Reform of Marriage Law

Victor

There are proposals to generally (not necessarily comprehensively) review marriage in Ireland. Details are included here.

http://www.groireland.ie/reform_of_marriage_law.htm - Submissions by 31 march 2003

General Register Office - http://www.groireland.ie/

Victor

Some updates. As best I know the EU cannot impose "morality" based laws on members, however the European Court of Human Rights may be a different matter.

http://www.thepost.ie/web/DocumentView/did-203794953-pageUrl--2FThe-Newspaper-2FSundays-Paper-2FNews.asp

Government committee to consider European Court transsexual ruling
18/01/04 00:00
By Kieron Wood

A government committee on marriage law reform is to consider a European Court judgment on transsexuals when it produces its forthcoming report on transsexual marriage.

Last week, the minister for family affairs, Mary Coughlan, said in a newspaper interview that it was not the job of the state to favour marriage over other forms of family.

The minister said the reality in Ireland today was that there was a "plethora of different types of families", and that "you're better off going beyond the definition and accepting the reality".

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has now ruled that governments must allow transsexuals to "marry". The judgment ten days ago concerned a British nurse who complained that she could not pass on her work pension to her partner, a female-to-male transsexual, because they were not married.

The pair, who are in their 40s and live in the west of England, went through an Church of England marriage ceremony with the support of a bishop who knew them. Transsexuals are currently banned from "marrying" in Britain because the law does not allow amendment of the gender on a person's birth certificate.

The EU court ruled that the transsexual was deprived of the right to receive a widower's pension from the nurse.

"The fact that certain benefits are restricted to married couples cannot be regarded per se as discrimination on grounds of sex," the ruling said. "However, there is inequality of treatment when, in breach of human rights, a person is prevented from satisfying a condition upon which the award of a benefit protected by Community law depends."

The European Court of Human Rights has already held that a ban on transsexuals marrying in their "acquired gender" infringes Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Justice has also confirmed that it is against European law to discriminate against transsexuals in employment.

The interdepartmental committee on reform of marriage law, based in the Department of Social and Family Affairs, is due to publish its discussion papers shortly on the marriage of transsexuals.

A spokesman for the committee said: "At this stage, we cannot predict what recommendations might emerge from our analysis."

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/2362409?view=Eircomnet

Major reform of marriage law proposed
From:ireland.com
Saturday, 17th January, 2004

A massive increase in penalties for irregularly contracted marriages is being proposed as part of a major reform of the laws in this area. Paul Cullen reports.

People who give false information when marrying could face fines of up to €10,000 and/or imprisonment of five years, under proposals from the Government's Inter-departmental Committee on Reform of Marriage Law.

Existing fines vary between €10 and €50. The committee is also proposing universal civil preliminaries for all marriages, whether they happen in a church or not, and it has approved earlier proposals that will allow couples marry at a location of their choosing.

This provision, which will apply so long as the location is public and no food or alcohol is served during the ceremony, will be made law by amendments to the Civil Registration Bill, which comes before the Dáil in the next few weeks.

At present, Catholic marriages must take place in a church, which are not required to be licensed. Other religions must apply for a licence. The committee wants to replace the current register of venues with a register of people entitled to solemnise marriages. However, it acknowledges this may present legal difficulties.

Existing laws on the location for marriages are unduly restrictive and facilities at county registrars' offices - the only permissible location for civil marriages under existing laws - are inadequate to meet growing demand, the committee says.

Current residence requirements are based on a "Victorian premise" that people were born and married in the same district.

"This is no longer the position. Society has become more mobile and the current residence rules impose an artificial burden on couples intending to marry."

Some people who wish to marry outside their own area are unable to do so, according to anecdotal evidence cited by the committee.

"As a result of changes in society a residence requirement is no longer workable and unnecessarily bureaucratic."

It also criticises the rules for marriage licences as complex and not easily understood by marrying couples and even by those issuing the licences.

It says the current requirement to give three months' notice should be strengthened.

All those intending to marry will have to attend personally together at the registrar's office, produce identification and make a formal declaration that they are free to marry.

If the couple, their witnesses or their solemniser are not fluent in the language of the marriage ceremony, an interpreter must be employed.

Concern is expressed about the number of people seeking exemption to the three months' notice rule. Between 2000 and 2002, 3,350 applications for exemption to this rule were made to the Circuit Court, of which over 90 per cent were approved.

The committee says it aims to create a common framework and standard set of formalities for marriage and to treat all religions, and people of no religion, equally.

Marriage law in Northern Ireland has already been reformed. Since January 1st, new laws mean that someone residing in the North will no longer be able to service notice of marriage on a registrar in the North for marriage in the South.

The committee recommends that the Government ratifies the United Nations Convention on Marriage, but should enter a reservation in relation to an article which states that in exceptional circumstances a marriage can go ahead in the absence of one of the parties. The committee says both parties to a marriage must be present for the ceremony.

dr_manhattan

All I can say is, this issue doesn't really affect me as I'm pretty much heterosexual (let's say 99% haha) and don't have much intention to marry.

But my position is this: it's revolting enough to me that people have to be classified as 'homosexual' or 'transgender' at all - so the idea that someone, as a result of these labels, cannot marry is disgusting and repugnant to me. And you can back up all the ideas you goddamn well want, it's still a sick, sick thing and it is effectively saying hetero = normal and everything else = subnormal.

And if it's not, then what is it saying? by denying rights to people, you are making them a 2nd class citizen....

needless to say, this idea of identifying people by gender or sexuality distinguishes a drag queen from an 80 year old aunt with a moustache - but of course, everyone knows that the disctinction has to be made between those who look transgendered by incident of nature, and those who look transgendered because they choose to be: it's important. Of course.

And then of course there's those sneaky ones who don't look transgendered but are! Good lord, what is the world coming to? It's getting hard to be *normal* these days!

Or could it just possibly be that any ideas of sexual "normality" are invented by us?

Silent Bob

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
All I can say is, this issue doesn't really affect me as I'm pretty much heterosexual (let's say 99% haha) and don't have much intention to marry.

But my position is this: it's revolting enough to me that people have to be classified as 'homosexual' or 'transgender' at all

You willingly classify yourself and then say it's disgusting to classify others? Odd...

There is nothing inherently wrong in classification, the problem is when classification is used as a basis for discrimination.

dr_manhattan

"You willingly classify yourself and then say it's disgusting to classify others? Odd..."

Okay, now you're just being a smartass: and anyway, I said I was 'pretty much heterosexual' which is using the word as an adjective rather than to describe a group of people... and other sad little ways to wrangle out on a technicality. What I was trying to say was that the chances of me getting married are minimal.

It would appear to me that you have nothing to say about the actual idea of hetero/homo/trans marriage, and are just trying to core a point or two. Good luck: but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and discuss this:

"There is nothing inherently wrong in classification, the problem is when classification is used as a basis for discrimination."

Actually, there is. Classification is a blunt tool that simply causes divisions. There is no difference between gays and straights, none whatsoever - if they weren't categorised, the prejudices wouldn't exist: after all, nobody thinks of gay animals as differet, do they? they m,ay be made uncomfortable momentarily by smae sex dogs going at it in the back yard, but nobody tries to establish if dogs are gay or not.

Why? because there's no reason to - you can't fire a dog, or make it earn less, or give it no tax breaks, or pretend that it's sending the world to hell. No reason to say it's gay then.

And it's very hard to prove, given the way that people think and associate ideas with words, that by classifying something you are not in some way discriminating against or for it.

The classifications of "homosexual", "heterosexual" and "bisexual" tend to imply that there are limited sets of permutations within human sexuality, when in fact there are a whole spectrum of interacting sexualities. Dropping strict classification is something that's also been happenning in so-called "personality disorders" too (autism and schizophrenia being good examples) because classifications are causing more problems than they solve.

The so called 'autism spectrum' is an example of this.

So yeah, I'd say ther's a lot inherently wrong with classifying people on the basis of who they like to ****: and I would like you to explain why the classification is necessary.

Silent Bob

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Actually, there is. Classification is a blunt tool that simply causes divisions. There is no difference between gays and straights, none whatsoever - if they weren't categorised, the prejudices wouldn't exist

Things can be categorised without prejudice, and there isn't a problem with that.

You did it yourself. You said "gay animals" providing the category of things that are both animals and gay.

People inherently classify things. Our language would not work without it. Without classification I wouldn't even have been able to write the above sentence, we would not be allowed to create a group that we call "people".

You say that if things weren't classified that the prejudices wouldn't exist. This may be true, but the existence of a classification does not lead to prejudice in and of itself. For that you have to look at more social reasons.

Try spending a day without classifying anything. All nouns then have to go right out the window (as do adjectives). You can't refer to people by their names, that's classification. You can't use phrases such as "Garda Station", that's classification. You can't say such things as "tall people" or "short people" or even "people".

We need to be able to classify things to function. Our species would not exist if we weren't able to tell the difference between "food" and "not food". Classification is a very useful process that helps us through everyday life. Your problem is that you only see the prejudices and equate them to classifications.

I stand by my original point.

dr_manhattan

"You said "gay animals" providing the category of things that are both animals and gay."

utterly mind crunchingly dull and off topic as this argiument is, I did not actually classify anything: I used the adjective 'gay' to *describe* some animals.

I did not fill out any form which classifies any animal as gay: you are mistaking *describing* something with classifying it. Except you're not, because:

"You can't refer to people by their names, that's classification"

Okay, now you're out the window, bob: that's their name. If I call someone "dave", that does not mean that I am in any way classifying him as "a dave". Names have no connotations. You may provide examples whereby the name goldstein may *imply* that someone is of the jewish race (a classification) but it may not.

"You can't say such things as "tall people" or "short people" or even "people"."

yes, as I say, "tall" is an adjective: you're really bending things here to try and make that point, bob. Now, THIS is the mad one:

"You can't use phrases such as "Garda Station", that's classification."

Errrm, okay, once agin when we talk about prejudices, we have to have a semantics argument: every goddamn time the subject of prejudice comes up people start saying "that's not a race", every time any prejudice comes up people wind up discussing what is or isn't.

i'd just like to say you haven't a thing to say about gay marriage, so what's your problem here? Why the semantics argument?

Anyway, you may be correct in saying that by saying "garda station", I am classifying it away from "train station" or "power station", yes. But what this has to do with gay marriage is neither here nor there: I was talking about how classifying PEOPLE is disgusting. But please don't bother coming back to an argument here, I'm not interested in an internet word game tournament, rather I have something to say about gender.

Now:

Language is a huge factor of culture and society: look at how different languages define outlook and social structure in other countries, with formal versions of language, different structures etc.

Therefore a language which habitually classifies in order to speak on complex issues is deficient, not working properly - it is contributing towards prejudice. Just as a language which accepts male and female nouns can reinforce sexism, so a language which permits massive categorisation of people on irrelevant bases such as sexuality and gender is bull****.

And before you say "how can we talk about x,y,z then?" I'll just say that there have been languages (and thus cultures) that accept more than two sexes: sometimes three, sometimes five, sometimes as much as twelve different sexes are accepted and recognised in some tribal societies: irrespective of genitalia. Thus language is a component in dividing gender and sexuality. Whether you wish to say it is or not, this is the case.

When we say "boy" or "girl", we are creating an illusion that these are all the sexes that there are. Any gynecologist or midwife will tell you that a large amount of children are born with ambiguous or vestigial genitalia: in other words, born trans-sexed as it were. Mant more are born to a physical norm of whatr we consider "male or female", yet feel that they are in fact different inside, and change their sex.

And our language only giving precedence to "male" and "female" does not help this, it merely promotes an idea that 'transgender' is some form of abnormal birth defect, and that anyone who atempts to live to any other than male or female standards is skipping over lines of nature.

Not so. only lines of rhetoric, cultural identity, and prejudice.

bye now.

Silent Bob

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
I did not fill out any form which classifies any animal as gay: you are mistaking *describing* something with classifying it.

You cannot describe something without necessarily making it distinct to things that do not fit that description. Hence creating a class of items that fit the description and a class that don't

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Okay, now you're out the window, bob: that's their name. If I call someone "dave", that does not mean that I am in any way classifying him as "a dave".

You are creating a class of people that contains a single object, (the person you have identified as "Dave") AND a class that does not.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
yes, as I say, "tall" is an adjective: you're really bending things here to try and make that point, bob

Adjectives classify things, get used to it

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
. Now, THIS is the mad one:

"You can't use phrases such as "Garda Station", that's classification."

How is this mad? Once you say "Garda Station" you create a class of objects which can fit this description and a class that don't, see above.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
i'd just like to say you haven't a thing to say about gay marriage, so what's your problem here? Why the semantics argument?

Because semantics are important too. You claim that classification is bad. You can't even make that claim without resorting to it though.

You think that classifications are what cause the prejudice. They don't.
The fact that gay people can't marry is not because of the classifications, it's because of the prejudices. This is what makes this semantic argument relevant to what you posted about marriages.

There is nothing inherently wrong with classifying someone as "gay". Negatively discriminating against a person as a result of that classification is, however, wrong.

dr_manhattan

"You cannot describe something without necessarily making it distinct to things that do not fit that description. Hence creating a class of items that fit the description and a class that don't"

(yawn) sorry, do you read what you type? No matter what way you stretch your argument, the act of classifying a person is not the same as describing them. I know this point is precious for you because without it you have nothing to actually say, but describing someone as tall is not the same as classifying them as tall: especially considering that being tall doesn't affect your basic rights in any way.

"Adjectives classify things, get used to it"

Yes in your mind, perhaps bob. This bears all the hallmarks of internet debate: Why then are there two words, one "describe" and the other "classify", if they are the same thing? Is this because the english language is incorrect in your opinion?

fact is *as far as this thread is concerned*, classification of your sexual relations as gay means that you cannot marry. Classification of your sexual relations as hairy, tall, pink, blue, spherical does not change your ability to marry. Therefore *even if you are right*, for the purposes of this discussion, classification is not the same as description. Just like being "classified" as heterosexual affects people not one bit as regards marriage, and thus does not carry the same meaning as being classed as gay.

And finally:

" The fact that gay people can't marry is not because of the classifications, it's because of the prejudices."

And the reason the prejudices continue is because of the classifications. I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying here, and to be honest I'm not sure I'm that arsed explaining: but let's just answer the question "do you think that people would be homophobic if they had no concept of a "homosexual" act?

"This is what makes this semantic argument relevant to what you posted about marriages."

Again, in your mind. I think it belongs to a thread called "description and classification: are they the same thing?"

"There is nothing inherently wrong with classifying someone as "gay". Negatively discriminating against a person as a result of that classification is, however, wrong"

this reminds me of america's efforst in the 80s toward a "colourblind society". You can pretend and pretend and pretend that you don't think differently about someone because they're gay, but the fact is that everybody has their own prejudices.

So in fact, calling a highly diverse bunch of people "gay" and "straight" is a BIG part of the problem, and your contention that the world cannot exist without classification is a result of the failure of the english language to provide you with the means to see beyond the mechanics of naming things.

before gay people had a name, they were just people. As I said dogs are not classified into gay and straight, because we do not see it as necessary to differentiate between gay and straight dogs. But because issues and percieved situations affect people, we have to say someone is "gay", even though that person may actually have a very individual and sophisticated set of personal sexual nuances.

But of course, semantics are the important thing. Always make sure you win the small battles and the big ones will work themselves out, right?

Silent Bob

Dear dr_manhattan

Learn some basic category theory.

from http://www.dictionary.com

class: A set, collection, group, or configuration containing members regarded as having certain attributes or traits in common; a kind or category.

Describing something narrows the field of possible somethings down to the set which matches that description.

Go ahead. Try and use an adjective without then limiting the set of objects you describe with that adjective. I dare you.

The reason that "Classification of your sexual relations as hairy, tall, pink, blue, spherical does not change your ability to marry" is because there are no associated prejudices.

Ummm... Dogs are classified into gay and straight dogs. We just don't have any particular prejudices about it. I have heard people laugh about how their particular pet is obviously gay.

You are the one who seems to want to pretend that no matter how different people are that they are thought about the same way. You want us to get rid of words describing (and hence classifying) people's sexual orientation because you think this will somehow remove the associated prejudice. The problem with this thinking is that the prejudice does not exist just because people are different. The problem is that some people don't like people who are different.

Attacking the fact that classification exists won't attack the underlying problem. If you really want to make a difference, direct your energies somewhere useful, show people why their prejudices are wrong.


I think you will find that semantics are critical. There are two parts to language, syntax and semantics. Syntax is the structure of the language, semantics, the meaning.

dr_manhattan

Check the dictionary? No, bob, I won't. Why don't you re-read what you've got to say and see how boring you're being?

"You are the one who seems to want to pretend that no matter how different people are that they are thought about the same way. You want us to get rid of words describing (and hence classifying) people's sexual orientation because you think this will somehow remove the associated prejudice."

No, bob, you just think you know what I'm "trying to do". What i;'m saying is that if we removed these words people wouldn't grow up thinking they were so different from other people. You have assigned an agenda to what I'm saying. Fact is that classification does not help with peoples prejudices, because the universal acceptance of broad categories makes people think they're entitled to categorise other people.

"The problem with this thinking is that the prejudice does not exist just because people are different. The problem is that some people don't like people who are different."

No, bob, the problem is that people don't accept that everyone is different from everyone else: the problem exists because our society insists on saying that one bunch of people are "normal" and the rest are "different". When was the last time a bunch of gays beat up a lone heterosexual? Or a bunch of black people lynched a white man who looked at a black woman the wrong way?

You seem to be trying to say that we can keep our words and classifications, and somehow work together to understand each other: and I think you are completely wrong here. However this has been a ridiculously dull debate, if I wanted to discuss things on this level I'd be in the semantics forum.

"Attacking the fact that classification exists won't attack the underlying problem. If you really want to make a difference, direct your energies somewhere useful, show people why their prejudices are wrong."

Hahahahaha, you're hilarious bob! Have you ever tried to shopw a homophobe or racist that they're prejudices are "wrong"? Because I have, and there's no point, because they've got this arsenal of meaningless words like "race" which everybody accepts and make them feel like they've actually got differences to discuss.

"If you really want to make a difference"

I've already made and continue to make a difference bob. You should try entertaining the idea that someone might have more experience in this area than you (gasp) Go lecture someone else, I'm not interested.

Silent Bob

Argumentum ad hominem
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

dr_manhattan

aw, did I hurt your feelings by saying you were boring?

Bob, this thread has officially been the most boring, predictable internet thread from start to finish.

After a tedioius thread obsessing about semantics, including a posted link to dictionary.com (I mean, for god's sake), and a sig that seems to indicate that you went off and researched the issue (got issues? lol)you the move on to responding in latin cliches, implying that I have somehow attacked you.

This only proves to me that you are more boring than i previously considered possible. Which, ironically, is interesting, so thanks for at least that.

:rolleyes:

Victor

People, back on topic. Sometimes lables are appropriate, sometimes they are not. It is wrong to define a person by only one characteristic, except when that characteristic is the one under discusssion. For example, saying "Dave (no one in particular) is a diabetic" instead of "Dave has diabetes", unfairly defines Dave, implying diabetes controls his every moment, when it doesn't (it will however effect his daily routine). In a purely medical context, it may be fair to say "Dave is a diabetic", before you give him Glucose intravenously.

Likewise defining someone's gender / sexuality should only come around when either that criteria defines that person. Oone person on boards.ie is sometimes referred to as "gay boy", simply because that is one of his major facets on boards, it is used in a familiar way by people who know him and not necessarily to define him, but as a means of distinguishing him from others in conversation.

Society and law has defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, largely for the purpose of having children. It is not available to people of the same gender, to family members, to minors, nor people who simply wish to remain friends - but have some legal bond.

As society has developed not everyone agrees that marriage or some similar institution should be restricted by those rules. However, what some people forget or ignore is that marriage is more than just a wedding and living together.

Silent Bob

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
aw, did I hurt your feelings by saying you were boring?

Bob, this thread has officially been the most boring, predictable internet thread from start to finish.

Predictable, because you knew you were wrong? If you aren't up for a reasoned discussion then maybe you shouldn't be here?

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
After a tedioius thread obsessing about semantics, including a posted link to dictionary.com (I mean, for god's sake), and a sig that seems to indicate that you went off and researched the issue (got issues? lol)you the move on to responding in latin cliches, implying that I have somehow attacked you.

They are not latin cliches, they are the proper names for argumentative fallacies of which you are guilty. You try to debunk the argument by saying I am boring. Whether or not I am boring has no power over whether or not my argument is correct.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
This only proves to me that you are more boring than i previously considered possible. Which, ironically, is interesting, so thanks for at least that.

:rolleyes:

Likewise, your desire to live as an ignorant amazes me

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Silent Bob
There is nothing inherently wrong in classification, the problem is when classification is used as a basis for discrimination.

this is 100% true, i don't see the point in arguing over nothing, classification is how we distinguish who is wot, its not a bad thing,

i'll demonstrate,

there are black people, white people, irish people, english people, catholic people, jewish people etc etc etc,

now have i offended anyone by saying these things??... no, because i haven't used these classifications in any offensive way.. its just the way the world works people

dr_manhattan

Yes but the problem is that sometimes classification implies difference where there is none:

for example, there is no scientific basis for the term "race" - sure you can describe someone as "black" but actually they'll usually be any one of a million shades of brown, and the fact is there's no more actualy physical difference than there is between a white and black cat. There are no "races" in animals, only breeds.

And these terms are anachronistic and serve to create unnecessary division. Now as regards the actual topic, can you give me a reason why there should actually be a distinction made IN LAW between a gay and a straight person? Why it is that two men or two women should not marry?

The fact is, of course there are differences between people, that much is obvious. But when there's no legal discrimination between someone who likes anal sex with women and someone who likes vaginal sex with women, why should there be a distinction between someone who likes men and someone who likes women?

Fact is, speaking in generalisations is a problem, most gay people have nothing in common with each other except sexual preference on a very basic level: just because most young irish gay men seem to choose to act like graham norton these days doesn't mean they're all of the same mind.

The classification of "gay" has caused friends of mine huge problems, withe people ready to tell them that they "don't seem very gay" because they're quite masculine, etc. etc. And these dumb ideas come as much from other "gay" people as they do from "straight" people - there's a huge volume of published material on sexual identity, gender and sexuality which to me proves that using one word for a huge bunch of people is a part of the problem.

Plus, referring to the original example I gave, there's not many "black" people I know who enjoy being described as "a black guy", it simply promotes laziness.

how many times has anyone introduced a non-white friend to other friends and they've eventually come out with "you never said he was black/chinese/indian" - as if it matters. Yet to some people it does... however, I've never had someone say "oh you never said he was white" or have someone described as "some white guy", except by black people - it works both ways and is just crap.

IMHO, the system, left unquestioned, hinders real understanding of the problems. Obviously people's prejudice is the main problem, but the flaws in the language give support to their misinformed beliefs.

Victor

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/02/14/story134154.html

Government relaxes laws on civil marriages
14/02/2004 - 9:35:37 am

The Government has good news today for romantic couples who want to tie the knot.

After today, couples can have civil marriages ceremonies any time, any place, any where.

In the biggest change in this law since 1845, Minister Mary Coughlan says couples can now get married where the original proposal took place.

Yoda

Originally posted by Victor
There are proposals to generally (not necessarily comprehensively) review marriage in Ireland. Details are included here.

http://www.groireland.ie/reform_of_marriage_law.htm - Submissions by 31 march 2003

General Register Office - http://www.groireland.ie/

Victor, I dug around and couldn't find any position papers that state "comments by 31 March".

In what I did look through, once again, I saw no mention of the sex of the parties to be married. I wonder if there is a legal ban on same-sex marriage in Ireland.

Victor

Originally posted by Yoda
Victor, I dug around and couldn't find any position papers that state "comments by 31 March".

Thread is 11 months old.

Originally posted by Yoda
In what I did look through, once again, I saw no mention of the sex of the parties to be married. I wonder if there is a legal ban on same-sex marriage in Ireland.

As I said "There are proposals to generally (not necessarily comprehensively) review marriage in Ireland".

Yoda

Erm.

D'oh!

Yeah but my question remains: is same-sex marriage actually forbidden by Irish legislation?

I wrote to the GRO and asked them to cite the specific legislation.

Victor

Update

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2765-1313175,00.html

The Sunday Times - Ireland
October 17, 2004
Parents banned from marrying adoptees
Richard Oakley

PARENTS of adopted children are likely to be banned from marrying them, under proposed legislation aimed at preventing Woody Allen-style weddings in Ireland.

Proposals being put forward by a government think tank also include a ban on adopted children marrying their siblings. The group, which was given the task of modernising Ireland’s marriage laws, is recommending that Irish couples planning to marry must announce their intentions on the internet three months before the big day.

Posting virtual banns of marriage would allow for more “public scrutiny” of intended nuptials, the group says. It will increase the chances of objections to a planned marriage in cases where there are grounds to do so, such as one of the intended using a false identity.

The Inter-Departmental Committee on Reform of Marriage Law pointed out that a ban on parents marrying adopted children does not exist in current legislation. It is understood that the committee believes such a law is necessary to protect families from potential disruption.

When a person is adopted in Ireland, common law rules that they are considered to be born to their new parents. According to the committee, this appears to prohibit a marriage between an adopted child and his or her parents. But it does not seem to cover cases where an adoption order ceases to exist.

The group’s paper, which is being posted on its website for public discussion before being submitted to the government, points out that the Law Reform Commission recommended in 1984 that legislation be introduced to prevent such marriages, and between adopted people and their siblings.

“It is considered that the law in relation to marriages between parties related by adoption is deficient,” the paper says. “Prohibition against marriages between parents and an adoptive child and between adoptive siblings even in cases where an adoption order ceases to have effect should be introduced.”

But it is understood the committee was not aware of any cases where such marriages have taken place in Ireland. Claire McGettrick, a spokeswoman for the Adopted People’s Association of Ireland, said it knew of no such nuptials either. The nearest parallel being that of Woody Allen to Soon-Yi Previn. The couple’s 1997 marriage was widely criticised because Soon-Yi, 35 years younger than Allen, is the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow, the Hollywood star’s former lover.

Farrow had dated Allen for more than a decade, but only discovered he was having a relationship with her adopted daughter when she found nude pictures of Soon-Yi, then 21, in Allen’s apartment.

Such a marriage is not going to be banned in Ireland, however, given that Allen was never the adopted parent of Soon-Yi and was never married to Farrow.

McGettrick said that there was still a risk that adopted people could marry blood relatives without realising it, because they are not allowed to see their files and learn about their past.

“When you view this new proposal in that light, it highlights how ridiculous the current situation is. We are introducing laws to prevent adopted children from marrying their parents, something none of them want to do in the first place, and yet we have no laws which would help prevent them marrying their blood relatives by accident,” she said.

The committee says the website of the General Register Office, www.groireland.ie will be used to post the marriage notifications.

Currently, notice of a marriage is given to a registrar and displayed in their office. The committee felt that this did not allow for full public scrutiny. Anybody can object to a wedding if they are aware of any reason why it should not go ahead. This includes cases where people are already married or where somebody is using a false identity.

In its discussion document the committee also recommends that marriages between a granduncle and grandniece, and between a grandaunt and grandnephew, be added to a list of prohibited unions involving blood relatives, such as that between a man and his grandmother.

However it failed to reach a decision on what to recommend on marriages involving in-laws. There are a number of existing prohibitions in this category: for example a man cannot marry his step-grandmother, his stepmother, or his aunt.

The discussion document points out that arguments have been made that these current prohibitions may be too broad and that Irish law is not the same as in other countries.

Rather than make recommendations it invites further discussion by citing a number of options, one of which is to remove all restrictions based on relationships by marriage.

The discussion document will form the basis of a future position paper which will then go to the Department of Health, which is in charge of reforming marriage law. The government is expected to enact the majority of the committee’s recommendations.