Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Marriage Referendum question on mens rights

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Disgruntled Badger
    Registered Users Posts: 182 ✭✭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'


  • Options
    #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • Options
    #34
    Disgruntled Badger
    Registered Users Posts: 182 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


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

    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?


  • Options
    #36
    Disgruntled Badger
    Registered Users Posts: 182 ✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    Disgruntled Badger wrote: »
    translated: what does it matter what sex parents are? right or wrong?

    What does it matter Disgruntled Rereg?


  • Options
    #38
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭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."


  • Options
    #40
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭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).


  • Options
    #43
    CaraMay
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    Geniass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 643 ✭✭✭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! :p

    OP, everything cleared up?


  • Options
    #47
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #48
    CaraMay
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    CaraMay
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    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.

    How is that different than today if a married couple break up and the mother remarries another man? The original father not needed as a new father on the scene?

    The fact is it doesn't matter, guardianship isn't taken away upon remarriage.


  • Options
    #53
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭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.

    Looking at this again. Can it not equally be claimed that the mother is unnecessary?


  • Options
    #54
    CaraMay
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭CaraMay


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Looking at this again. Can it not equally be claimed that the mother is unnecessary?

    It could but its unlikely in this country.

    OP I might be on the wrong track altogether and TBH it wont affect me. All these angles are worth discussing IMHO


  • Options
    #55
    Disgruntled Badger
    Registered Users Posts: 182 ✭✭Disgruntled Badger


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Looking at this again. Can it not equally be claimed that the mother is unnecessary?

    I think it can alright


  • Options
    #56
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    CaraMay wrote: »
    It could but its unlikely in this country.

    OP I might be on the wrong track altogether and TBH it wont affect me. All these angles are worth discussing IMHO

    Absolutely worth discussing. Personally, I do not see any negative impact, however as I am not fighting for rights to see my kids, I do not share the same insight as some on this thread.

    Any fight for additional rights for fathers will have my support. The place of a mother in Irish society has probably been exalted to a certain extent. However, I do not see Mother + female being treated any differently to Mother + male. In fact, it could be argued that preferential treatment could be given to Mother + male due to inherent prejudices.


  • Options
    #57
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Looking at this again. Can it not equally be claimed that the mother is unnecessary?

    Women's role to support the family is in the constitution (even if it is described in a fairly anachronic way), whereas there is no mention to men.

    Even if it is not directly mentioning children, I can see the OP's point: the constitution is already saying that a family without a women to take care of the household is something to be avoided - so if we are adding the fact that marriage can be contracted regardless of genders, you could say men are getting even more sidelined as a core part of the family unit (and are therefore in an even weaker position when it comes to justifying they are the best of the 2 parents to take care of a child).


  • Options
    #58
    CaraMay
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭CaraMay


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Women's role to support the family is in the constitution (even if it is described in a fairly anachronic way), whereas there is no mention to men.

    Even of it is not directly mentioning children, I can see the OP's point: the constitution is already saying that a family without a women to take care of the household is something to be avoided - so if we are adding the fact that marriage can be contracted regardless of gender, you could say men are getting even more outlined as a core part of the family unit (and therefore in an even weaker position when it comes to justifying they are the best of the 2 parents to take care of a child).

    THATS what I meant!!!


  • Options
    #59
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Women's role to support the family is in the constitution (even if it is described in a fairly anachronic way), whereas there is no mention to men.

    Even if it is not directly mentioning children, I can see the OP's point: the constitution is already saying that a family without a women to take care of the household is something to be avoided - so if we are adding the fact that marriage can be contracted regardless of genders, you could say men are getting even more sidelined as a core part of the family unit (and are therefore in an even weaker position when it comes to justifying they are the best of the 2 parents to take care of a child).

    Step one Bob is to remove this nonsense from the constitution:


    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.

    I do not share your concern that men will get more sidelined from the family unit. I think it is the perception of the mother in Irish society that results in a lot of the crap treatment of the Irish father. Yes, the above is in the constitution but is it used in judgements against the father or probably more correctly: for the mother?


  • Options
    #60
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    One other question:

    A Man/Woman couple with child separate.
    The woman gets custody of the child and starts a relationship with another woman.
    The father is going through the courts to get custody/joint custody/visiting rights of/to his child.
    Do you perceive the outcome of the court proceedings differing if the WW couple are married or not?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Step one Bob is to remove this nonsense from the constitution:


    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.

    Agreed, but this is why I think the OP might have a point: are we not not jumping straight to step 2 before taking care of step 1?
    galljga1 wrote: »
    I do not share your concern that men will get more sidelined from the family unit. I think it is the perception of the mother in Irish society that results in a lot of the crap treatment of the Irish father. Yes, the above is in the constitution but is it used in judgements against the father or probably more correctly: for the mother?

    Sure I agree the perception of the mother in society has a role there, but when the constitution is confirming that perception I think it does have an impact as well. And this is where we disagree: even if some of it will not be taken to literally , in my view what is written in the constitution matters (otherwise why would gay people be asking for "constitutional protection"?).

    Currently, while it is not explicitly described in the constitution men have an implied role in the family as a marriage necessarily involves a man. If the change is made, that implied role will disappear and the only thing left will be the explicit role given to women.


Advertisement