Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

1…1617192122…44

Comments

  • #542
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    traprunner wrote: »
    You tell me what the grounds are. You keep arguing about the legality of the wording of the article in the constitution.
    ?

    I can only repeat exactly what I've said. There's nothing illegal in holding a referendum, and the Irish people can vote in any ridiculous wording they like. They've done it before.

    What I'm pointing out is the incoherence of the Article after the proposed wording is voted in.

    As I said, there's no grounds for a Court case preventing the Irish people from voting for incoherent wording. They've a perfect right to do so.


  • #543
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    What I'm pointing out is the incoherence of the Article after the proposed wording is voted in.

    What's incoherent about what we're voting on?...
    "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex."


  • #544
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    SireOfSeth wrote: »
    What's incoherent about what we're voting on?...
    "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex."
    May I refer you to post 524?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95358598#post95358598


  • #545
    Icepick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    AlphaRed wrote: »
    This is sheer propaganda. We have seen in history how propaganda has been used to manipulate the masses.
    Christianity and its terrible influence on gay and other human rights is a good example.


  • #546
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    May I refer you to post 524?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95358598#post95358598

    No thanks. I read that already, and I've had my fill of your incompetent drivel for one day.

    I'll think I'll keep the political/legal discussions going with people who know what they're talking about.


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,346 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    THE FAMILY

    ARTICLE 41

    1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

    2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

    2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

    2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    3 1° 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.

    2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –

    i at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous five years,

    ii there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,

    iii such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and

    iv any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

    3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.

    I can't see how the proposed amendment affects any of this. At best it just points out that the constitution is a bit sexist by implying that a woman's role in the home as a mother is more important than a mans as a father.

    The amendment doesn't change this, it probably should have but considering the arguments put forward by some No campaigners, it was probably decided that it would be used, once more, as a smoke screen for distraction.

    The clear thing to me is that this is what child benefit is supposed to address. Legislatively, it is already covered, it just applies to mothers and everyone else with a child. The amendment to include this was presumably considered superfluous as it would lead to some arguing that it was another attempt to destroy the family, which its not but considering how many people I have met claiming that this referendum is passed it will lead to an increase in congenital heart defects (the explanation is interesting, if completely wrong), I can see why the government decided not to push the envelope to far, although I wish they had.


  • #548
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I can't see how the proposed amendment affects any of this. At best it just points out that the constitution is a bit sexist by implying that a woman's role in the home as a mother is more important than a mans as a father.
    In fairness, I agree the Government probably anticipated a difficult debate if they cut or changed the reference to "woman". For starters, they then wouldn't be able to say that they were changing nothing that's there already; the "we're only extending what's there line" is, after all, one of the central arguments of the "Yes" side.

    Also, there's that recommendation hanging out there to change "woman" to carers, and that's another political argument they probably wanted to avoid.

    But I think it's too much to say, because its politically difficult to change, it doesn't matter. We're ending up with a wording that, at one and the same time, suggests marriages involve at least one 'woman' who is crucial to the whole thing, who's probably a mother, and then tells us it might have no 'woman' at all.

    Sorry, I suddenly have an urge to sing. "I remember, when we used to sit,
    In the Government Yard in Trenchtown."


  • #549
    constance tench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    Mark Tapley wrote: »
    Its all semantic games and smoke and mirrors with you. Tell us all about your rational understanding of the issue.

    That's what interpretation in Law is, is it not?
    Yes or No.


  • #550
    Mark Tapley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭Mark Tapley


    constance tench wrote: »
    That's what interpretation in Law is, is it not?
    Yes or No.

    You highlight three words out of a post that wasn't addressed to you and demand a yes/no answer. No context. Pull your neck in .


  • #551
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    We're ending up with a wording that, at one and the same time, suggests marriages involve at least one 'woman' who is crucial to the whole thing, who's probably a mother, and then tells us it might have no 'woman' at all.
    The heading of the article notwithstanding, you do note that the article does not at any stage specifically tie in "woman" with "marriage".
    It does not require a woman in the family, simply declares what a woman's role is in a family.
    So where there is no woman as part of the family, the sexist article in question can simply be ignored.


  • Advertisement
  • #552
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    seamus wrote: »
    The heading of the article notwithstanding, you do note that the article does not at any stage specifically tie in "woman" with "marriage".
    It does not require a woman in the family, simply declares what a woman's role is in a family.
    So where there is no woman as part of the family, the sexist article in question can simply be ignored.
    I think you need to look at the text of Article 41 again.

    1 1° says the family is the "fundamental unit group of Society" and has fundamental rights

    1 2° says that's why the State guarantees to protect the Family "as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State"

    2 1° says (still in the context of the family) that "woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved"

    Thus far, we should be in agreement that the text is assuming that its only families with women in them that give this support that the State wants.

    3 1° then makes it plain, by saying "the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded".

    To summarise, in the Constitution Family = Marriage. The State protects marriage because the family is necessary for national welfare. The work of women within the marriage/family is essential, and the public good can't be secured without it.

    Now, we can earnestly hope that the Courts ignore irrelevant or incoherent stuff. And sometimes they do. But if we were to assume the Courts would always know which bits of text to ignore and what new meanings were to be read into the language already there, we'd never need to amend the Constitution at all.


  • #553
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,346 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    To summarise, in the Constitution Family = Marriage. The State protects marriage because the family is necessary for national welfare. The work of women within the marriage/family is essential, and the public good can't be secured without it.
    The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    But this section I have quoted clearly undermines this by saying they should not be forced to work but clearly implying, that if they want too, they can. Ergo, contradicting your summary that they have to be in the home for the good of the family. We have a social welfare state as it is, no one is forced to work, it is made more attractive than not through earning more money than you might on welfare (although not always true, a discussion for another time).


  • #554
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Ergo, contradicting your summary that they have to be in the home for the good of the family.
    Ah, yeah, I've no problem that change to my summary. The Constitution just talks of them having "duties", but you're right that its just saying women shouldn't be compelled to work outside the home.

    You'll appreciate, my point is less about that and more about the clear assumption in the Constitution that Family = Marriage = A thing with a woman making some contribution in the home (whether on a full or part-time basis) without which, apparently, the public good cannot be achieved.

    Which is then just plain incoherent, when followed up by a statement saying "Actually, scratch that, no need for a woman at all. Or is there. Because we're leaving the old wording there, too. Because there's no need to change that because it's not in conflict, even though it is. Sure, anyway, the Courts can figure it out."


  • #555
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,346 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    You'll appreciate, my point is less about that and more about the clear assumption in the Constitution that Family = Marriage = A thing with a woman making some contribution in the home (whether on a full or part-time basis) without which, apparently, the public good cannot be achieved.

    I appreciate that this is probably what it originally intended, times have changed and the statement is redundant in all forms of relationships.

    Why wasn't it changed or removed? Several reasons, most are easy to spot, the No side to such a campaign would gain more support among the elderly.

    You edit it to say carers instead of parents, opening up legal challenges to the definition of carer and the level of support the state should provide.

    The practical side of me says it should all be done at once but I appreciate that the government must assess the likely hood of such a change getting past the post.

    Either way, regardless of its original intention when originally conceived, the wording is simple enough that if there is no woman in the family the onus does not apply. The other parts of our constitution regarding equality take over, in that any support provided to a stay at home mother should be provided to a stay at home father.

    Again, it really has no affect in the ways that you are concerned in my reading unless you truly believe that a family must have an active mother to be a family, in which case, your argument and beliefs are against current social order and legislation.


  • #556
    constance tench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    Mark Tapley wrote: »
    You highlight three words out of a post that wasn't addressed to you and demand a yes/no answer. No context. Pull your neck in .

    That, is the sound of my words flying over your head.


  • #557
    Mark Tapley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭Mark Tapley


    constance tench wrote: »
    That, is the sound of my words flying over your head.

    You tried to manufacture a situation where you could do a bit of legal eagle showboating, as per your M.O
    I will not facilitate this as it would be about fueling your superiority complex rather than the subject at hand.


  • #558
    constance tench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    Mark Tapley wrote: »
    You tried to manufacture a situation where you could do a bit of legal eagle showboating, as per your M.O
    I will not facilitate this as it would be about fueling your superiority complex rather than the subject at hand.

    You fail to see the dazzling irony in your comment/s,(particularly the last one) nevertheless, it's encouraging to see you conceive and accommodate my way of thinking.


  • #559
    Mark Tapley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭Mark Tapley


    constance tench wrote: »
    You fail to see the dazzling irony in your comment/s,(particularly the last one) nevertheless, it's encouraging to see you conceive and accommodate my way of thinking.
    Thanks Constance saves me the bother.


  • #560
    kikidelvin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 109 ✭✭kikidelvin


    God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve nuff said.


  • #561
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,953 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    That sort of idiotic, pat slogan says it all about the people who utter it and their lack of engagement with the issue and the diverse reality of life in Ireland as it is lived today.

    If you believe that god made people then god also made gay people, did god make a mistake or will god enjoy watching them burn in hell? We need to know!

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • Advertisement
  • #562
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    That sort of idiotic, pat slogan says it all about the people who utter it and their lack of engagement with the issue and the diverse reality of life in Ireland as it is lived today.

    If you believe that god made people then god also made gay people, did god make a mistake or will god enjoy watching them burn in hell? We need to know!

    It's a test, you only go to hell if you fail and give into the evil gay way.


  • #563
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    kikidelvin wrote: »
    God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve nuff said.
    :confused:

    Shouldn't you be in the Christianity forum not the politics one?


  • #564
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    kikidelvin wrote: »
    God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve nuff said.

    There is soooo much wrong with that statement it's hard to know where to start. I assume you already know this...especially since you signed off with "nuff said".

    We are discussing the rights to civil marriage on this thread, not religious ceremonies.


  • #565
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Mod: More matter less art please


  • #566
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Why wasn't it changed or removed? Several reasons, most are easy to spot, the No side to such a campaign would gain more support among the elderly.
    I broadly agree - they need to be able to claim that "nothing else is changed", even if all they've achieved is to make things abiguous.
    CramCycle wrote: »
    You edit it to say carers instead of parents, opening up legal challenges to the definition of carer and the level of support the state should provide.
    Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that change. I'm just drawing attention to the fact that there's a recommendation out there, and a noisy lobby to push for it.
    CramCycle wrote: »
    Again, it really has no affect in the ways that you are concerned in my reading unless you truly believe that a family must have an active mother to be a family, in which case, your argument and beliefs are against current social order and legislation.
    Hmm, I don't think you're addressing the very clear thread in Article 41, which is clear in saying that family = marriage. And, bear in mind, it's not especially about anything I'm saying. I'm only pointing out what the Constitution actually says.

    If inconsistent wording was to be irrelevant, wouldn't the Courts expect us to have changed it?


  • #567
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,316 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Mark Tapley wrote: »
    You highlight three words out of a post that wasn't addressed to you and demand a yes/no answer. No context. Pull your neck in .
    constance tench wrote: »
    That, is the sound of my words flying over your head.
    Mark Tapley wrote: »
    You tried to manufacture a situation where you could do a bit of legal eagle showboating, as per your M.O
    I will not facilitate this as it would be about fueling your superiority complex rather than the subject at hand.
    constance tench wrote: »
    You fail to see the dazzling irony in your comment/s,(particularly the last one) nevertheless, it's encouraging to see you conceive and accommodate my way of thinking.
    Mark Tapley wrote: »
    Thanks Constance saves me the bother.

    Mod: Now now, take the bitching to pm please.
    kikidelvin wrote: »
    God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve nuff said.

    Not enough said if you want to stay in the politics forum for much longer. Replies like that aren't anywhere near the standard expected in the forum. Thank.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #568
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,346 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I broadly agree - they need to be able to claim that "nothing else is changed", even if all they've achieved is to make things abiguous.
    I don't think it's ambiguous, in my opinion it is irrelevant for the most part but it is not ambiguous.
    Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that change. I'm just drawing attention to the fact that there's a recommendation out there, and a noisy lobby to push for it.
    But what lobby is that, most people have taken the view that it makes no difference to them. It may seem biased or prejudiced but thankfully the right to equality in other parts of the constitution mean that the same support is given to anyone in the same situation, regardless of sex.
    Hmm, I don't think you're addressing the very clear thread in Article 41, which is clear in saying that family = marriage. And, bear in mind, it's not especially about anything I'm saying. I'm only pointing out what the Constitution actually says.
    That not true though, being married makes a family legally but you can be a family before or without marriage. All that the article says in this regard is that the state will attempt to protect marriage (no mention of sexual orientation). The definition of a family is as such defined by the courts and changes quite frequently, there are now numerous references to one parent families and the rights of co-habitants in this regard.
    If inconsistent wording was to be irrelevant, wouldn't the Courts expect us to have changed it?
    You should push for it through the courts then, it still needs a referendum or the supreme court to decry what it means. Since other parts of the constitution make up for the problems with this part, it is likely it will be ignored for awhile, as it has no affect that discriminates through other parts that claim to bring equality.


  • #569
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I don't think it's ambiguous, in my opinion it is irrelevant for the most part but it is not ambiguous.


    But what lobby is that, most people have taken the view that it makes no difference to them. It may seem biased or prejudiced but thankfully the right to equality in other parts of the constitution mean that the same support is given to anyone in the same situation, regardless of sex.

    That not true though, being married makes a family legally but you can be a family before or without marriage. All that the article says in this regard is that the state will attempt to protect marriage (no mention of sexual orientation). The definition of a family is as such defined by the courts and changes quite frequently, there are now numerous references to one parent families and the rights of co-habitants in this regard.


    You should push for it through the courts then, it still needs a referendum or the supreme court to decry what it means. Since other parts of the constitution make up for the problems with this part, it is likely it will be ignored for awhile, as it has no affect that discriminates through other parts that claim to bring equality.

    +1


  • #570
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    CramCycle wrote: »
    But what lobby is that, most people have taken the view that it makes no difference to them. It may seem biased or prejudiced but thankfully the right to equality in other parts of the constitution mean that the same support is given to anyone in the same situation, regardless of sex.
    I think there's a little confusion here.

    Independently of the question of marriage, there is a "carers" lobby. A previous Constitutional review recommended putting "carers" into that Article, with a guarantee of not having to work outside the home. I'm not advocating that change. I'm merely amplifying the point (which we both seem to agree) that changing the wording is politically difficult.
    CramCycle wrote: »
    That not true though, being married makes a family legally but you can be a family before or without marriage. All that the article says in this regard is that the state will attempt to protect marriage (no mention of sexual orientation). The definition of a family is as such defined by the courts and changes quite frequently, there are now numerous references to one parent families and the rights of co-habitants in this regard.
    Yes, but obviously what I'm talking about is the Constitutional provision. You'll appreciate, the context is one where some are saying that they need the same position as the married family provided for in the Constitution.

    Maybe we should be contemplating something wider, and breaking the link in the Constitution between family and marriage. But, as you know, that's not what we're be asked to do.
    CramCycle wrote: »
    You should push for it through the courts then, it still needs a referendum or the supreme court to decry what it means. Since other parts of the constitution make up for the problems with this part, it is likely it will be ignored for awhile, as it has no affect that discriminates through other parts that claim to bring equality.
    I'm sorry, but that reads like an acceptance there's an issue, and we should just hope it's ignored.


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,346 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I think there's a little confusion here.

    Independently of the question of marriage, there is a "carers" lobby. A previous Constitutional review recommended putting "carers" into that Article, with a guarantee of not having to work outside the home. I'm not advocating that change. I'm merely amplifying the point (which we both seem to agree) that changing the wording is politically difficult.
    So what you are saying is, your main issue with this constitutional change is that it doesn't cover other issues or it doesn't change enough. Can't disagree with that, there are a whole raft of changes needed within the constitution but not only are some of them politically difficult to push for, there is the real fear that as fearful as people are of little changes, more people are afraid of big changes. It becomes harder to follow, harder to focus on whether you agree or not. Put out a ballot paper with 60 different boxes to tick and you are going to have one poor turnout or one confused electorate, neither of which is really a positive for democracy.
    Yes, but obviously what I'm talking about is the Constitutional provision. You'll appreciate, the context is one where some are saying that they need the same position as the married family provided for in the Constitution. Maybe we should be contemplating something wider, and breaking the link in the Constitution between family and marriage. But, as you know, that's not what we're be asked to do.
    And that's another referendum, not a reason to vote against this one. Politicians won't hear a no vote and then say, well they voted no, what the public want is more wide spread reform. What they will do is say, they don't want change, therefore we won't put any forward for awhile.
    I'm sorry, but that reads like an acceptance there's an issue, and we should just hope it's ignored.
    What I was talking about may be an issue, but it has nothing to do with this referendum. It's a change that might happen in the future or be put forward in the future but this referendum is on one change and not the one you are on about.

    If you want to vote no because you believe the reforms are not wide sweeping enough, that is your choice to make. My opinion is that makes for poor policy making in future.

    A step in the right direction, no matter how small, is still better than standing still.


Advertisement