Gay Marriage

Enigma365

Canada and Spain are set this week to become the third and fourth countries to recognise fully equal marriage rights for same sex couples at a national/federal level. The Netherlands became the first country to recognise gay marriage in 2000 and Belgium followed in 2003.

The Canadian lower house, where passage of the bill is almost certain, is expected to vote on their gay marriage bill as early as Tuesday evening, June 28th.

The Spanish lower house is voting on Thursday June 30th where MPs are expected to vote in favour of the bill for a second time, over-ruling the bills narrow rejection in the Spanish senate last week.

Although these laws will not take immediate effect, this week seems very likely to be the week where the number of countries globally that recognise fully equal gay marriage doubles.

snappieT

Like Ireland would ever follow suit...

damien

Just needs hard campaigning and people on the ground ready to shout and kick and scream to make it so. 5 years or less for Ireland I'd give it.

MicraBoy

Like Ireland would ever follow suit...

Sure didn't Mary Hanafin tell us Ireland isn't ready for gay marraige. You wouldn't doubt Mary would you?

damien

Mary Coughlan not Hanafin and this was when she brought in the law specifically banning same-sex marriage.

MicraBoy

Stoopid Marys..... :mad:

ajmurphy62

I've found that of the gay men and women that i know, very few of the relationships last that long. For some reason gay relationships dont seem to last as long as straight relationships.

But i do believe that gay people should have the choice to get married.

Rozie

ajmurphy62 wrote:

I've found that of the gay men and women that i know, very few of the relationships last that long. For some reason gay relationships dont seem to last as long as straight relationships.

But i do believe that gay people should have the choice to get married.

I haven't found that at all. But if anything it's down to lack of choice...

shay_562

Given that something like 50% of marraiges these days end in divorce, I don't see how gay marraiges could be much worse. And seeing as how gay marraiges are less likely to have kids, the inevitable divorces won't be anywhere near as harmful.

Guy:Incognito

The government should take it as an opportunity to win some public support if nothing else, even if they dont fully agree with it. The only people who oppose it at this stage are the older church going generation (who wont be around for much more than about 20 years, harsh but true) and and the ignorant. This also leads to my second reason, hopefully the church would be outraged and move lock ,stock back to the vatican where they can all live happily ever after and molest each other for all I care.

rsynnott

snappieT wrote:

Like Ireland would ever follow suit...

Ulitmately, it will probably become an issue for the European human rights court.

solice

Stekelly wrote:

The only people who oppose it at this stage are the older church going generation (who wont be around for much more than about 20 years, harsh but true) and and the ignorant. This also leads to my second reason, hopefully the church would be outraged and move lock ,stock back to the vatican where they can all live happily ever after and molest each other for all I care.

I would imagine that the church going generation and the ignorant make up more than 10% of the population, probably make up oh i would say 36% of the population, oddly enough that is the same per centage that support a ff and pd govt. Ironic?

Like rsynnott said, i think it will come down to the european court of human rights inflicting civil partnerships on ireland rather than the people actually getting it out of choice. Does the end justify the means?

ajmurphy62

I'm still young, so im not really concerned about marriage, but that said, i'd like to know that if someday when im older i fell in love with someone that there would be the option of marriage there for me. But for some reason i dont see it happening here for a very long time.

Yoda

If Ireland were not ready for gay marriage, gay people wouldn't be asking for it.

ajmurphy62

Yoda wrote:

If Ireland were not ready for gay marriage, gay people wouldn't be asking for it.

Its not the fact that gay people aren't ready for it. Just that Society, for some strange reason arent ready to accept the fact that 2 men can love each other enough to get married.

solice

ajmurphy62 wrote:

Its not the fact that gay people aren't ready for it. Just that Society, for some strange reason arent ready to accept the fact that 2 men can love each other enough to get married.

thats an excuse not a justification for being treated as second class citizens

damien

ajmurphy62 wrote:

Just that Society, for some strange reason arent ready to accept the fact that 2 men can love each other enough to get married.

Uh, are you not part of that Society? What are you doing to change Society so they'll accept it?

Hmm_Messiah

If Ireland were not ready for gay marriage, gay people wouldn't be asking for it.

I wanted to marry a guy once, and at the time there was no bar in legislation to it.
I didn't want to be able to marry because i realised "ireland were not ready for it"
But then...... I am a gay man .......as opposed to "gay people"

Just that Society, for some strange reason arent ready to accept the fact that 2 men can love each other enough to get married.

Its not a "strange" reason, I think most people accept that cultural norms are slow to change.

And wanting to marry doesn't need to'have anything to do with 2 guys loving each other; marriage as an institution might be desired by two people for any number of complex reasons.

People opposed to gay marriage are probably willing to accept 2 guys might love each other (there are people within the gay community who might be less likely to accept that), why they oppose it is down to a degree of ignorance to be generous, otherwise at the end of the day because they see gay as either : evil, unnatural or gross.

Other than equality, some good reasons to advocate gay marriages are to tackle the reasons people are against it.

Hopefully it will come to be that two adults can choose to be in a committed recognised relationship and have it recognised by the state and society without having the tag on of "gay" or "samesex".

ajmurphy62

damien.m wrote:

Uh, are you not part of that Society? What are you doing to change Society so they'll accept it?

ok well then, The majority of the Straight Community in society wont accept the fact that 2 men can love each other enough to get married.

The main problem for the gay community is lack of representation in Government. Maybe we should replace berite with a gay man.

solice

ajmurphy62 wrote:

The main problem for the gay community is lack of representation in Government. Maybe we should replace berite with a gay man.

Yeah, could u imagine David Norris as taoiseach? Chilling...

Hmm_Messiah

David Norris is gay ?

People once thought no government would ever try curtail smoking so much as to ban it in public places etc

As more countires in the EU endorse either sex marriages ireland will have to comply. It would be nice though to see this nation once blanketed in the vestments of the Catholic Church champion the cause of a truly equal secular society embracing diversity.

It would be nice if more people recognised that "nurturing" in its broadest sense is not the reserve of women and that two men in a loving relationship can be as extra ordinary beautiful and wondrous as any preceived fairtytale marriage.

solice

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

David Norris is gay ?

I think so, but it wouldnt be the first time i got something like that wrong.

The EU will prob be the people to make it legal in ireland, somehow i doubt any political party at the moment in ireland has the balls to do it

govinda

David Norris is gay ?

Indeed he is.

http://www.rte.ie/tv/buried_alive/week5.html
David Norris
"...His most recent success has been the introduction of the Domestic Partnership Bill. If passed it will effectively legalise gay and lesbian marriages. His main reasons for introducing this Bill is because he feels that in terms of financial benefits such as inheritance rights, gay men, lesbians and unmarried couples are still second-class citizens in Ireland. He also feels that the Bill should be passed as legislation because a gay man or woman cannot automatically bring their partner to live with them in Ireland if they are from another country. He states in typical fighting talk that if the Government attempt to block his Bill he will come out of semi-retirement and "take them all the way to the European Court of Human Rights"."

Hmm_Messiah

sawwie , wasn't being serious, just amused at the idea he might be the only LGBT politician

ixoy

Well it depends though. If the matter is enshrined in our constitution, as some lovely people claim it is, then the EU can't just make it law for us, no more than the EU can legalize abortion. At the very least, we'd have to hold a referendum on the issue and it'd still be up to the people to decide the issue. Now that would be interesting.

Hmm_Messiah

It's not presently in the Constitution, at least not in anyway confirm by the Supreme Court, the problem is will new proposals re definitions of family etc be added
Strangely Amndment is meant to be improvement

rsynnott

ixoy wrote:

Well it depends though. If the matter is enshrined in our constitution, as some lovely people claim it is, then the EU can't just make it law for us, no more than the EU can legalize abortion. At the very least, we'd have to hold a referendum on the issue and it'd still be up to the people to decide the issue. Now that would be interesting.

Its status in the cnostitution is very dubious, though. Protection of the family is mentioned, and that could be taken to mean traditional tw-parent heterosexual family... however, in the Irish version (which takes precedence where there are differences) the word tealamh (spelt horribly badly by me) meaning household, is used. That leaves far more wiggle-room.

rsynnott

solice wrote:

Yeah, could u imagine David Norris as taoiseach? Chilling...

No, he'd make a good President tho.

ajmurphy62

Christian Church Supports Gay Marriage


Christian Church Supports Gay Marriage


The head of the United Church of Christ has thrown his support behind marriage equality, becoming the first mainstream Christian church to do so.

The church stands poised to consider an official resolution endorsing equal rights for same-sex couples.

"I believe the General Synod should affirm the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons to have their covenanted relationships recognized by the state as marriages equal in name, privileges, and responsibilities to married heterosexual couples," the Rev. John H. Thomas, president and general minister, said in a speech on Tuesday in Atlanta.

Church delegates will consider a resolution in support of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples this weekend in Atlanta at the meeting of the General Synod of the UCC.

Some congregations have threatened to leave the denomination if it backs gay marriage, but the majority of congregations said they are in favour of backing the issue, according to the Associated Press.

The synod meets every two years to set national policy for the denomination, although those policies are not binding on individual congregations.

If the resolution passes, the UCC would be the first mainline Christian church in the United States to endorse equal rights for same gender couples, said the Rev. Bob Chase, communications director for the church.

In 1996, the Unitarian Universalist Association passed a resolution supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Media outlets have closely scrutinized the UCC since December when NBC and CBS rejected television ads from the church aimed at promoting the denomination as a welcoming place of worship.

The networks deemed the ads controversial and claimed they were designed to further the advocacy of gay marriage, something church officials vehemently denied.

The UCC was a pioneer 20 years ago when it recommended that its local congregations be open and welcoming to all people, including gay and lesbian members.

At the synod meeting in Atlanta, delegates will also consider two other marriage resolutions: One would urge further study before the church takes a position on same-sex marriage and the other would declare marriage to be strictly between one man and one woman.

The Rev. Bob Chase said Thomas has been studying the three proposed resolutions on marriage since late April, when they became public.

"He decided it was incumbent upon him in his role as a leader of the UCC to make a statement of his own personal convictions on this issue," Chase said.

Chase also noted that Thomas punched holes in the argument that the Bible prohibits marriage between same-sex couples.

"Nothing could be further from the truth," Chase said.

Nationwide, the church has 1.3 million members.

By Ross von Metzke, © 2005 GayWired.com, All Rights Reserved. Article provided by GayLinkContent.com. For more information, contact us at

looks like a step forward. Although not in ireland or catholic it is still a step forward for gay christians everywhere.

ixoy

rsynnott wrote:

Its status in the cnostitution is very dubious, though. Protection of the family is mentioned, and that could be taken to mean traditional tw-parent heterosexual family... however, in the Irish version (which takes precedence where there are differences) the word tealamh (spelt horribly badly by me) meaning household, is used. That leaves far more wiggle-room.

Interesting but, nonetheless, the bigots have constantly said we can't get married due to it being prohibited by the constitution even if none of us can find this section. Repeatedly we've been told it's a referendum issue when it merely seems that the Marriage Act prohibits it - which can be over-ruled. We'll need to see the Supreme Court's interpretation of this in the current action.

rsynnott

ajmurphy62 wrote:

looks like a step forward. Although not in ireland or catholic it is still a step forward for gay christians everywhere.

The Unitarians do this as well, and one of the Jewish sects.

But religion should obviously play no part in public policy, and church marriage has nothing in particular to do with state marriage.

ajmurphy62

rsynnott wrote:

The Unitarians do this as well, and one of the Jewish sects.

But religion should obviously play no part in public policy, and church marriage has nothing in particular to do with state marriage.

Yes but the state has been so heavily influenced by the church in the past. I do realise not as much recently but it used to have an influence and if it backed something this big im sure the government would quickly follow suit

rsynnott

Realistically, it'll be done by the state or European courts, with the churches kicking and screaming.

ixoy

Interestingly when is civil war about to erupt in Belgium? I assume it's shortly given that the opponents of gay marriage often proclaim it will destroy the social fabric..

shay_562

David Norris is gay ?

The Pope is a Catholic? Bears crap in the woods? What's going on here?

Interesting but, nonetheless, the bigots have constantly said we can't get married due to it being prohibited by the constitution even if none of us can find this section.

This is the same constitution that says that women should stay at home and cook, yes? I think it might need updating.

But religion should obviously play no part in public policy, and church marriage has nothing in particular to do with state marriage.

Word. The church's view of marraige is man-woman, that's fine, but they shouldn't have the power to control civil unions authorised by the government that have absolutely nothing to do with them.

falteringstar

Same sex marriage is not prohibited by the constitution in any way shape or form! The constitution promises to protect the institution of marriage from attack, however, as i see it is, the constitution does not itself supply a definition of either marriage or what would constitute an attack on marriage; so how exactly can it promise to protect something without defining it and how it would protect it?

To look for a definition look to statute law, specifically marriage law and the Civil Registration Act 2004, these prohibit same sex marriage, changes to these laws, these definitions of who is eligible to get married, DO NOT require a constitutional amendment.

However the Dail may feel that its such a big issue and call an ordinary (not constitutional) referendum, which in the entire history of the state has never happened before.

In my honest opinion, it is most likely that it will be a repeat of 1993-4, then the goverenment were debating whether or not to decriminalise homosexuality and decided not to. David Norris and Mary Robinson took the case to the EU Courts who overturned the Irish government's decision. In other words the Irish Government never willing legalised homosexuality...

Which is a major pity, as it would be again, i think Ireland really needs to show we're no longer the Church's bitch and set an example, wake up and enter the 21st century.




By the way i want to be the 1st gay toiseach, Im realistic about it though Im 21 now and Im giving myself until im 45.........

rsynnott

shay_562 wrote:

Word. The church's view of marraige is man-woman, that's fine, but they shouldn't have the power to control civil unions authorised by the government that have absolutely nothing to do with them.

Or even marraige authorised by the government. For what it's worth, the catholic Archbishop of Dublin actually spoke in favour of civil unions. Marraige might be a sticking point, though.

shay_562

For what it's worth, the catholic Archbishop of Dublin actually spoke in favour of civil unions. Marraige might be a sticking point, though.

Is there really that much of a difference?

rsynnott

shay_562 wrote:

Is there really that much of a difference?

No. Mostly symbolic. A few countries have gone through civil unions on the way to marraige, and I'd say that's what'll happen here too. Still, we shouldn't settle for a permanent second-class marriage.

Annasopra

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

just amused at the idea he might be the only LGBT politician

He's not, there's a councillor in Cork, I'm sure there are several not out - (I do know of one recent candidate) All the parties in this country have loads of gay members as well

Yes but the state has been so heavily influenced by the church in the past. I do realise not as much recently but it used to have an influence and if it backed something this big im sure the government would quickly follow suit

Thankfully we have moved from the days of Ireland being a Theocracry

To look for a definition look to statute law, specifically marriage law and the Civil Registration Act 2004, these prohibit same sex marriage, changes to these laws, these definitions of who is eligible to get married, DO NOT require a constitutional amendment.

The constitutional definition of marriage has also been defined by case law as "between one man and one woman"

By the way i want to be the 1st gay toiseach, Im realistic about it though Im 21 now and Im giving myself until im 45.........

As I've said before the political parties have loads of gay members

Enigma365

The EU will prob be the people to make it legal in ireland

The EU has no power in this area, or in any other social issues. The European Court of Human Rights(not an EU institution) does to some degree and was indeed responsible for decriminalizing homosexuality in Ireland. However, I believe the ECHR can only act in relation to the European Convention for Human Rights and this convention is quite specific with regards to marriage(see below).

"Article 12 – Right to marry:
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to
found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of
this right."

I don't believe therefore that same-sex marriage could be forced on Ireland, by the EU or the ECHR, in their current form. I do think however that as more EU countries legalise gay marriage, which I think they will, then Ireland will follow suit.

When it comes to issues like this, the world leads and Ireland follows(usually about 20 years later).

I am virtually certain that gay marriage, or a close equivalent with a different name, will be legal in Ireland within 5-10 years.

Stark

enigma365 wrote:

When it comes to issues like this, the world leads and Ireland follows(usually about 20 years later).

Ireland has been breaking away from its backwards stereotype in the last few years. Adopting the Euro showed that Ireland could make decisions without simplying copying Great Britain. We didn't need Britian/Europe to lead the way for us when introducing the smoking ban. There's no need to put a halt to the momentum now. Ireland's image as a forward-thinking state is vital for its economic survival in the coming years when the markets open up. That's something we need to stress to our representatives anytime they feel tempted to sit back and see what other countries come up with.

Annasopra

Stark wrote:

Ireland has been breaking away from its backwards stereotype in the last few years. Adopting the Euro showed that Ireland could make decisions without simplying copying Great Britain. We didn't need Britian/Europe to lead the way for us when introducing the smoking ban. There's no need to put a halt to the momentum now. Ireland's image as a forward-thinking state is vital for its economic survival in the coming years when the markets open up. That's something we need to stress to our representatives anytime they feel tempted to sit back and see what other countries come up with.

And of course Stark the equality legislation we bought in in the late 90s, early 00s was actually ahead of it's time for some countries

Stark

I knew there was some hugely important example I was forgetting, thanks Johnnymcg

There is a large body of people out there who feel that if something hasn't been tried and tested by other countries, that it's doomed to failure. They fail to realise the uniqueness of Ireland and the Irish people, and that quite often we can lead the way and succeed. That needs to be our attitude when it comes to legalising gay marriage.

Even though it has already been tried and tested in many countries

rsynnott

Johnnymcg wrote:

And of course Stark the equality legislation we bought in in the late 90s, early 00s was actually ahead of it's time for some countries

Yes, it was. Then we started diluting it and making exceptions almost immediately. Then there was ms. "Ireland's not ready for gay marriage". One step forward, two backwards, sometimes.

Stark

rsynnott wrote:

Yes, it was. Then we started diluting it and making exceptions almost immediately.

True. Sorry for the off-topic post here. In the original legislation, pubs/clubs that had age restrictions other than "over-18s" were made illegal. I thought that was extremely brave and progressive of Ireland and a real step against age discrimination, one of the last forms of "acceptable" prejudice. But then they gave in to pressure and severely diluted that aspect of the law. Bastards.

Annasopra

Stark wrote:

True. Sorry for the off-topic post here. In the original legislation, pubs/clubs that had age restrictions other than "over-18s" were made illegal. I thought that was extremely brave and progressive of Ireland and a real step against age discrimination, one of the last forms of "acceptable" prejudice. But then they gave in to pressure and severely diluted that aspect of the law. Bastards.

Those exceptions also meant that discrimination cases had to be taken through the courts instead of the equality tribunal - a clear pander to publicans and slap down to travellers