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
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    CaraMay
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭CaraMay


    Bob24 wrote: »
    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.
    Agreed


  • Options
    #63
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Bob24 wrote: »
    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?



    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.



    I think we will have to agree to differ on this one. I do not think man's part (specifically) in a marriage, implied or otherwise will disappear in practice. It will merely become non gender specific or reading it another way, both man and woman's parts will disappear.


  • Options
    #64
    CaraMay
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭CaraMay


    galljga1 wrote: »
    I think we will have to agree to differ on this one. I do not think man's part (specifically) in a marriage, implied or otherwise will disappear in practice. It will merely become non gender specific or reading it another way, both man and woman's parts will disappear.

    but its not rights in a marriage - its rights to his kids.


  • Options
    #65
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    CaraMay wrote: »
    but its not rights in a marriage - its rights to his kids.

    I know that. We are getting a bit mixed up here, at least I am.
    In practical terms, I just do not see a court making a different decision if the referendum passes because the mother marries a woman rather than a man. Or is it because a mother marries a woman rather than cohabitates with said woman? Would this in practice make a difference.

    Again, the above is a generalisation and I have no experience in the area so maybe naive.


  • Options
    #66
    CaraMay
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭CaraMay


    galljga1 wrote: »
    I just do not see a court making a different decision if the referendum passes because the mother marries a woman rather than a man.

    Its not about who they marry after the break up. its actually nothing to do with the next partner, its about the 'definition' of family being amended from mother and father which is generating this conversation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    CaraMay wrote: »
    Its not about who they marry after the break up. its actually nothing to do with the next partner, its about the 'definition' of family being amended from mother and father which is generating this conversation.


    But there is no definition of family in the constitution. There is a definition in law which I believe is a married couple (probably mentions male and female currently) with or without children. Neither mother nor father are mentioned because they do not have to have children to be a family.

    I take this conversation to be about a fathers rights to his children. The only difference that I see if the referendum passes is that the father can marry a man and that the mother can marry a woman. The question in my head is: will this change things negatively for the father? I personally think it will not.


  • Options
    #68
    CaraMay
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭CaraMay


    galljga1 wrote: »
    But there is no definition of family in the constitution. There is a definition in law which I believe is a married couple (probably mentions male and female currently) with or without children. Neither mother nor father are mentioned because they do not have to have children to be a family.

    I take this conversation to be about a fathers rights to his children. The only difference that I see if the referendum passes is that the father can marry a man and that the mother can marry a woman. The question in my head is: will this change things negatively for the father? I personally think it will not.

    It keeps getting brought back to sex. Its not about the right of gay people to marry. Its about a fathers rights if his marriage (with his wife) ends and the impact of the change to family ie no longer considered male / female


  • Options
    #69
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    CaraMay wrote: »
    Its not about who they marry after the break up. its actually nothing to do with the next partner, its about the 'definition' of family being amended from mother and father which is generating this conversation.

    Yes - I was not considering whether and with who people might remarry.

    For me it really is about the man's role in a family (and by extension in raising s child) being removed from the constitution.


  • Options
    #70
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    CaraMay wrote: »
    It keeps getting brought back to sex. Its not about the right of gay people to marry. Its about a fathers rights if his marriage (with his wife) ends and the impact of the change to family ie no longer considered male / female


    Sorry, I just do not see it. I cannot see how a court will treat the father any differently if the proposed referendum wording is inserted or not.


  • Options
    #71
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Yes - I was not considering whether and with who people might remarry.

    For me it really is about the man's role in a family (and by extension in raising s child) being removed from the constitution.

    Sorry Bob but how is the man's role in the family being removed from the constitution? It is not currently there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Sorry Bob but how is the man's role in the family being removed from the constitution? It is not currently there.

    Marriage is defined in the family section of the constitution as the family unit, which has to be composed of a man and a woman.

    This is giving men a role I believe.


  • Options
    #73
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Marriage is defined in the family section of the constitution as the family unit, which has to be composed of man and a woman.

    This is giving men a role I believe.

    It just mentions the family and protections afforded. It does not define its makeup. It does mention 'woman' and 'mothers' but it gives no mention to man at all.


  • Options
    #74
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    galljga1 wrote: »
    It just mentions the family and protections afforded. It does not define its makeup. It does mention 'woman' and 'mothers' but it gives no mention to man at all.

    You would agree it implies a marriage is between a man and a woman right?


  • Options
    #75
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Bob24 wrote: »
    You would agree it implies a marriage is between a man and a woman right?

    My opinion is that this is implied by society. As it stands, nothing in the constitution stops any combination of man and woman getting married. As far as I know, this is done in law outside the constitution. This could be changed to allow SSM without changing the constitution. A lot of people argue that this is the approach that should have been taken although it could easily be changed back.

    Now I have to go and do weekend things with my kids. I may not be able to next weekend as the expected hordes of gays scavenging the countryside may get them.


  • Options
    #76
    Cuban Pete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Cuban Pete


    CaraMay wrote: »
    It keeps getting brought back to sex. Its not about the right of gay people to marry. Its about a fathers rights if his marriage (with his wife) ends and the impact of the change to family ie no longer considered male / female

    But the father is still the child's parent. Nothing the mother does can change that, so again, where's the issue?


  • Options
    #77
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    galljga1 wrote: »
    My opinion is that this is implied by society. As it stands, nothing in the constitution stops any combination of man and woman getting married. As far as I know, this is done in law outside the constitution. This could be changed to allow SSM without changing the constitution. A lot of people argue that this is the approach that should have been taken although it could easily be changed back.

    So if it is not the constitution preventing same sex marriage, why are we voting to change it?

    You see how I find a contradiction here?


  • Options
    #78
    Cuban Pete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Cuban Pete


    Well, it is and it isn't. There's nothing explicit in the constitution but one of the purposes of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution. The argument is that while there's nothing explicit that prohibits it, it is implicit and the court would have to interpret it in that way. At least, that's my (somewhat limited) understanding.

    Now where that implication comes from, I can't say. Possibly due to the time it was written and who it was written by. I believe the SU does have to take historical intent into consideration.

    But this doesn't really have any bearing on whether a man would lose access to his child in the example being discussed. He's still the child's father. If the argument is that two women make up a family and so the man has no place, again, it's no different than her presently marrying another man.

    So... the whole argument is rather irrelevant.


  • Options
    #79
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    A prominent Yes campaigner, quoted in the Sunday Business Post, wonders "What exactly is it that a man brings to a relationship that is so specifically 'other' to a female. So basically, men don't contribute anything and aren't needed.


  • Options
    #80
    Cuban Pete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Cuban Pete


    You can easily turn that around and pose the same question about women. Which is exactly the point.


  • Options
    #81
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    Cuban Pete wrote: »
    You can easily turn that around and pose the same question about women. Which is exactly the point.

    But the point is that while men and woman are equal in importance as members of the human race, they are not the same and they bring different things to society and marriage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Cuban Pete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Cuban Pete


    The point is that no, they don't. Human relationships are just that - human relationships. Men and women don't contribute anything uniquely "mannish" or "womanish".


  • Options
    #83
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    CaraMay wrote: »
    It keeps getting brought back to sex. Its not about the right of gay people to marry. Its about a fathers rights if his marriage (with his wife) ends and the impact of the change to family ie no longer considered male / female

    How is that different if we allow same sex marriage?


  • Options
    #84
    CaraMay
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭CaraMay


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    How is that different if we allow same sex marriage?
    Its not about who can now get married, its about what family now means ie it no longer means man & woman.


  • Options
    #85
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    CaraMay wrote: »
    Its not about who can now get married, its about what family now means ie it no longer means man & woman.

    Yeah I'm still not following you?

    Parents who are married have a certain set of rights to their children. Unmarried fathers less so, but that's a different issue.

    Same sex marriage is not going to change a married fathers rights to his children.

    Most legislation around children and childrens rights is in the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015.

    A family can be any number of configurations, it can mean a single mother, a widowed parent etc...

    For the purposes of this referendum all that is changing is who can marry each other. There is no impact on fathers rights to their children. Do not believe the spin from the likes of mothers and fathers matter. It has been clarified (repeatedly at this stage) that fathers rights are not affected by this referendum.


  • Options
    #86
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Bob24 wrote: »
    So if it is not the constitution preventing same sex marriage, why are we voting to change it?

    You see how I find a contradiction here?

    I am kind of with you on that one but I do not see a contradiction. This can be brought in by constitutional change which requires a referendum or by legislation which does not. The argument for the constitutional change is that it is put before the people and if passed requires a further referendum to make future changes. This affords further protection to those that are seen to benefit from it or maybe not: the country could turn more conservative in the future. Bringing in legislation is probably more difficult but it can be done. I have no idea how many existing acts would require change or how long it would take to do so.


  • Options
    #87
    CaraMay
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭CaraMay


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Do not believe the spin from the likes of mothers and fathers matter.

    Please don't insult me....

    OP are you confident your rights wont be impacted?


  • Options
    #88
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    CaraMay wrote: »
    Please don't insult me....

    OP are you confident your rights wont be impacted?

    Well they are the ones spilling that kind of unconnected nonsense to scaremonger.


  • Options
    #89
    Asabiyyah
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭Asabiyyah


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Can the women among us please give their opinion of the above text in bold.

    I (a man) find it extremely condescending.

    MOD; enough of the derogatory language. Please read the charter before posting again.


  • Options
    #90
    CaraMay
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭CaraMay


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Well they are the ones spilling that kind of unconnected nonsense to scaremonger.

    The op asked the question and has a genuine concern. Seems to me you can't discuss the referendum at all unless you say 'yes' and then stop talking. As I said before it's no skin off my nose but he's entitled to talk it out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Cuban Pete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Cuban Pete


    It's almost as if some of us are the people this is going to impact or something...


Advertisement