The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

StudentDad · 03-11-2013 07:59PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Not trying to defend whoever that might have been, but it is possible that the idea that marriage might be other than between a man and woman probably simply didn't occur to them.

MrP

I have to disagree there. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that tolerance and recognition of others was in short supply when the constitution was written.

The bit that irks me is that there are people in this country that would deny the legal right of individuals based on religious belief or other spurious grounds.

SD

MrPudding · 03-11-2013 08:14PM

StudentDad wrote: »

I have to disagree there. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that tolerance and recognition of others was in short supply when the constitution was written.

The bit that irks me is that there are people in this country that would deny the legal right of individuals based on religious belief or other spurious grounds.

SD

The root of the reason why marriage other than between a man and a woman would simply not have occurred to them might very well have been a lack of tolerance and recognition, but it is not a necessity. My point is, irrespective of why same sex marriage did not occur to the authors of the constitution, I think it remain more likely that it simply not occurring to them is the more likely scenario. More likely, I would suggest that any concious attempt to discriminate.

I think Tommy's post kind of backs this up. There is no mention that marriage is between a man and a woman. If they were concerned with men marry men or women marrying women then they would have put it in the constituion, and given the time that it was, there probably would not have been an awful lot said about it.

As we have seen in the US, it is only in more recent times anti-ssm people have begun to take an interest in the words of documents dealing with marriage and the like. Often they are in gender neutral terms and those people try to change them to state only a man and a woman can get married.

I am not a great fan of the old "well, it was a different time" argument, but it really was a different time...;)

MrP

StudentDad · 03-11-2013 08:40PM

MrPudding wrote: »

The root of the reason why marriage other than between a man and a woman would simply not have occurred to them might very well have been a lack of tolerance and recognition, but it is not a necessity. My point is, irrespective of why same sex marriage did not occur to the authors of the constitution, I think it remain more likely that it simply not occurring to them is the more likely scenario. More likely, I would suggest that any concious attempt to discriminate.

I think Tommy's post kind of backs this up. There is no mention that marriage is between a man and a woman. If they were concerned with men marry men or women marrying women then they would have put it in the constituion, and given the time that it was, there probably would not have been an awful lot said about it.

As we have seen in the US, it is only in more recent times anti-ssm people have begun to take an interest in the words of documents dealing with marriage and the like. Often they are in gender neutral terms and those people try to change them to state only a man and a woman can get married.

I am not a great fan of the old "well, it was a different time" argument, but it really was a different time...;)

MrP

Different time perhaps and to my mind a strong indicator that written constitutions do little more than take a photograph of society, edit out the bits the framers don't want and tie the hands of future legislators

For me, religious belief needs to be taken out of the Constitution right across the board so that legislation can be written in a balanced way that takes account of all sections of society. Yes, great in theory, but we have to start somewhere.

SD

Festus · 07-11-2013 01:09AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

As I understand it marriage is not defined as between a man and woman.
Article 41.3.1 of the Constitution says only that "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack."
It's been interpreted and assumed to mean but doesn't actually state any such definition.

That being the case what do we need a referendum for?

mbiking123 · 07-11-2013 01:21AM

Festus wrote: »

That being the case what do we need a referendum for?

http://irishbarrister.com/marriage.html

'CIVIL MARRIAGE REGULATIONS

Impediments to marriage

Your marriage will not be valid if:

either party is under the age of 18, unless a court exemption has been obtained,
either party is already validly married,
either party is incapable of understand the meaning of marriage because of mental handicap or illness or
both parties are the same sex'

Festus · 07-11-2013 01:34AM

mbiking123 wrote: »

http://irishbarrister.com/marriage.html

'CIVIL MARRIAGE REGULATIONS

Impediments to marriage

Your marriage will not be valid if:
either party is under the age of 18, unless a court exemption has been obtained,

either party is already validly married,

either party is incapable of understand the meaning of marriage because of mental handicap or illness or

both parties are the same sex'

These are the civil regulations. That means they are not part of the Constitution. No need for a referendum to change these. An act in the doil will suffice.

So, my question remains unanswered - why do we need a referendum on this?

Festus · 07-11-2013 01:48AM

mbiking123 wrote: »

http://irishbarrister.com/marriage.html

'CIVIL MARRIAGE REGULATIONS

Impediments to marriage

Your marriage will not be valid if:
either party is under the age of 18, unless a court exemption has been obtained,

either party is already validly married,

either party is incapable of understand the meaning of marriage because of mental handicap or illness or

both parties are the same sex'

By the way, you do realize that the last two lines of what you posted can be interpreting as implying that if both parties are of the same sex then neither party is capable of understanding the meaning of marriage.

mbiking123 · 07-11-2013 02:07AM

Festus wrote: »

By the way, you do realize that the last two lines of what you posted can be interpreting as implying that if both parties are of the same sex then neither party is capable of understanding the meaning of marriage.

I was just clarifying questions being posed with a legal interpretation-not my own

yes and no, I think the 'or' is the problem, then again the last point has a different bullet point. No I did not realize until you said it, maybe its badly phrased ?

mbiking123 · 07-11-2013 02:09AM

Festus wrote: »

These are the civil regulations. That means they are not part of the Constitution. No need for a referendum to change these. An act in the doil will suffice.

So, my question remains unanswered - why do we need a referendum on this?

That's one for a legal eagle, and even at that its only a legal opinion

Festus · 07-11-2013 02:34AM

mbiking123 wrote: »

That's one for a legal eagle, and even at that its only a legal opinion

Do you trust lawyers ?

I don't. I trust solicitors less

MrPudding · 07-11-2013 09:04AM

Festus wrote: »

By the way, you do realize that the last two lines of what you posted can be interpreting as implying that if both parties are of the same sex then neither party is capable of understanding the meaning of marriage.

Whilst you might believe that being gay is some kind of mental impediment you really are stretching matters to interpret this particular provision as saying any such thing. No special statutory interpretation skills are required, just a basic grasp of grammar should suffice.

MrP

tommy2bad · 07-11-2013 09:53AM

Well we don't need a referendum but politicians being politicians won't want to pass a law as devicive as this without passing the buck somewhere else. So they hold a referendum and pass it on to us.
If only they held our opinion in such high esteem on all issues.

07-11-2013 10:22AM

Festus wrote: »

That being the case what do we need a referendum for?

The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. One of the things they take into account is what was intended by the framers. DeValera etc. almost certainly intended family in this context to mean a man and a woman. If the SC believed that was the intentions, they could strike down any law allowing gay marriage.

The Constitution is, at best, ambiguous on this issue. It is far better to explicitly protect the right by changing it

NuMarvel · 07-11-2013 11:36AM

Festus wrote: »

By the way, you do realize that the last two lines of what you posted can be interpreting as implying that if both parties are of the same sex then neither party is capable of understanding the meaning of marriage.

The Act itself has a comma before the "or",indicating that the last line is separate from the second last line. So it goes a bit like this:

You can't get married if:
a,
b,
c, or
d.

28064212 wrote: »

The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. One of the things they take into account is what was intended by the framers. DeValera etc. almost certainly intended family in this context to mean a man and a woman. If the SC believed that was the intentions, they could strike down any law allowing gay marriage.

The Constitution is, at best, ambiguous on this issue. It is far better to explicitly protect the right by changing it

As an aside, the Courts also take into account the intentions of the current Governments. For example, one of the reasons that the Zappone/Gilligan High Court didn't succeed was because of the presumed constitutionality of the Act that prohibits gay couples from marrying. As far as I know, the constitutionality of this provision has never been challenged in the Supreme Court.

But you're right, the Constitution is ambiguous. I think at most, the Courts would say the Constitution doesn't block marriage for gay couples, but it doesn't oblige a Government to provide for it either. The Government is free to legislate for marriage rights as it see fits. And I think any laws allowing same sex marriage on the same basis as heterosexual marriage would withstand a Constitutional test. But the problems are convincing our politicians to legislate in the first place, and then having to put up with High Court and then Supreme Court challenges, possibly to each and every provision of that legislation.

In the long run, a referendum might be best, particular if the option is that a Government must provide for it, as the Convention recommended. It's 18 months of having to correct the same spurious and erroneous arguments over and over again, but once it's in place, it's in place.

tommy2bad · 07-11-2013 06:18PM

And then like the abortion bill we wait a few years untill any gov will chance handling this hot potato.
Hopefully the gov that proposes the refendum will implement it result into law (presuming the right side win

) as soon as possible.
I fear it will depend on how the result plays out, a definitive landslide 'for' would compel a response, a tight marginal result could mean limbo for any legislation.

lmaopml · 09-11-2013 01:27AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

And then like the abortion bill we wait a few years untill any gov will chance handling this hot potato.
Hopefully the gov that proposes the refendum will implement it result into law (presuming the right side win ) as soon as possible.
I fear it will depend on how the result plays out, a definitive landslide 'for' would compel a response, a tight marginal result could mean limbo for any legislation.

I would hope that the Gov'mint - would perhaps not sack members of their own party at the very least, and think this is a good move for the common good etc. etc. so on...

- the one eyed beast doesn't exactly suit the look of Irish Government - we've already had that, thanks, we'd like to move on.

Irish people do actually think, even if we don't always feel the need to get up and vote for the difference between one overlord or the other. There are some things that have cut right to the heart in recent years, and no, there are very few that I would gladly whip out a hip hurrah flag for..

They 'Managed' - like we are a business? They probably have to in some ways, but I will never forget that our very own Government sacked those who voted against legalising abortion in Ireland for the first time, because their opinion didn't matter - the individual doesn't matter, the Government matters and what it thinks is the 'greater good' because Government is the highest authority - imo, they have gone beyond their own worth. Too much self praise - and not very much getting in touch with actual people.

PopePalpatine · 09-11-2013 01:35AM

lmaopml wrote: »

the individual doesn't matter, the Government matters and what it thinks is the 'greater good' because Government is the highest authority - imo, they have gone beyond their own worth. Too much self praise - and not very much getting in touch with actual people.

If I were to replace "Government" with "Catholic Church", some regulars here would verbally eviscerate me.

lmaopml · 09-11-2013 01:41AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If I were to replace "Government" with "Catholic Church", you'd verbally eviscerate me.

Than again you might just be surprised to see a person, just a simple person, who is not your enemy, and never was, hard to believe? Maybe...

PopePalpatine · 09-11-2013 02:06AM

OK, maybe not you, but probably other posters here.

mbiking123 · 09-11-2013 02:20AM

28064212 wrote: »

The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. One of the things they take into account is what was intended by the framers. DeValera etc. almost certainly intended family in this context to mean a man and a woman. If the SC believed that was the intentions, they could strike down any law allowing gay marriage.

The Constitution is, at best, ambiguous on this issue. It is far better to explicitly protect the right by changing it

Yes, and even dictionaries are changing the definition of marriage. What it meant in 1920's, 30's etc is different to today

In antique furniture for example they refer to a marriage of timber in the manufacture of the furniture. Two different types of timer being used together. Different times

lmaopml · 09-11-2013 02:22AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

OK, maybe not you, but probably other posters here.

Meh, perhaps, but I think being eviscerated is not something we should long for in order to prove a point no? Especially when evisceration is not what we could possibly claim to do..

There are so many non eviscerating people who may very well be not only religious but also the dreaded 'Catholic' - who imo are so very much regarded as 'bad' - that it's difficult to even see us ( I'm so sorry for that..)

Please don't tarnish your opinon with here say..

Most genuine Catholics are just getting on with their own problems and doing their best to build up others in their loss, giving and receiving love, and not even contemplating it's source unfortunately...... There is nothing 'fake' here, don't let anybody tell you different please. Just people, just like you..certainly not haters no, no that's wrong, so very wrong, people of faith 'yes' that we can be accused of.

NuMarvel · 09-11-2013 10:57AM

I think it's unlikely the Government won't legislate for same sex marriage after a Yes vote. All the political parties are supporting a Yes vote, and it would be ammunition for the opposition if the law wasn't changed.

It's even possible that the wording of the referendum will oblige the Government to change the law after a Yes vote. That was one of the recommendations from the Convention; that any referendum would require the Government to facilitate same sex marriages, not just give them the option to do so if they so wish.

Worst case scenario, a challenge would be taken to the High Court. If the will of the people is that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry, it would be very hard for a Government to retain a law that prohibits that.

MrPudding · 09-11-2013 10:57AM

lmaopml wrote: »

I

They probably have to in some ways, but I will never forget that our very own Government sacked those who voted against legalising abortion in Ireland for the first time, because their opinion didn't matter - the individual doesn't matter, the Government matters and what it thinks is the 'greater good' because Government is the highest authority - imo, they have gone beyond their own worth. Too much self praise - and not very much getting in touch with actual people.

They weren't sacked because they voted against abortion, per se, they were sacked because they did not do what they were told. I appreciate that this may be too fine a distinction for many, but it is a simple fact. When ministers ignore the whip they get sacked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23958422

I am sure if one took the time to research further many more examples would appear. Whilst I expect you will be unable to separate what the vote was about from the mechanism of how government works, it is still how government works. Ministers are expected to support their bosses. Just the same as worked are expected to support their employers. If you owned a business and one of your staff worked against you damaging your business, would you want to keep that employee? Of course not. Government is no different.

MrP

mbiking123 · 09-11-2013 12:01PM

MrPudding wrote: »

. When ministers ignore the whip they get sacked.

MrP

Like Alan Shatter over hare coursing at that time Enda Kenny was imposing the whip and did nothing
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/tds-seeking-free-abortion-vote-find-an-ally-in-shatter-29361618.html

So in this country we are selective over the action taken

NuMarvel · 09-11-2013 12:16PM

mbiking123 wrote: »

Like Alan Shatter over hare coursing at that time Enda Kenny was imposing the whip and did nothing
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/tds-seeking-free-abortion-vote-find-an-ally-in-shatter-29361618.html

So in this country we are selective over the action taken

John Bruton was party leader back then, not Enda. If you're blaming Enda for applying the whip as party leader in 2013, then you similarly need to blame Bruton for not applying the whip as party leader in 1993.

robp · 11-11-2013 04:35PM

MrPudding wrote: »

They weren't sacked because they voted against abortion, per se, they were sacked because they did not do what they were told. I appreciate that this may be too fine a distinction for many, but it is a simple fact. When ministers ignore the whip they get sacked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23958422

I am sure if one took the time to research further many more examples would appear. Whilst I expect you will be unable to separate what the vote was about from the mechanism of how government works, it is still how government works. Ministers are expected to support their bosses. Just the same as worked are expected to support their employers. If you owned a business and one of your staff worked against you damaging your business, would you want to keep that employee? Of course not. Government is no different.

MrP

Except upholding a policy which was the party line until several months before is not remotely equivalent to an employee working to damage your business. Machiavellianism defined.

Festus · 13-11-2013 06:08PM

mbiking123 wrote: »

In antique furniture for example they refer to a marriage of timber in the manufacture of the furniture. Two different types of timer being used together. Different times

and does the definition now say that if two of the same types of timber are used it is a marriage?

mbiking123 · 14-11-2013 11:40AM

Festus wrote: »

and does the definition now say that if two of the same types of timber are used it is a marriage?

Well I don't know if its an actual definition, just the way I have heard antique dealers referring to it 'a marriage of timber'

Bit like 'The production process for GHIFY recycled wooden furniture is a marriage of the old world with new techniques' from http://www.ecocitizenaustralia.com.au/ghify-recycled-wooden-furniture/

just an example I could quickly locate

if its a definition it can be changed, bit like a dictionary can change an explanation. Maybe its just a term that is used ?

Giving the above is from Australia, here is the latest on same sex marriage for same country http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/samesex-marriage-bill-defeated-in-nsw-upper-house-20131114-2xicv.html

Festus · 17-11-2013 09:37PM

mbiking123 wrote: »

if its a definition it can be changed, bit like a dictionary can change an explanation. Maybe its just a term that is used ?

If definitions can be changed on a whim then the definition is meaningless.

Which is apt.

_Redzer_ · 17-11-2013 09:42PM

Festus wrote: »

If definitions can be changed on a whim then the definition is meaningless.

Which is apt.

Funny how divorce really shook up the whole "until death do us part" bit, eh?

No problems since, even though the meaning of marriage was changed, and rightfully so, to accommodate divorce.

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments