How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

WoolyJumper · 07-05-2015 05:20PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

1. Eh, the legal issues have been explained , already, I am not going to repeat myself, suffice to say, Family Law matters play a huge role, no matter how many times the Yes Side try to deny that. Seems the Yes side enjoy only listening and "getting" what suits them.

2. Define Marriage. Explain how same sex is not redefining marriage.

I've read your post. You have not given one solid example of a legal issue that could result from this Referendum.

It's not a redefinition because the functions, purpose, rights, responsibilities of marriage are not changing.

Side note, marriage isn't specifically defined as between a man and woman in the Irish constitution.

floggg · 07-05-2015 05:27PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Irish people, are being asked to redefine the Irish law on marriage to include same sex couples. How marriage is defined elsewhere is not relevant to Irish law and Irish society

It is true, that one is not asked to redefine "family". However, as the CONSTITUTIONAL family is defined as the Married Family, and not for example a de facto family (non married couples), you are asked to redefine the Constitutional Family.

In the 1980's there was a battle in the social welfare and taxation field to give support to single mothers, that some married couples complained (going to court) and argued that it was an attack on the constitutional family as the single mother got "better" or similar advantages/protection as a married couple. The argument got no where. Conceivably, the Partnership Act can be amended to offer further taxation , property , social welfare, succession protective measures to completely quell the nonsense about "2nd class citizens"

The issue about adoption comes from the argument that the concept that the child's best interest would be to have both a mother and a father, will not be allowed to be considered , because to do so, it would discriminate other married couples, ie same sex married couples - again note, Article 41 only protects married couple. It is highly likely, to keep the figures up, that the adoption board will want to approve a set number of cases to gay couples, so as to ensure the gays don't go bringing allegations that straight married couples are still being preferred. All, without really looking at the best interest of the child

Good luck to single fathers, by the way (when dealing with break down of relationships with mother who enters another relationship with a gay person ), yet another group will take a step before them in the family law custody/access battles

1. Even if you could elevate them to equal (you can't), why should we acept some separate but equal nonsense. The only reason to maintain two equal but distinct systems would be to create and maintain artificial difference.

2. Why would they recognise any preference for a heterosexual couple. It has been amply demonstrated that same and opposite couple are equally capable parents.

3. A mother who's relationship breaks down can already marry somebody other than the father of her child. The only difference a yes vote would make would be to enable her marry a man or another woman if she wanted.

It wouldn't make a bit of difference to the father's rights or status which gender her new spouse was though.

floggg · 07-05-2015 05:30PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The Constitution takes its meaning from BOTH the text of the Constitution AND Case law which dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution! To suggest what you said is disingenuous nonsense.

Marriage has been clearly defined , in a Constitutional Context , as meaning man + women and the Superior Courts have refused to give the definition of marriage a different meaning. This was recent. Even the ECHR have acknowledged the problem in Member States, and refused to acknowledge it as a human right.

That is why we are having a referendum in the first place. The additional line that is proposed to be inserted , clarifies that the Irish people now wish to state that marriage includes same sex couples.

Legislation makes it clear that marriage is man + women, actually.It also outline what age one has to be, and what blood relations (if any) one can marry. This obviously has to be amended too once the Constitution is amended

The Supreme Court has never considered whether the constitutional defintion of marriage included same sex couples or not. The issue has't been tested at SC level.

To suggest the matter is settled law is either ignorant or wilful deceit.

floggg · 07-05-2015 05:40PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

That would be redefining the presidency though, and it would have a grave effect on the legacy of all former presidents. This is the way it has been for the entire history of the state, we don't need to change it.

We could set up a vice-presidency instead, and make it very similar to the presidency, and make that open to people of all ages. Then nobody would be discriminated against.

But of course what about the children? If we allow this it will inevitably lead to people looking for more. They'll want the age reduced to 6 next, and then we'll have children being torn away from their parents to go and serve as president. That's just not right in my view. Every child deserves a childhood.

And further, what's to stop people looking for multiple presidents once we start redefining it? Where will it stop? When Ireland has 10 presidents? A hundred? Maybe everyone should just be president, since we want equality and all.

It's sad that such an absurd post is in fact an accurate reflectino of the whole No campaign.

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 05:44PM

BoatMad wrote: »

Thanks for the slag, ill just have to include my shelf of history books.

You have a shelf of books? WTF? So, you just buy them, read two pages, put it away and then forget about them, brah?

BoatMad wrote: »

I make no reference to his involvement in the war of independence, His actions as a political figure in stirring up the flames of the civil war ( his blood in the streets speech for example"), were grossly reprehensible.

I will repeat my comment :

"If De Valera back to America in June 1921, stayed away from Ireland in October 1921, this country would still have been caught up in a Civil War. He had little or no influence whatsoever in the Council of the IRB or IRA. None. He was a glorified figure head thereafter . There were plenty of TD's just as vocal against the Treaty. And, we haven't even talked about a "Civil War" between the South and the North .."

1. Where did I say that you made reference to the Tan War & Dev ? How on earth is your line "I make no reference to his involvement in the war of independence" remotely relevant to what I actually said. ? My point was, if he fell off the face of the earth, there would still have been a Civil War. You have said nothing to rebut that (Devas in London in June 1921 knocking out the terms of the "deal" and in Dublin in October)

2. Thanks for confirming that you completely misinterpreted what Dev said in the Rivers of Blood Speech. All he did was confirm what the IRA were thinking, no more , no less. He was not advocating war, openly.

BoatMad wrote: »

This is a glibe statement that needs a lot more discussion then this thread, but suffice to say the physical force tradition had little concrete support pre 1914, when the home rule process looked like it might deliver.

You need to educate yourself on the idea of glibe. Your statement is riddled with glibe itself. However, you are correct to say that it needs a thread of it's own.

I will summarise by saying, when a majority of the country's population does not have a right to vote, it's a nonsense to say that the IPP and Home Rule had the majority voice.

BoatMad wrote: »

I read it all, I have a full printed edition of the speeches of the first Dail too, His contributions were war mongering in the extreme

Yep, editors of papers and reporters who were no where near him, are always totally accurate with what was said..... give me a break ..

BoatMad wrote: »

It was a terrible constitution , bigoted , short sighted and partisan , as the many amendments have demonstrated.

3 Examples of short sighted , now

How was it bigoted? It recognised all churches. It simply confirmed the de facto position of the Catholic Church amongst the people. If it was bigoted, the Protestant schools would not have got some funding. Your allegations are completely moot by 1973

In what way is it partisan? Oh wait, you're a Unionist or an Orangeman , by any chance? Heaven forbid, that an Aspiring Irish Republic would be devoid of Republican (Irish Style) views in its law .

A terrible Constitution, which much of it still very much in tact, good man, top marks.

BoatMad wrote: »

No , but Dev fed on a backward looking populace and did not lead them forward, he lead them back. It wasn't till Lemass, that at least something right was done

Eh, Dev was pretty much a man of his generation. Lemass supported Dev. It was not until 1960 (a whole 40 years in power) before Lemass changed his tune. New blood was also coming into the Party (arise Charles J Haughey). Possibly, the nearest we had to a far reaching man was Dr Noel Browne. Look what happened to him in the 1950's and that was by his own party leader, McBride.

Dev's best work was not domestically (understatement of the year). It was on the International Front.

BoatMad wrote: »

Again, this is a big topic, Dev was closed and insular, and belived in self sufficiency , thats not the way a modern exporting country works

It was stupid and wrong headed (not standing up to Britain) but , Lemass bought into it, along with many other . Europe in 1950 considered more open markets because it realised that their own policies of protectionism were not working, and, they were countries with bigger markets and products

You are forgetting, the other leaders had not many great ideas either.

BoatMad wrote: »

with nuns kissing the car seats he sat on , indeed I suspect he had more power.

Really?

First of all, Nuns? THey have no power. They are not / were not taken seriously . Stupid women. Doubt many a bishop or priest kissed him.

Church and Cumann na NGaedheal tried to hurt him in the 1920's with Reds in the Bed. If the Church turned on any government, they would feel it in the ballot box and on the parish pumps. Didn't Dr Noel Browne fare well (though, the Church wrongly, gets too much credit for his demise in the 1950s)

BoatMad wrote: »

My history is more nuanced then your pseudo republican views for sure, Dev was a step backward for this state, thankfully it shook him off , relatively quickly,

"Pseudo Republican views"

Please.

Listen, and listen good. I would wipe the floor with you on these issues, with little effort. You are beneath me on this stuff, but feel free you embarrass yourself

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 05:49PM

floggg wrote: »

The Supreme Court has never considered whether the constitutional defintion of marriage included same sex couples or not. The issue has't been tested at SC level.

To suggest the matter is settled law is either ignorant or wilful deceit.

What? You serious, brah? The Supreme Court never considered the Definition of Marriage? I almost choked on my sambo.

The Supreme Court has not considered the matter (ie whether the same sex couples could be included), because, the parties who brought the High Court Matter (which quoted Supreme Court cases) knew full well that it would not succeed in the Supreme Court. You could see it now, Hardiman giving a 60 page judgment , 30 of it dedicated to the Separation of Powers and powers of the Court (or importance not to overstep the mark)

The Supreme Court , whilst the highest Court in the Land, is only fixed with a small pool of matters. The High Court is the current law .

floggg · 07-05-2015 05:50PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Sweet Jesus H Christ, is that what they are spinning now?

Really,ha, so, when interpreting Article 41 and marriage (in other cases) the Irish Superior Courts still held onto the old Common Law Concept of Marriage,

“The voluntary union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”Hyde v. Hyde (1866)

B. v. R. [1995] 1 I.L.R.M. 491
“Marriage was and is regarded as the voluntary and permanent union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life.”

“A solemn contract of partnership entered into between man and woman with a special status recognised by the Constitution and that it was in principle for life.”D.T. v. C.T. [2003]

“Marriage as understood by the Constitution, by statute and by case law refers to a union by a biological man with a biological woman.

In this and in the neighbouring jurisdiction (see Corbett v. Corbett) it is crucial for legal purposes that the parties should be of the opposite biological sex. Indeed Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights is equally so predicated. All of its judgments above mentioned confirm this. Accordingly in my view there is no sustainable basis for the applicants submission that the existing law, which carries the impugned provision which prohibits the applicant from marrying a party who is of the same biological sex as herself is a violation of her constitutional right to marry.” Foy v. An tArd Chlaratheoir2002, (famous gender case of course there is more to that case, as further hearings were held later ie right to change birth cert, so the "Biological" term was removed in subsequent hearings )

Europe previously said
“In the courts opinion the right to marry guaranteed by Article 12 refers to the traditional marriage between persons of opposite biological sex. This appears also from the wording of the Article which makes it clear that Article 12 is mainly concerned to protect marriage as the basis of the family.”
Rees v. United Kingdom (1986) 9 EHRR

You get the picture......

Marriage, in this country, specifically excludes people of the same sex. It is what makes it "unique" THe legislation makes it crystal clear, man + woman club only.

The definition of family, under the Constitution is based on the definition of marriage. It excludes same sex couples and hetrosexual non married couples. It is very big deal.

Rather disingenuous to say that it merely "extends" . Highly dishonest to say that the institution of marriage is not being "redefined".

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/redefine
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redefine?s=t

Eh, cars are massed produced. They are not unique. Marriage is defined to be exclusive to a lot of classes. Comparison is laughable, almost insulting to people's intelligence.

The definition of marriage, is what?

Explain how it is not being redefined

Tell me - what exactly will change about anybody's marriage if I can also marry my boyfriend? How will it change the nature of any heterosexual marriage - past or future.

Hint: Starts with "N" ends in "othing".

If you want to get hung up on the fact that this is a "redefintion" - so be it.

Extending the vote to catholics, black people, women etc were all redefinitions. I'm cool with redefinitions if it results in positive change.

floggg · 07-05-2015 05:54PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Can I suggest a reading that we might be able to agree on?

Article 41 does not define marriage or explicitly say it is limited to one man and one woman

The Courts have usually decided that marriage, when refered to in the Constitution, means the Christian conception of marriage. This is not unreasonable, as the Constitution asserts that the "Holy Trinity" is the source of all valid authority, which the Courts have interpreted to mean that the State has a Christian ethos.

Article 41 says marriage is the basis for families, which the Courts have taken to mean that the term "family" when it appears in the Constitution means families based on a marriage

Article 41 says the State protects 'the family' (based on a marriage), because it is an institution that furthers the common good

Article 41 says without the work of 'woman', 'the family' (based on a marriage) is unable to achieve the common good

In my view, that does amount to a fair amount of gender-specific thought, which doesn't sit well with same sex (and in particular all male) marriage.It is in the Constitution, and I don't think the Yes campaign contest that. In fact, an amount of their case is that the Constitutional protection for 'the family' only applies to married couples.To be positive, once the existence of an issue is acknowledged, I'm not at all dogmatic about how someone should vote on the topic.

I'd argue about your phrase "hence is not related to marriage equality", as it's not possible to just switch off the gender-specific language that's there. Just because it's politically difficult to change the existing wording doesn't mean it's unimportant.

What gets on my wick more is people trying to pretend that the obvious incoherence in language doesn't exist at all, which is an attempt to pretend that changing one bit of an article has no impact on the rest of it.
How people respond to that situation is their own business. In my read, there isn't enough of a material issue at stake to bother with this change. I've no particular problem if someone else feels the resulting incoherence is a necessary price for some benefit that they see.

The SC has never accepted that marriage is the "Christian version" - hence why my atheists friends are having their atheist marriage next year. And also that whole muslims, hindus etc being allowed marry thing.

It has accepted a heterosexual version of marriage as a given - but it has never been directly asked whether same sex marriage was also included in that definition.

While it may well have been assumed for years it wasn't, that's because we lived in a deeply homophobic society. But the Constitution is a living document, so a definition from a pre-Constitution common law court has only persausive influence and ultimately the case would have to be decided based on how we view the world today.

smash · 07-05-2015 06:01PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Key to interpreting the Constitution is by reading it in full, and, often, the whole article

In response to your statement, when replying the the following

"Article 41 says without the work of 'woman', 'the family' (based on a marriage) is unable to achieve the common good"

What you said is incorrect.

The family is seen as the fundamental unit of society. Women/mothers play an extremely unique role (changing a bit with men wanting to play a bigger role)

It does not say or imply that a woman or "2 women would serve society better a man " simply because men aren't mentioned. Since when did men have babies ? Since when did men have to take most of the domestic responsibilities of the house, while hold down a job?

Suppose you oppose maternity leave and children's allowance / benefit (which is often paid to the mother, the main carer of the children), since Article 41 is apparently sexists, you oppose forcing the main child carer, often the mother, being forced to work in order to make income and for the State to stand idly by (or more idly by) , all because, it's , eh, perceived , as a bit sexist?

Just read the actual text, and don't be letting your imagination run wild

Well I guess you told me... Oh wait, you didn't. You're just rambling and using straw man arguments.

floggg · 07-05-2015 06:07PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Nothing is avoided. I'm just trying to identify points we can all agree to.The irrelevance of limiting fertility for same sex couples shouldn't need to be a point of dispute. You're engaged in high farce.That's an unconvincing and superficial side-step. Unless we bring in a health check (and I don't think any reasonable person suggests that), the presumption of paternity is relevant to straight marriages - even if they've no current intention to have children, or if they experience fertility issues. But it's simply irrelevant to SSM in all cases.

Put another way, if we ask "why do same sex couples need access to the legal framework around marriage", one of the reasons isn't "because they need the presumption of paternity".Ah, yeah, I'm only saying it's incoherent - and agree that, strictly speaking, it could mean lesbian couples are twice as good.

Again, once folk acknowledge the existence of the ambiguity, I feel the matter is resolved satisfactorily. My only issue is with Yes voters maintaining the "nothing else has changed" line, as if the new text didn't have to co-exist with what's there already.

Believe it or not, I actually do appreciate that a same sex couple might say "I really don't give two hoots about the wider ramifications, I just want this change in the Constitution."Ah, no. The Constitution is clear enough and the Courts are similarly clear that a family is one based on marriage. 'Woman' is not the same as 'mother', but the context makes it clear that the Constitution expects significant overlap between the two groups.

So, as I see it, there is a new ambiguity there. And, while I know we've been focused on the wording per se in recent posts, I think this does point out that's there more important issues than this to be tackled first.

One biggy: should the concept of family and marriage be decoupled? What's so special about married families, that we'd protect them but leave (say) a single parent living with her mother outside that protection?

I'm engaging in high farce? Have you read your posts?

Nobody has ever proposed by saying "will you accept my presumption of paternity". It is a consequence of marriage that some couples enjoy - but is not an essential component of it.

Many couples cannot and will not ever enjoy it. So to pretend the fact that same sex couples will not enjoy the presumption precludes them from marriage is absurd.

it is much like immigration rights for married couples - its a privilege of married couples that is availed of by some married couples, but many others do not ever need to avail of it.

Equally, not all couples use, never mind import contraceptives, - which for some reason you are hung up on (and the reasoning of the SC decision is readily capable of being abled to same sex and/or infertile couples, so your insistence on pro-creative capacity is absurd).

There are many marital rights and obligations under law - but no one couple will ever avail of them all. Nor are they required to.

As much as you are loathe to admit it, the infertile and voluntarily childless do defeat your argument. As long as we accept that two straight people who can or will never have kids are still fully married, and attempt to point to the incapability of two men to procreate falls flat on its face.

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 06:09PM

floggg wrote: »

1. Even if you could elevate them to equal (you can't), why should we acept some separate but equal nonsense. The only reason to maintain two equal but distinct systems would be to create and maintain artificial difference.

The SSM people are talking about Equality. But, Equality does not mean everyone is treated the same. In fact, one amendment I would like to see in the Constitution would be a more specific statement on Equality, as Article 40,1 is very vague, and , if you look at the Case law, it is so unpredictable as to what the Courts will say when they look at the Article. Often, (not always) people loose a part of their case (or all of it) on that ground.

Artificial differences? Since when could Same Sex Married Couples procreate, together? You can't compare that to a hetrosexual group , as the minority of those units are capable to procreate. The importance of marriage in our Constitution is that it promotes families based on marriage, and to promote it, it offers important protections to the unit (obviously, as individuals, one has the protections supplied elsewhere in the Constitution)

Seriously, though, get rid of the term "marriage" in Article 41, and bring in an more inclusive provision like Article 8 of ECHR, which includes many other families, gays and non married families, then, the opposition towards Marriage would be weak

Doubt it would happen though. Might be hard to be given better tax credits etc to one group (ie married couples however way they swing) and give nothing to non married groups.

floggg wrote: »

2. Why would they recognise any preference for a heterosexual couple. It has been amply demonstrated that same and opposite couple are equally capable parents.

Ya, so much so that the Courts in Ireland and European Court of Human Rights have refused to accept that the evidence is strong enough to allow the idea of same sex marriage to be a basic human right, without just going to the people.

Why shouldn't they recongise a preference for a hetrosexual couple? A child is better off with both a mother and a father, and, in an ideal world, their biological parents.

floggg wrote: »

3. A mother who's relationship breaks down can already marry somebody other than the father of her child. The only difference a yes vote would make would be to enable her marry a man or another woman if she wanted.

True, and possibly dilute the concept that the child is best off having contact and company of both of her/his mother and father, as another group will be taking a skip in the que over the unmarried father.

floggg wrote: »

It wouldn't make a bit of difference to the father's rights or status which gender her new spouse was though.

It would, if it is accepted and confirmed that the child is better off with a mother and a father as their Main carers

floggg · 07-05-2015 06:09PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Evidentially, your knowledge on Irish history finishes at Secondary School, and is developed by that Nell Jordan Film.

1. If De Valera back to America in June 1921, stayed away from Ireland in October 1921, this country would still have been caught up in a Civil War. He had little or no influence whatsoever in the Council of the IRB or IRA. None. He was a glorified figure head thereafter . There were plenty of TD's just as vocal against the Treaty. And, we haven't even talked about a "Civil War" between the South and the North ...

2. You seriously trying to suggest that many parts of the Country that hid under their bed during the Tan War, but were out and figthing during the Civil War , is Dev's fault?

3. Let me guess, you heard or read a few lines of the "river of blood" speech and interpreted as arseways as your interpretation of the issues in this topic

4. "backward"? Really? Eh, Our Constitution, with the exceptions of the religious stuff (which was a sign of the times as recent as the early 1990's,20 years after he died) has more of less stood the tests of time, AND, in fact was allowed to develop and grow through the powers that the Constitution has given the Courts in order to allow them interpret it; which lead to many many many rights eg right to contraceptives

While even I think Article 41 could do with a couple of changes, I would wager a lot of money , that for all the rubbish one poster talked about "ripping" up the Constitution and starting again, very little in the said document would be changed. Artificial changes in most, and possibly the explicit confirmation of case law (never a bad thing)

To talk about Bunreacht na hEireann being backward, means people people haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about

5. Like, the populace sure were liberal and enlightening in the 1940's, 1950's...totally DeV's fault ,sure, totally . A "liberal" priest (was their one?) could not fart without some Ned Flanders coming up telling him what The Church should say about X,Y,Z

6. Economics :well the Economic War didn't help alright, but, he was standing up to a bully. Why should Ireland continue paying money to Britain for land its people owned? (land annuities) In the long run it helped Ireland stay out of WW2 (Treaty Ports returned). Protectionism was rife not just in Ireland, sunny! What indigenous companies were there before Independence, bar Guinness and Jacobs?

7. Culturally? , yep, all Dev's fault alright. Cumann na nGaedheal and, hell, even McBride's Clann na Poblachta had no role in the supposed "cultural ruin"... Yep, Dev had more power than The Church....

Come, on, your history is as weak as the legal arguments, let's not get bogged down on this stuff, it's not really relevant

I'm confused - did he do far more for the country than anybody else or was he just a figure-head?

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 06:12PM

smash wrote: »

Well I guess you told me... Oh wait, you didn't. You're just rambling and using straw man arguments.

What straw man argument would that be? Rambling? Care to be more specific , hmmm?

Once you are care to "set me on my way", I have no doubt whatsoever you will be set straight on your statement

Telling you not to take a couple of words from one part of an Article , out of context , is now , a straw man argument, good grief

People can come out with weak responses, Sir, but, seriously, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would have put on a better show.

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 06:20PM

floggg wrote: »

I'm confused - did he do far more for the country than anybody else or was he just a figure-head?

I said, he did far more , for this country, than you and most people here on these boards, and far more than most people who throw out those throw away remarks. Go read what I said, that is what I said.

As for the figure head stuff, you really trying to suggest that De Valera had any real control or influence in Ireland and over the IRA during the Civil War.? Last I checked, guys like Liam Lynch self appointed themselves to a superior rank than De Valera . I made it clear, that the glorified figure head comment referred to the Civil War period and no other period. So, you wanna refute that ?

You trying to compare the period of 1918-1920 (Collins was really in control in 1920) to 1922-1925 to 1926-1932 and 1932-1944 , as if it was all the same?

Like all political lives, there are many stages, when you gain and loose influence and control, and powa .

I'm happy to discuss this more, but, I don't think others would appreciate history and Dev to be high jacking their agenda

floggg · 07-05-2015 06:23PM

gravehold wrote: »

Would guess they where approved by corporate not an employee retweeting something political on a compsny account

Well it would be hard to retweet a huge sign onto a window, wouldn't it?

floggg · 07-05-2015 06:30PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

What? You serious, brah? The Supreme Court never considered the Definition of Marriage? I almost choked on my sambo.

The Supreme Court has not considered the matter (ie whether the same sex couples could be included), because, the parties who brought the High Court Matter (which quoted Supreme Court cases) knew full well that it would not succeed in the Supreme Court. You could see it now, Hardiman giving a 60 page judgment , 30 of it dedicated to the Separation of Powers and powers of the Court (or importance not to overstep the mark)

The Supreme Court , whilst the highest Court in the Land, is only fixed with a small pool of matters. The High Court is the current law .

You choked on your sandwich reading words you invented?

I never said it didn't consider marriage - I specifically said same sex marriage. Which you then accepted it had not in fact considered.

And (AFAIK) the reason the case never made it to the SC was because they went back to the HC with altered proceedings instead of appealing, which were then superseded by the Referendim

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 06:32PM

floggg wrote: »

I'm engaging in high farce? Have you read your posts?

Nobody has ever proposed by saying "will you accept my presumption of paternity". It is a consequence of marriage that some couples enjoy - but is not an essential component of it.

Many couples cannot and will not ever enjoy it. So to pretend the fact that same sex couples will not enjoy the presumption precludes them from marriage is absurd.

it is much like immigration rights for married couples - its a privilege of married couples that is availed of by some married couples, but many others do not ever need to avail of it.

Equally, not all couples use, never mind import contraceptives, - which for some reason you are hung up on (and the reasoning of the SC decision is readily capable of being abled to same sex and/or infertile couples, so your insistence on pro-creative capacity is absurd).

There are many marital rights and obligations under law - but no one couple will ever avail of them all. Nor are they required to.

As much as you are loathe to admit it, the infertile and voluntarily childless do defeat your argument. As long as we accept that two straight people who can or will never have kids are still fully married, and attempt to point to the incapability of two men to procreate falls flat on its face.

So, a minority of cases (ie infertile and voluntary childless marriage -compared to most marriages that do have children) should be used to aid the case of the majority (or every ) of cases (incapability of two men/or two women to procreate) falls flat on its face ?

endacl · 07-05-2015 06:48PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

So, a minority of cases (ie infertile and voluntary childless marriage -compared to most marriages that do have children) should be used to aid the case of the majority (or every ) of cases (incapability of two men/or two women to procreate) falls flat on its face ?

New 'no' poster!

So. We've to say it all again again?

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 06:49PM

floggg wrote: »

You choked on your sandwich reading words you invented?

I never said it didn't consider marriage - I specifically said same sex marriage. Which you then accepted it had not in fact considered.

And (AFAIK) the reason the case never made it to the SC was because they went back to the HC with altered proceedings instead of appealing, which were then superseded by the Referendim

Yes, the Supreme Court has considered the definition of marriage, which you acknowledge

Yes, the Supreme Court has not considered the definition of marriage and whether, now, it would include same sex couples, which I had in fact earlier ackowledged.

What you fail to note (whether intentionally or not) is the fact that I said that the Supreme Court had considered previously that marriage = man + woman only, and, because of that precedent (which can always be changed) and it's new found reluctance (well since the 1990's) to over step their powers (my comment on Haridan and Separation of powers) , I am of the view that nothing would have changed. The fact that the ECHR didn't bite either would encourage the current crop of Supreme Court Judges. It was after all, the judgments (in the area of Constitutional Interpretation, when dealing with the valid argument by Zappone about the Constitution being ready with modern values) of some of the then Supreme Court Judges, that were cited by the High Court to support her judgment to refuse to interpret the Constitution to include gays as part of "marriage" (Hardiman in 2001-2005 wrote extensively on Constitutional interpretation and Separation of Powers)

I said the parties of the High Court case, clearly were not too optimistic of their chances of directly appealing the original judgment . If they were, they would have appealed (and, to be fair,some of the High Court judgment is questionable) without the need to amend the their papers/issue a new case. The original High Court Case , was afterall, in or around 2006ish, surely, even after a few years, the Supreme Court case would have concluded before 2012. Thats a few years before 2014 or even 2015

I also pointed out that it would be likely that the Supreme Court would try to dodge a bullet and suggest letting the legislators, and ultimately , the people (via Referendum) decide

Weren't they denied the right to amend their original case ?

http://www.thejournal.ie/gilligan-and-zappone-vow-to-continue-with-supreme-court-appeal-261350-Oct2011/

frostyjacks · 07-05-2015 06:51PM

Who eats a sandwich at this time of the evening?

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 06:51PM

endacl wrote: »

New 'no' poster!

So. We've to say it all again again?

Once again , for those in denial , who cling onto the argument about childless married couples and who refuse to acknowledge the legitimate concern and belief that marriage is more than just tax breaks and looking lovely at a ceremony (ie children )

"So, a minority of cases (ie infertile and voluntary childless marriage -compared to most marriages that do have children) should be used to aid the case of the majority (or every ) of cases (incapability of two men/or two women to procreate) falls flat on its face ?"

Bannasidhe · 07-05-2015 06:55PM

We can argue all around the houses about what x means and what y means but the simple fact is on the 22 May there will be a Referendum. If that Referendum passes SSM will be introduced.

Getting bogged down in pedantic bickering about what constitutionally means what and what Dev meant and what Lemass did is, imho, pointless. It's distracting and it's only purpose in this context is to add to the noise of confusion blaring from the No side in lieu of an actual argument as the why one section of Irish citizens should continue to be denied access to Constitutional protections enjoyed by the majority.

The vote is going to happen. Get over it.

Zubeneschamali · 07-05-2015 07:11PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, now, the points is that putting SSM and 'woman' in the same article is incoherent.

I'll alert the Attorney General and the Law Society, who both missed what your incisive legal brain has spotted.

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 07:12PM

floggg wrote: »

The SC has never accepted that marriage is the "Christian version" - hence why my atheists friends are having their atheist marriage next year. And also that whole muslims, hindus etc being allowed marry thing.

It has accepted a heterosexual version of marriage as a given - but it has never been directly asked whether same sex marriage was also included in that definition.

While it may well have been assumed for years it wasn't, that's because we lived in a deeply homophobic society. But the Constitution is a living document, so a definition from a pre-Constitution common law court has only persausive influence and ultimately the case would have to be decided based on how we view the world today.

Marriage never "Christian Version", eh, well, someone better tell that to the Former Chief Justice, Liam Hamilton so(who was interpreting the concept of marriage from a clearly Christian Constitution) , who in the Supreme Court case of TF v Ireland 1995 , quoted a high Court Judge (also a former Chief Justice, later) , with that very reference .

Muslims , Hindu, athethists .... well, eh, there is another Constitutional Article, the right to religious freedom...that would include non believers (and freedom of conscience) but, only so far as they can only marry one person at a given time..

"While it may well have been assumed for years it wasn't, that's because we lived in a deeply homophobic society. But the Constitution is a living document, so a definition from a pre-Constitution common law court has only persausive influence and ultimately the case would have to be decided based on how we view the world today."

Ya ya ya, that argument was rejected in the High Court, based on principles (Constitutional Interpretation) by the Supreme Court, and by many of the Judges who are still there. The Constitutional Interpretation that the Constitution is a living document (while correct) is only one tool for interpreting the Constitution. The other tools (eg literal, historical , read in full) have also to be considered .

A minority of the world have same sex marriage in law at this present time. Even the US , of all places, they are still getting there. Hell, for all the modern day stuff, the ECHR , of all places, refused to cite it as a Human Right

You really going to suggest that Christian Values did not influence pre Constitutional common law court cases? I think you will find, our Constitutional Courts which includes the High Court, very much has accepted the Common Law definitions, (then)

You really that Confident that the Supreme Court would redefine marriage to include same sex, when it could easily dodge a bullet and say, that was a matter for the People (ie Referendum)?

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 07:13PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'll alert the Attorney General and the Law Society, who both missed what your incisive legal brain has spotted.

Well, considering the track record of the Attorney General during her time in office, she , is perhaps, not the best person.............

Lt J.R. Bell · 07-05-2015 07:24PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We can argue all around the houses about what x means and what y means but the simple fact is on the 22 May there will be a Referendum. If that Referendum passes SSM will be introduced.

Getting bogged down in pedantic bickering about what constitutionally means what and what Dev meant and what Lemass did is, imho, pointless. It's distracting and it's only purpose in this context is to add to the noise of confusion blaring from the No side in lieu of an actual argument as the why one section of Irish citizens should continue to be denied access to Constitutional protections enjoyed by the majority.

The vote is going to happen. Get over it.

You are asked to change the Constitution. The Constitution changes our laws . It also affects other provisions in the Constitution. The yes side are arguing that it has no effect on the children and fight hard to dispel that. Others would say differently , but the usual refusal to engage in such legal issues are rejected

So, call me crazy , but, it is reasonable that people do talk about the Constitution and legal matters to discuss whether a change is desirable . So, it is not pedantic

No one is stopping the Yes side from running their arguments of "It's not fair , I want this too", "don't accept me, homophobe!", "Second class citizens" (even though, rightly, the Civil Partnership Act seeks to protect people in property rights and finance) and of course "you have no argument, nah , nah, na, na na "

Still maybe it is more honest than the rubbish about "look at how the rest of the world will think of Ireland," half of which haven't gone to its people; or the laughable "gay marriage would be good for business " (no tax breaks and cost of doing business...)

"Get over it"? Rather childish, Eh, no one has a problem with the fact that there is a referendum on 22nd May. No one. Bring it on.

In the unlikely event that the No side win, somehow, I doubt the gay groups would "get over it". Hope Oprah is on hand

jobbridge4life · 07-05-2015 07:28PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The SSM people are talking about Equality. But, Equality does not mean everyone is treated the same. In fact, one amendment I would like to see in the Constitution would be a more specific statement on Equality, as Article 40,1 is very vague, and , if you look at the Case law, it is so unpredictable as to what the Courts will say when they look at the Article. Often, (not always) people loose a part of their case (or all of it) on that ground.

Artificial differences? Since when could Same Sex Married Couples procreate, together? You can't compare that to a hetrosexual group , as the minority of those units are capable to procreate. The importance of marriage in our Constitution is that it promotes families based on marriage, and to promote it, it offers important protections to the unit (obviously, as individuals, one has the protections supplied elsewhere in the Constitution)

This amounts to nothing more than a. heterosexuals couples privilege in relation to marriage because they can reproduce. b. heterosexuals that can't reproduce still deserve that privilege because... well... em... they are heterosexual. c. homosexuals, even those already with children don't because... well... because they aren't heterosexual. You yourself have demonstrated the capricious, arbitrary and plainly discriminatory nature of current marriage law.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Ya, so much so that the Courts in Ireland and European Court of Human Rights have refused to accept that the evidence is strong enough to allow the idea of same sex marriage to be a basic human right, without just going to the people.

Why shouldn't they recongise a preference for a hetrosexual couple? A child is better off with both a mother and a father, and, in an ideal world, their biological parents.

Except that what you have asserted as fact is anything but.

Bannasidhe · 07-05-2015 07:34PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You are asked to change the Constitution. The Constitution changes our laws . It also affects other provisions in the Constitution. The yes side are arguing that it has no effect on the children and fight hard to dispel that. Others would say differently , but the usual refusal to engage in such legal issues are rejected

So, call me crazy , but, it is reasonable that people do talk about the Constitution and legal matters to discuss whether a change is desirable . So, it is not pedantic

No one is stopping the Yes side from running their arguments of "It's not fair , I want this too", "don't accept me, homophobe!", "Second class citizens" (even though, rightly, the Civil Partnership Act seeks to protect people in property rights and finance) and of course "you have no argument, nah , nah, na, na na "

No.

I am not going to engage with you. I have read your posts carefully and come to the conclusion that I do not wish to enter into a dialogue with someone who displays the level of down right rudeness which run through your comments.

Shout all you want. Be dismissive all you want. Be as rude and condescending as you like but it will not change the fact that the Referendum is happening.

And you still haven't given one solid reason why All citizens shall, as human persons, not be held equal before the law.

Nah Nah na na na indeed.

Blogatron52 · 07-05-2015 07:49PM

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.. Going above and beyond that to actively deny rights some people so freely enjoy...... Obviously that is going to upset a whole community of people. A community who already may feel personal, familial, societal and global pressures based on their very existence. Reading and feeling the harshness of the expression of opinion throughout this debate must be very upsetting for any lgbt person.

Imagine it passed? All this debate and hatred and upset for what...?! A few extra weddings every year and some happily married couples? This vote is not about children or surrogacy.. I dread to think what will happen when that rolls around.

We're all heading the same way anyway.. Can't we just have some respect.. live and let live.. Stop watching each other.. and concentrate on our own happiness?!

Not a NSA agent · 07-05-2015 08:12PM

I have yet to hear what is wrong with "redefining" marriage.

The no side seem to just claim it and end it at that. Its like claiming that a president needs to be over 35 so vote no. If marriage wasnt between a man and a woman in Ireland then we wouldnt be having a referendum would we?

According to the referendum commission here //refcom2015.ie/marriage/

If this referendum is passed:

Two people of the opposite sex or of the same sex will be able to marry each other.
The other detailed rules about who may marry will continue to be set out in legislation.
The Constitutional status of marriage will remain unchanged.
A marriage between two people of the same sex will have the same status under the Constitution as a marriage between a man and a woman.
Married couples of the opposite sex or of the same sex will be recognised as a family and be entitled to the Constitutional protection for families.

Im not seeing the part where marriage between a man and woman will fall apart and gay people will steal your children.

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments