Marriage Referendum question on mens rights

Mr.H

Ok so straight off I am voting yes because I believe that everyone should be able to get married regardless of gender. That and I am anti religion

But serious question. This has been dogging me all week.

The Referendum proposes changes to the definition of the word "family" in the constitution. Now I have no issue with 2 men or 2 women being "a family".

It means that no longer does the constitution recognize the need for a man or a woman to be in a child's life

my concern is, how does this affect unmarried men who have issues with custody?

If a man and a woman no longer both need to be in a child's life then surely a judge could read this letter of the law and depending on how ruthless the mothers solicitor is, could even disregard the fathers rights altogether.

Now I am in a happy relationship thank Eire and I dont think this will ever be an issue for me, but considering that mothers are given the primary rights over a child anyway. Does this Referendum further hurt mens rights?

Many people will just read this and think "what are you talking about? This is just about giving gay and lesbian people the right to get married." but I dont have an issue with that. I have an issue with what else could change in law due to this rewrite. Law is not about common sense. Law is about every single letter.

MrStuffins

The constitution doesn't say anything about "man" or "woman" being in a child's life anyway. My understanding is that there is no definition of marriage in the constitution and the "family" part says "A married couple with/without children". It's the court that decides marriage is between a man and a woman. All the referendum will do is supersede this and mean a married couple, and therefore a family, can include a gay couple.

28064212

Mr.H wrote: »

The Referendum proposes changes to the definition of the word "family" in the constitution

No, it doesn't (although the No side would probably like you to believe it does)

It is proposed to add the following to Article 41 of the Constitution:
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex."

That is the only change to the Constitution that will occur if this referendum passes

Mr.H

No sorry I think I may be explaining myself wrong

The proposal is to change the def of "marriage".

right now the def of marriage is between man and woman.

But the change would basically rid the words man and woman and replace it with two people. Making it unimportant for a man or a woman to be part of a marriage.

Then the section on family which uses the phrase "marriage" changes by very definition. Meaning that man or woman does not need to be considered in a "family".

My question could this affect mens rights when seeking custody in a separation due to the fact that in the "family" section of the constitution, we no longer need to have both a man and woman to be part of a childs life?

eviltwin

Mr.H wrote: »

No sorry I think I may be explaining myself wrong

The proposal is to change the def of "marriage".

right now the def of marriage is between man and woman.

But the change would basically rid the words man and woman and replace it with two people. Making it unimportant for a man or a woman to be part of a marriage.

Then the section on family which uses the phrase "marriage" changes by very definition. Meaning that man or woman does not need to be considered in a "family".

My question could this affect mens rights when seeking custody in a separation due to the fact that in the "family" section of the constitution, we no longer need to have both a man and woman to be part of a childs life?

It doesn't change the definition of marriage because marriage isn't defined in the constitution. It just assumes it's male / female. The new text clarifies who can get married and to who. That's all. I don't understand your concern. How can two men or two women marrying affect your relationship with your children?

MrWalsh

Mr.H wrote: »

My question could this affect mens rights when seeking custody in a separation due to the fact that in the "family" section of the constitution, we no longer need to have both a man and woman to be part of a childs life?

No. The family was never defined in the constitution. There was never an explicit need to have both a man and a woman in a childs life.

Mr.H

See this is what I was afraid of. Straight away it is taken as an attack on gay people getting married when I have clearly stated I am voting yes because I think they should have the right to get married.

It is ok to voice concern and not be anti homosexual at the same time

My concern is that the wording changes to the constitution can affect my rights to my child because of wording

Mr.H

Surely it is better that I ask others opinions on my concern rather than get scared and vote no just in case??

MrWalsh

Mr.H wrote: »

See this is what I was afraid of. Straight away it is taken as an attack on gay people getting married when I have clearly stated I am voting yes because I think they should have the right to get married.

It is ok to voice concern and not be anti homosexual at the same time

My concern is that the wording changes to the constitution can affect my rights to my child because of wording

Who attacked you?

MrWalsh

Mr.H wrote: »

Surely it is better that I ask others opinions on my concern rather than get scared and vote no just in case??

Its up to your own conscience how you vote. This is a democracy, vote whatever way you want.

surpy

have you ever read article 41?

ARTICLE 41

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

Mr.H

eviltwin wrote: »

It doesn't change the definition of marriage because marriage isn't defined in the constitution. It just assumes it's male / female. The new text clarifies who can get married and to who. That's all. I don't understand your concern. How can two men or two women marrying affect your relationship with your children?

Right here

I was just asking what people think. Nothing of what I said is about whether men or women should be able to get married

surpy

my concern is, how does this affect unmarried men who have issues with custody?

it doesn't

eviltwin

Mr.H wrote: »

Right here

I was just asking what people think. Nothing of what I said is about whether men or women should be able to get married

How is that attacking you? I never accused you of being anti gay. I asked you why you think a Yes vote might affect your relationship with your kids is all.

MrWalsh

Mr.H wrote: »

Right here

I was just asking what people think. Nothing of what I said is about whether men or women should be able to get married

You must be very sensitive then, all I see is a question about why you think the referendum (which proposes two men or two women could marry) would affect your relationship with your children.

Its a valid question?

efb

Well it would give this Man the right to marry my partner

Penn

Mr.H wrote: »

See this is what I was afraid of. Straight away it is taken as an attack on gay people getting married when I have clearly stated I am voting yes because I think they should have the right to get married.

It is ok to voice concern and not be anti homosexual at the same time

My concern is that the wording changes to the constitution can affect my rights to my child because of wording

It won't affect your rights to your child because you're still the child's father.

The referendum changes nothing in that regard. An example thrown around by the No side (John Waters in particular), is what if a man and a woman who have a child together separate, and the woman who has primary custody marries another woman. The two women and the child would then be considered a family. What rights does the father have in this instance? Well, that's to be decided by the individuals involved and by the Courts if necessary.

However, this is ignoring the fact that the same thing already happens if the woman married another man. They could be considered a family too. So it's irrelevant to the marriage equality debate because it changes nothing in that regard. The father is still the biological father and still has the same rights as they currently would.

In all cases where such an issue arises, what's in the best interests of all parties involved, and particularly the children, will be taken into consideration. That's the way it is before the referendum, and it's the way it will be after the referendum.

galljga1

I do not see anyone attacking you Mr H. The answers are very direct maybe because they are from people who have given the same answers on numerous boards to numerous people and have been paired down to the bare bones due to repetition.

I would agree with the genera gist of the responses, in that I do not see a definition of the family in the constitution before or after the referendum. I do however think that the area of mens' rights does need to be explored but it is not part of this referendum.

Mr.H

Ok firstly I am trying to approach this with as much sensitivity as I can as it is a sensitive subject and can be viewed as offensive if not approached properly. I am really trying to not come across offensive. (also I may be a bit touchy because I am trying to be aware not to offend anyone who may be reading this)

"The courts have decided that a married couple with or without children constitute a 'family' in the constitutional sense." - directly from the booklet we all received

now a change would see two people regardless of gender being able to get married. (fair enough summary?)

Right now lets say I get married and have kids with my wife. We last about 5 years and decide we want a divorce. My wife decides she is not just leaving me but the city we live as well. We go to court and during a custody battle she tells the judge that she is a stay at home mom for the last 5 years and the kids need her. The judge can side with her but I have the argument that I am their father and they also need me in their lives. Right now that is the only real argument I have. (unless we get really legal and pull out examples of cases)

My point is that if the meaning of marriage changes

so those the meaning of family

then in my above example the judge has a retort to say that a family does not need both mother and a father


Listen I realise you all may be sick of hearing about it but its these (what may seem) silly questions that will be the difference between someone voting yes or someone voting no (out of fear)

MrWalsh

Mr.H wrote: »

My point is that if the meaning of marriage changes

so those the meaning of family

then in my above example the judge has a retort to say that a family does not need both mother and a father

The meaning of marriage doesnt change. Who it is open to changes.

Why would the judge say a child doesnt need its father because same sex marriage is legal? Im not following?

galljga1

Mr.H wrote: »

Ok firstly I am trying to approach this with as much sensitivity as I can as it is a sensitive subject and can be viewed as offensive if not approached properly. I am really trying to not come across offensive. (also I may be a bit touchy because I am trying to be aware not to offend anyone who may be reading this)

"The courts have decided that a married couple with or without children constitute a 'family' in the constitutional sense." - directly from the booklet we all received

now a change would see two people regardless of gender being able to get married. (fair enough summary?)

Right now lets say I get married and have kids with my wife. We last about 5 years and decide we want a divorce. My wife decides she is not just leaving me but the city we live as well. We go to court and during a custody battle she tells the judge that she is a stay at home mom for the last 5 years and the kids need her. The judge can side with her but I have the argument that I am their father and they also need me in their lives. Right now that is the only real argument I have. (unless we get really legal and pull out examples of cases)

My point is that if the meaning of marriage changes

so those the meaning of family

then in my above example the judge has a retort to say that a family does not need both mother and a father


Listen I realise you all may be sick of hearing about it but its these (what may seem) silly questions that will be the difference between someone voting yes or someone voting no (out of fear)

I think that is pretty much the way it is at the moment. I do not think there is anything in law, constitutional or otherwise that defines a kid's needs or rights to include a mother and/or father.

eviltwin

The structure of a family may change but parenthood doesn't and provided a parent isn't a danger to a child no judge is going to severe that relationship. Why would they I don't understand your concern OP.

galljga1

And they are not silly questions.

Mr.H

MrWalsh wrote: »

The meaning of marriage doesnt change. Who it is open to changes.

Why would the judge say a child doesnt need its father because same sex marriage is legal? Im not following?

Because right now we have the "understanding" that a child needs both parents male and female in their lives as an influence on the child

If the definition of family changed it would mean that as an influence a child does not need both a male and female in their lives.

Therefore a judge could easily read this as a child not needing one of their parents if the parent is not seen as "nurturing" as the other parent (for example if one parent works extremely long hours)

Of course the meaning of marriage changes

the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman as partners in a relationship.

becomes

the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman, or two people of the same sex, as partners in a relationship.

Mr.H

My concern is probably born of over thought, but thats why I am seeking more clarity

Fame and Demise

You're definitely overthinking this. Say for example I had a kid with a woman and we decided to separate, the courts would view my and my ex's fitness as a parent when considering custody. To them, it doesn't matter one bit if she went on to marry a woman or man or remained single, or if I went on to marry a woman or man or remained single. All they'd care about is who would be a good parent to the kid.

MrWalsh

Mr.H wrote: »

Because right now we have the "understanding" that a child needs both parents male and female in their lives as an influence on the child

There is nothing in the constitution or any legislation that says that? It might be your understanding but families also comprise of single parents, widows with children, widowers with children, grandparents or an aunt or uncle raising a child. There are many configurations of family.

The meaning of marriage does not change at all. What you have written is your interpretation of the meaning. For wikipedia it is more like:

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal.

Says nothing there about the gender of the spouses.

Mr.H

So there is no preferential treatment given to the mother in Ireland?

Penn

Mr.H wrote: »

Because right now we have the "understanding" that a child needs both parents male and female in their lives as an influence on the child

No we don't. And an "understanding" is not legally recognised.

Mr.H wrote: »

If the definition of family changed it would mean that as an influence a child does not need both a male and female in their lives.

The definition of family doesn't define male and female, nor does it even include children. Children do not *need* the influence of a male and female.

Mr.H wrote: »

Therefore a judge could easily read this as a child not needing one of their parents if the parent is not seen as "nurturing" as the other parent (for example if one parent works extremely long hours)

Of course the meaning of marriage changes

the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman as partners in a relationship.

becomes

the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman, or two people of the same sex, as partners in a relationship.

But again, what's the difference in anything you've asked concerning mens/fathers rights, between what currently happens when a mother with custody marries another man (which actually would give the child the influence of a male and female parent), and between what would happen if she married another woman?

MrWalsh

Mr.H wrote: »

So there is no preferential treatment given to the mother in Ireland?

To the married mother? Not that I am aware of. There are issues around unmarried mens rights to their children but that is completely separate to a same sex marriage referendum.

seamus

Mr.H wrote: »

So there is no preferential treatment given to the mother in Ireland?

So, an unmarried mother is (obviously) given automatic guardianship over her child at birth.

An unmarried father is not, and for obvious reasons it wouldn't make sense to assign automatic guardianshop to the man who claims to be the father - he may not be the father. Obtaining guardianship is in theory straightforward; if the mother agrees to it. Otherwise it's a trip to court.

The main legal difference is that a man can have guardianship removed from him if it's believed to be in the child's best interests. And in many cases mothers have painted bad pictures and successfully had access rights and guardianship removed from perfectly good men.
Women cannot lose guardianship. She could have beaten the child to a pulp, burned it with cigarettes and raped it, but unless the child is given up for adoption, she will remain a legal guardian with all of the rights that come with that.

But that is changing. The children's referendum ensured stronger protections for children by giving the state more power and options.

The main issue is in the unspoken or the traditional more than the legal. Where women are naturally favoured in the court system and custody by default falls to the mother and is very difficult to pull back.

One thing the marriage referendum may inadvertently do is force legislators to confront this issue when a same-sex couple with children separates or divorces.
The issue of gender then falls away before the court and questions may be placed before judges on how to decide what's best for the child in the absence of a gender difference. Judges will have to work on what's best for the child, but with little direction from the law or precedent.

On the recommendation of such judges then, we may likely see formal legislation which requires parental equality in custody battles and prevents either gender from being favoured when it comes to custody, maintenance and access rights.

Which is why I was somewhat surprised to hear John Waters complain about this referendum when he's beating a "father's rights" drum.

Disgruntled Badger

I suspect the sh1t will hit the fan the first time the family courts place a child with a father in a ssm rather than with the single/cohabiting mother, because constitutionally he will be in a stronger position to care for the child's welfare. 'all things being equal'

Mr.H

Mr.H wrote: »

If a man and a woman no longer both need to be in a child's life

What do you mean "no longer"? When were they ever? When did it ever matter what sex or what quantity of parents a child had - just so long as the child got what the child needed from whoever was giving it?

Disgruntled Badger

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What do you mean "no longer"? When were they ever? When did it ever matter what sex or what quantity of parents a child had - just so long as the child got what the child needed from whoever was giving it?

You are putting a strong argument forward for the No campaign by making a stupid comment like this and clearly not a parent!!! The ideal upbringing for a child is with its biological parents; it's natural mother and father. in the absence of that alternatives will suffice but they will never replace the natural bond of loving biological parents.

I am clearly not a parent? Well if you get it THAT wrong is anything you say right?

Cute how you slipped the word "biological" in there even though it was not in my post or the one I replied to either - and has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Perchance are you just playing your record and my post which you replied to was merely incidental?

Disgruntled Badger

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What do you mean "no longer"? When were they ever? When did it ever matter what sex or what quantity of parents a child had - just so long as the child got what the child needed from whoever was giving it?

translated: what does it matter what sex parents are? right or wrong?

MrWalsh

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

translated: what does it matter what sex parents are? right or wrong?

What does it matter Disgruntled Rereg?

galljga1

Lawnmower Tim wrote: »

Why does a married man then get automatic guardianship as he may not be the father also?

Hopefully someone with a knowledge of family law will answer this.
My understanding is that any child born within a marriage is automatically the child of both parties regardless of biology. I'm not so sure about persons marrying after children are born as this can involve a number of different scenarios.

Bob24

MrStuffins wrote: »

The constitution doesn't say anything about "man" or "woman" being in a child's life anyway.

Not directly, but it does give woman a special status in the family unit, whereas men are not expeditly quoted:

"2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."

galljga1

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

You are putting a strong argument forward for the No campaign by making a stupid comment like this and clearly not a parent!!! The ideal upbringing for a child is with its biological parents; it's natural mother and father. in the absence of that alternatives will suffice but they will never replace the natural bond of loving biological parents.

To me,personally, this whole biology argument is bull.
I have two kids by my wife. I am pretty sure they are mine but if I found out that I was not the father of either or both it would not change how I feel about them. They are my children and I could not possibly love them any more.

galljga1

Bob24 wrote: »

Not directly, but it does give woman a special status in the family unit, whereas men are not expeditly quoted:

"2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."

Can the women among us please give their opinion of the above text in bold.

I (a man) find it extremely condescending.

Bob24

galljga1 wrote: »

Can the women among us please give their opinion of the above text in bold.

I (a man) find it extremely condescending.

And also kind of contradictory with same sax marriage (if taken literally with the other sentence about women, in the case of a marriage between two women it would mean the state should encourage the whole couple to stay at home and not work, whereas in the case of a marriage between 2 men it would not have such obligation).

CaraMay

Mr.H wrote: »

My question could this affect mens rights when seeking custody in a separation due to the fact that in the "family" section of the constitution, we no longer need to have both a man and woman to be part of a childs life?

This is what he's asking which is a fair point. Call off the hounds 'yes' people. He feels that right now the rights of a man/father are protected as the law recognises a family as woman and man. If the law is changed to say anyone can be a parent does that make fathers redundant (given the mother has the law behind her). Its a good question.

galljga1

Bob24 wrote: »

And also kind of contradictory with same sax marriage (if taken literally with the other sentence about women, in the case of a marriage between two women it would mean the state should encourage the whole couple to stay at home and not work, whereas in the case of a marriage between 2 men it would not have such obligation).

Contradictory to modern life. In today's society, I cannot see a practical application that requires this statement in the constitution. And there are other statements that could also also be removed.

MrWalsh

Bob24 wrote: »

And also kind of contradictory with same sax marriage (if taken literally with the other sentence about women, in the case of a marriage between two women it would mean the state should encourage the whole couple to stay at home and not work, whereas in the case of a marriage between 2 men it would not have such obligation).

I'm seriously considering taking an action against the government to pay at least some of my mortgage as economic necessity means I'm engaging in labour and neglecting my duties within the home.

Geniass

MrWalsh wrote: »

I'm seriously considering taking an action against the government to pay at least some of my mortgage as economic necessity means I'm engaging in labour and neglecting my duties within the home.

You really need to change your name!

OP, everything cleared up?

galljga1

CaraMay wrote: »

This is what he's asking which is a fair point. Call off the hounds 'yes' people. He feels that right now the rights of a man/father are protected as the law recognises a family as woman and man. If the law is changed to say anyone can be a parent does that make fathers redundant (given the mother has the law behind her). Its a good question.

There are no hounds out for Mr H that I can see, just answers to his questions. Others are getting a bit bothered with each other.

Could you explain the bit in bold above. In my opinion, the law does not now state or will not after the referendum who can be a parent. If it did state that anyone can be a parent then this would apply equally to male and female.
How has the mother got the law behind her?

CaraMay

galljga1 wrote: »

Could you explain the bit in bold above. In my opinion, the law does not now state or will not after the referendum who can be a parent. If it did state that anyone can be a parent then this would apply equally to male and female.
How has the mother got the law behind her?

I can see his logic but cant explain it well either. Most of the time the mothers get the best deal with regard access to the kids when a married couple split up as its believed by the establishment that (most of the time) the children are best placed with the mother. I'm not saying its right, just that it happens. I think a lot of men don't trust the justice system when it comes to their rights to their kids and may feel protected by the current position which is that a family is considered a father and mother. If the constitution changes and states that a family can be 2 mothers then will the estranged fathers lose some of their 'power'.

Think that's it.

galljga1

CaraMay wrote: »

I can see his logic but cant explain it well either. Most of the time the mothers get the best deal with regard access to the kids when a married couple split up as its believed by the establishment that (most of the time) the children are best placed with the mother. I'm not saying its right, just that it happens. I think a lot of men don't trust the justice system when it comes to their rights to their kids and may feel protected by the current position which is that a family is considered a father and mother. If the constitution changes and states that a family can be 2 mothers then will the estranged fathers lose some of their 'power'.

Think that's it.

Rightly or wrongly, my perception is that children are placed with the mother in most cases, particularly if the parents are not married.
The constitution does not define what a family is. The law however has decided that it is a married couple with or without children although there is some debate on this on boards. If the referendum passes, then a family will be two persons with or without children.

All of the above is my opinion and I am also not a legal person.

Mr H is raising concerns about a Father's rights to his children.
If an unmarried father is not in a relationship with the mother of his child, she can make it as easy or as hard for the guy as she choses. Currently she can marry a man, if the referendum passes, she can marry a woman. She can also stay single. I cannot see how any of these scenarios makes it any more difficult for the man. The same applies to a married couple breaking up. The woman staying single, getting re-married to male or female should not change the rights of the father relative to the situation.

Again, the above is just opinion.

CaraMay

It shouldn't change the rights but will they be downgraded. Will it make it harder for fathers to prove they are entitled to stay in the family if a family doesn't need to be father and mother.

galljga1

CaraMay wrote: »

It shouldn't change the rights but will they be downgraded. Will it make it harder for fathers to prove they are entitled to stay in the family if a family doesn't need to be father and mother.

I cannot see that happening. You will have three scenarios:

Father vs Mother
Father vs Mother plus Male
Father vs Mother plus Female

The third scenario is new. How do you envisage a fathers rights being lessened if the mother married another woman rather than a man? And currently, are a fathers rights diminished if the mother marries? Genuine question.