proved something.

It's tiresome when I've anticipated this point, and already explained its irrelevance, to have to do it again in the very next post.

The point is the UK can embed inconsistencies in their legislation because they don't have a written constitution. We do, and one which will shortly require that no distinction can't be made so we won't be able to implement the solution that the UK found. We won't be able to just clear it up afterwards in a pragmatic fashion, as some seem to thing.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Any chance you could demonstrate that marriage isn't already regulated by government while I have you?

As it happens, I've substantially dealt with that on another thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95247555#post95247555

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There's any amount of ways it could be resolved, however farcical. The point is that none of them is being presented at present. The circus is doing its thing, as if these issues didn't exist.

How many suggestions or points do you need showing it either to be a non issue or an easily resolvable issue before you respond?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

CramCycle wrote: »

But pleas re read my earlier post on how the law actually works in regards to the (IMO, non-) issues you have raised.

I already have, and I've already pointed out the flaw in your argument.

CramCycle wrote: »

How many suggestions or points do you need showing it either to be a non issue or an easily resolvable issue before you respond?

It clearly isn't a non-issue. And it clearly isn't being addressed.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, here you are again trying to pick a random point and cling on to it as if it proved something.

It's tiresome when I've anticipated this point, and already explained its irrelevance, to have to do it again in the very next post.

The point is the UK can embed inconsistencies in their legislation because they don't have a written constitution. We do, and one which will shortly require that no distinction can't be made so we won't be able to implement the solution that the UK found. We won't be able to just clear it up afterwards in a pragmatic fashion, as some seem to thing.As it happens, I've substantially dealt with that on another thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95247555#post95247555

Yes, it was a random point which was why I was wondering why you raised it. Before I dismissed it as yet more bluff and bluster I thought I would give you the opportunity to explain how events in the UK where everything is decided via legislation have a baring on making changes to the Irish Constitution, given the thrust of your argument appears to be we haven't considered the implications of changing our Constitution.

Can you post without making snide digs by the way?


How about you answer the questions put to you in this thread in this thread?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I thought I would give you the opportunity to explain how events in the UK where everything is decided via legislation have a baring on making changes to the Irish Constitution, given the thrust of your argument appears to be we haven't considered the implications of changing our Constitution.

We share a lot of our basic concepts with the UK. Even now, UK case law will be cited in Irish cases. Hence, if the UK are finding it difficult to define a concept, its a fair indication (by which I mean it just is) that similar issues will arise here.

The legislative context will be different. But the same concepts will apply. Bear in mind, the reason for raising the UK example is that posters here thought the issue was just completely mad. The fact that another legal system, with very similar concepts, finds this issue hard to deal with should be telling people that there's an issue at stake.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How about you answer the questions put to you in this thread in this thread?

I've given you a link that answers your question. That's more than the Yes voters will do for you.

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

.It clearly isn't a non-issue. And it clearly isn't being addressed.

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.

Consummation is not an issue (I am not referring to the UK, I am referring to Ireland) I have given you clear outlays of how, if this issue does arise, in the way you have stated, how it will most likely be dealt with.

As with many legal change, while adaptions can be made, until it is tested in the courts, it is essentially a non issue.

For your issue on consummation, it will be a legal case to essentially define consummation. The courts may give a definition which agrees with your viewpoint, in which case the AG and the government will have to work legislation to overcome this. The AG office has undoubtedly advised the government of this already, contrary to popular belief, thats what they do and will have given briefs of potential issues if the amendment is passed and have plans for these.

Most likely, consummation will be defined as it is generally accepted outside of religious circles, and that is, as sexual intercourse, they will most likely expand that to include various types of sexual intercourse that don't fit in with the one you seem to think is the only one that can be accepted as consummation.

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's more than the Yes voters will do for you.

So, no then, :rolleyes:

seamus

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There's any amount of ways it could be resolved, however farcical. The point is that none of them is being presented at present. The circus is doing its thing, as if these issues didn't exist.

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?