After SSM, what next?

silverfeather · 06-05-2015 02:14PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Who defines it now?

The man in the sky for some...the big wiz

The constitution for others...which we vote on.

jimdublin15 · 06-05-2015 02:15PM

mariaalice wrote: »

You do realise you have probably put off the waivers form voting yes ad have confirmed the conspiracy theory that the yes vote is only the start of a push to undermine society as we know it, which will end with old people being compulsory assisted to commit suicide by the state :P

So ... that means there is a plan, cool - I knew it. :-)

jimdublin15 · 06-05-2015 02:21PM

arayess wrote: »

I think the 4 year wait for divorce is actually a really good thing, we all know the rebound effect of a break up can have and that 4 year wait prevents you doing something really stupid - again! or at least for 4 years.

hopefully fathers rights will gain some prominence.

I for one have been through family court and while it hasn't worked out too bad in comparison to other - i was given no protection against my ex or in other words there was no sanction against her for her spontaneous decisions to withhold access. It cost me time, money and heart ache and I actually understand why some lads would just walk away cos they can't take the grief. terrible as it sounds.

I will not comment on your own situation or experience other than sorry to hear that and hope it is sorted or gets sorted for you soon.

As for the 4 year wait for divorce don't you think it's excessive ?
I'm in the middle of a 4 year wait myself and it feels like a state enforced sentence but I've committed no crime.

Perhaps we could then lower the wait for divorce to 1 year however have a "suspended" sentence for the other 3 years preventing remarriage during that term ?

silverfeather · 06-05-2015 02:23PM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

I will not comment on your own situation or experience other than sorry to hear that and hope it is sorted or gets sorted for you soon.

As for the 4 year wait for divorce don't you think it's excessive ?
I'm in the middle of a 4 year wait myself and it feels like a state enforced sentence but I've committed no crime.

Perhaps we could then lower the wait for divorce to 1 year however have a "suspended" sentence for the other 3 years preventing remarriage during that term ?

I think couples themselves should dictate how long it should take. They are adults.

jimdublin15 · 06-05-2015 02:26PM

silverfeather wrote: »

I think couples themselves should dictate how long it should take. They are adults.

In theory I do agree with you on that, however in practice I'm not sure adult behavior is at it's best from anyone when going though a divorce. (as much I would like my own to be finalized tomorrow)

Lollipops23 · 06-05-2015 02:27PM

4 years wait after separating is excessive- if people want to divorce and remarry, what's the harm? Same argument as SSM-it's none of your business, let people get on with their own lives.

I'd like to see the blasphemy law binned for good. We are not a religious state anymore and it never should have been signed off.

Abortion reforms would be great if it were in any way realistic....I don't think we'll be getting that any time soon, I fear.

Ash.J.Williams · 06-05-2015 02:28PM

"sure jaysus if they after ssm a lad can marry his dog"

arayess · 06-05-2015 02:29PM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

I will not comment on your own situation or experience other than sorry to hear that and hope it is sorted or gets sorted for you soon.

As for the 4 year wait for divorce don't you think it's excessive ?
I'm in the middle of a 4 year wait myself and it feels like a state enforced sentence but I've committed no crime.

Perhaps we could then lower the wait for divorce to 1 year however have a "suspended" sentence for the other 3 years preventing remarriage during that term ?

thanks, no probs - my issues were sorted years ago - he is 16 now and actually lives with me full time but by choice rather than any court imposed thing.

I see your point on divorce - i was being glib to be truthful but I do genuinely think its a good thing. Some people would rush back.

but you can back date when you ceased to live together as man and wife if you are really in need to get married again (once you both agree)

keano_afc · 06-05-2015 02:34PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Who defines it now?

The government, as its a legally binding institution.

130Kph · 06-05-2015 02:35PM

A few people beat me to it but :- Marriage to friendly, cute dogs (MFCD) should & must be the next referendum.

To cover all angles though, if someone isn't married by 30 they should be compelled to marry a friendly, cute dog (to encourage human to human marriage before then and for other reasons).

Also, if they meet someone else at a later stage of life, they can divorce the cute dog (no fault) and marry the chosen human.
Signed: the Gay Lobby.

jimdublin15 · 06-05-2015 02:35PM

arayess wrote: »

thanks, no probs - my issues were sorted years ago - he is 16 now and actually lives with me full time but by choice rather than any court imposed thing.

I see your point on divorce - i was being glib to be truthful but I do genuinely think its a good thing. Some people would rush back.

but you can back date when you ceased to live together as man and wife if you are really in need to get married again (once you both agree)

Glad to hear it's okay and your son is part of your life :-)

Ill disagree with you in part on the devoice wait but admit I might be slightly biased on the topic at the moment.

seamus · 06-05-2015 02:36PM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

I will not comment on your own situation or experience other than sorry to hear that and hope it is sorted or gets sorted for you soon.

As for the 4 year wait for divorce don't you think it's excessive ?
I'm in the middle of a 4 year wait myself and it feels like a state enforced sentence but I've committed no crime.

Perhaps we could then lower the wait for divorce to 1 year however have a "suspended" sentence for the other 3 years preventing remarriage during that term ?

I don't know the whole process, so can't really give any solid argument, but I agree that a wait of some sort perhaps imbues a sense of importance about marriage; that it's not easily undone so you shouldn't enter it lightly. That would seem to make sense.

That said, does anyone getting married even think about divorce (I should hope not) and therefore perhaps people are completely unaware about the wait period? I know a couple who split up before their first anniversary and were convinced they could get it annulled because it had been so short. No dice. They were practically aghast that there was a wait period at all.

So does the wait period actually have any bearing on peoples' decision to marry? It would be interesting to get some recent divorce stats and find out what the typical length of a marriage is before breaking up.

I imagine the "this is a serious matter" thing actually kicks in at the start where you require 3 months notice to get married and can't just decide on a whim to have it done the next day.

smash · 06-05-2015 02:38PM

arayess wrote: »

I think the 4 year wait for divorce is actually a really good thing, we all know the rebound effect of a break up can have and that 4 year wait prevents you doing something really stupid - again! or at least for 4 years.

No... it's a horrible thing. The laws don't force a couple to be engaged for 4 years prior to getting married so why should they force two consenting adults to wait 4 years to end a marriage?

kylith · 06-05-2015 02:39PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

4 years wait after separating is excessive- if people want to divorce and remarry, what's the harm?

I think it's there to discourage you from divorcing as a sop to the religious, isn't it? A kind of cooling-off period so people don't run out getting married and divorced willy-nilly. 4 years of "Are you sure you want to get divorced? Are ya? Are ya really?"

Maximus Alexander · 06-05-2015 02:41PM

keano_afc wrote: »

The government, as its a legally binding institution.

They'll probably carry on defining it then.

Lollipops23 · 06-05-2015 02:41PM

kylith wrote: »

4 years of "Are you sure you want to get divorced? Are ya? Are ya really?"

And that's why it should be scrapped really. Maybe 1 year to process paperwork, and get everything in order regarding finances would be be reasonable.

gravehold · 06-05-2015 02:41PM

kylith wrote: »

I think it's there to discourage you from divorcing as a sop to the religious, isn't it? A kind of cooling-off period so people don't run out getting married and divorced willy-nilly. 4 years of "Are you sure you want to get divorced? Are ya? Are ya really?"

Only a fool would get married in this day an age.

smash · 06-05-2015 02:44PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

And that's why it should be scrapped really. Maybe 1 year to process paperwork, and get everything in order regarding finances would be be reasonable.

1 year would be bearable. After that I think the state should take a back seat and let people move on with their lives.

kylith · 06-05-2015 02:44PM

130Kph wrote: »

A few people beat me to it but :- Marriage to friendly, cute dogs (MFCD) should & must be the next referendum.

To cover all angles though, if someone isn't married by 30 they should be compelled to marry a friendly, cute dog (to encourage human to human marriage before then and for other reasons).

Also, if they meet someone else at a later stage of life, they can divorce the cute dog (no fault) and marry the chosen human.
Signed: the Gay Lobby.

As a single woman in her 30s I would actually welcome this proposal. I would prefer to marry a FCD than any of the guys I've met on the dating scene so far.

The big question though; could you have SSMFCD, or would you have to marry a dog of the opposite sex to you?

keano_afc · 06-05-2015 02:46PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

They'll probably carry on defining it then.

It'll be like Marge's Chanel dress in the Simpsons. Mangled and redesigned, but lets still call it the same thing.

smash · 06-05-2015 02:47PM

kylith wrote: »

As a single woman in her 30s I would actually welcome this proposal.

30 shelf :pac:

Maximus Alexander · 06-05-2015 02:47PM

keano_afc wrote: »

It'll be like Marge's Chanel dress in the Simpsons. Mangled and redesigned, but lets still call it the same thing.

Sounds like you could use a hug.

keano_afc · 06-05-2015 02:51PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Sounds like you could use a hug.

I'd prefer a coffee. You buying?

padd b1975 · 06-05-2015 02:51PM

A United Ireland referendum would be "interesting".

wp_rathead · 06-05-2015 02:52PM

Do improvements regards Irelands Divorce Laws and Fathers Rights need a referendum? Or can legislation be introduce through the Dail? Not sure any ammendments are needed to constitution to implement these - could be mistaken

seamus · 06-05-2015 02:52PM

kylith wrote: »

I think it's there to discourage you from divorcing as a sop to the religious, isn't it? A kind of cooling-off period so people don't run out getting married and divorced willy-nilly. 4 years of "Are you sure you want to get divorced? Are ya? Are ya really?"

It's a product of its time. At the time Ireland would still have considered itself pretty religious. And the constitution contained an absolute ban on divorce. Which is retarded in itself of course.
A complete removal of this ban on divorce was off the cards of course. You would have a lot of men and women utterly terrified that if the ban was removed, their spouse would up and leave them the next day and be gone. Which is not an unreasonable fear when you know your marriage is dead but your spouse can't leave.
And the "think of the children" brigade of course screaming about the millions of children who would be left destitute and homeless when their fathers threw them and their mothers out.

So instead they went for a halfway house - divorce could be legalised, but within very strict guidelines. And it passed. Containing such hard rules in a constitution was idiotic in itself, but in reality it was the only way the ban on divorce could be lifted.

The next step would likely be the removal of the wait period and allow for this to be reduced or increased by law. With no "backlog" of unhappy marriages waiting to break up, there's not really any good argument for lifting these constitutional restrictions and moving them into the law instead.

jimdublin15 · 06-05-2015 02:52PM

seamus wrote: »

T
So does the wait period actually have any bearing on peoples' decision to marry? It would be interesting to get some recent divorce stats and find out what the typical length of a marriage is before breaking up.

I don't know if a longer or shorter wait time does make a difference.
However just me thinking out loud I simply hate the idea for forcing someone to stay legally married by the state for 4 years (It's not the state getting married or divorced) against their wishes when the wait to get married is only a few months. Particularly in cases when the reason for the breakdown is abuse and stuff like that.

seamus wrote: »

T
I imagine the "this is a serious matter" thing actually kicks in at the start where you require 3 months notice to get married and can't just decide on a whim to have it done the next day.

Maybe it should be turned around and make it a longer wait to get married instead.

kylith · 06-05-2015 02:52PM

smash wrote: »

30 shelf :pac:

I like it up here on my shelf. There's a good view

Sleepy · 06-05-2015 02:55PM

All of the following please:

Abortion.
Reduction of the 4 years rule on Divorce.
Removal of the Blasphemy law.
Removal of any references to God from the preamble to the constitution (perhaps to be replaced with a line about us being a secular state? Could lead to finally ridding our education system of the scourge of religion)
Replacing the clause about a womans place in the home with one stating that no laws may make any distinction as to gender (leading to equal rights for fathers regardless of marital status, making rape by a woman a crime etc.)
Removal of Irish as an official language

Non constitutional changes which I think should be put to the populace as I think they'd likely pass a popular vote:

Protection of the terms engineer, institute etc.
Legalisation of prostitution.
Legalisation of marijuana.
Removal of religion from the Curriculum
Removal of Irish as a compulsory Leaving Cert subject

diomed · 06-05-2015 02:57PM

Use of a mobile phone in a car will cause the car to collapse like a clown car.

After SSM, what next?

Comments