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

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 08-05-2015 11:47AM

K-9 wrote: »

Between increased rights for tenants and big reform of family law you've quite the wishlist and a load of boxes to be ticked!

Indeed, and I don't know how to just get that point across. I just don't see this as a priority, and I can't accept the "ah, but, would you just go along with it" line. I feel this is a time-wasting referendum. Not as time-wasting as the one on the age of the President, I'll admit. But I'm not going to give myself a pat on the back by voting Yes, as if I thought I was participating in some great social change. I suspect this is a distraction, and I'm not going to be distracted.

(Sez he, having apparently posted on the topic for two weeks now. How did that happen? I've always said Enda Kenny is a great politician, and there's your proof. Enda, you got me.)

SireOfSeth · 08-05-2015 11:51AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, I've been saying that from the start. Here's a post from two weeks back.I've several times said that one of my reasons is I don't see this as a pressing issue, compared to other things.

That's our point, you don't! We're not being asked about those other things in this referendum. Most likely they will come up in a future Ref - especially since some of them are damn important. However, for now, that is NOT what we are being asked to vote on.

oscarBravo · 08-05-2015 11:53AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I just don't see this as a priority, and I can't accept the "ah, but, would you just go along with it" line.

I could accept that as a reason for not voting, but as a reason for voting against? That just doesn't make sense to me at all.

CramCycle · 08-05-2015 12:13PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

When I read it, I see the main substantial issue to be the difference between "shared home" and "family home" (and other stuff in that space).

Then I take a step back, and ask "if I was concerned with ensuring that families (in the broad sense - not just married families as per Constitution) were secure in their homes, would I see this as a priority"?

And I wouldn't. I'd see rights of renters as a bigger problem - be they married or single or cohabiting.

So I'd then frame the question "why are these rights only for married couples - be they straight or gay"? Why are they only (effectively) for owner-occupiers?

I'm afraid, I don't see the stuff about protected disclosures as material. I'm delighted to know my wife can't, usually, be forced to shop me. But, you'll appreciate, it's hard to see that in a practical way as a key protection that everyone needs. "Marry me, so you can't be compelled to give evidence against me" would be an arresting proposal.

You seem to be sidetracking yourself, there are issues in your post to be addressed, mainly at legislative, not constitutional level but you also seem to be taking only one point and running with it, here was my reading of it:

1. The Name

Might mean nothing to you but I appreciate its importance to the couple getting married and also to the belief that it will help normalise same sex relationships over time for those who do not see it that way currently.

2. Constitutional Protection

Possibly the biggest point, alot of the attachments to civil partnerships are legislative and as such can be taken back or changed at any time, not easily but plausibly.Marriage is protected by the constitution, and seeing as it applies to a larger wedge of the population than civil partnership, will not be as easily changed in terms of legislation to the detriment of those married couples.

3. Family

As stated, heterosexual couples can get the benefits if they choose currently, homosexual couples cannot.

4. Shared/Family Home

Legal issues which could lead to long and protracted court issues, this amendment helps alleiviate those

5. Shared/Family Home Protection and Desertion

Basically if my civil partner hops the country and leaves me with a mortgage, I am pretty screwed currently

6. Marital Privilege

I don't like this regardless, I would be all for it being removed from everyone.

7. Loss of Consortium

This entitlement is not available to civil partners.

8. Next of Kin

Unclear, this helps clarify it

9. Insurable interests

The corresponding position relating to civil partners is unclear, can't wait for insurance companies to drag their heels.

10. Engagement

Inequality

11. Succession

Inequality

12. Prohibited Degrees

Why are they different unless the legal standpoint is they are not equivalent?

13. Registration process

I think he is wrong to a point in that I have been to weddings/partnerships where the officiator has come in on a weekend

14. Judicial Separation

Inequality

15. Dissolution

Probably one of the few things where current legislation is biased in favour of Civil partnerships, once made equivalent, hopefully legislative changes can be brought in to make the process easier on people.

16. Provision for Reconciliation

Shows that as in other cases, legally, civil partnerships are looked on as a lesser relationship

17. Family Home following divorce

I don't know enough on this.

18. Remedies following dissolution

Bias in favour of marriage

19. Cohabitation and marriage

The rights of cohabitants’ spouses are protected more rigorously than those of their civil partners in the cohabitation scheme.

20. Contracts

This does not apply in respect of a contract made for the benefit of a civil partner.

21. Family Home and Bankruptcy

This provision does not apply to the shared home of civil partners.

K-9 wrote: »

Between increased rights for tenants and big reform of family law you've quite the wishlist and a load of boxes to be ticked!

And some are important issues for discussion and future legislative and constitutional action, just because we are not fixing everything all at once though, does not mean we should not fix anything at all.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Indeed, and I don't know how to just get that point across. I just don't see this as a priority, and I can't accept the "ah, but, would you just go along with it" line. I feel this is a time-wasting referendum. Not as time-wasting as the one on the age of the President, I'll admit. But I'm not going to give myself a pat on the back by voting Yes, as if I thought I was participating in some great social change. I suspect this is a distraction, and I'm not going to be distracted.

I am not asking someone to go along with it. I think that the changes are a positive for Irish society in terms of fairness and decency. Maybe it was brought up as a distraction, maybe it wasn't, not one sh1t do I give to either, it has not distracted me from what I do and do not like about Irish politics and those who are our elected representatives. Neither am I so bitter that I would voice my distaste with any of them by voting against something I feel has clear benefits to our nations populace, with both immediate and trickle down effects.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 08-05-2015 12:33PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

We're not being asked about those other things in this referendum.

And, indeed, that's what I'm responding to when I say I can't accept the "ah, but, would you just go along with it" line.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I could accept that as a reason for not voting, but as a reason for voting against?

I'm leaving aside the specifics already set out in this and other threads, because who wants to go through all that again. Voting isn't compulsory here, but I typically do. After all, isn't that what Constant Markievicz laid down his life for in 1916.

CramCycle wrote: »

I think that the changes are a positive for Irish society in terms of fairness and decency.

And that's grand. I look at the same list, see really just one issue that convinces me that it relates to a pressing concern, and I judge this isn't a material response to that issue.

SireOfSeth · 08-05-2015 12:49PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And, indeed, that's what I'm responding to when I say I can't accept the "ah, but, would you just go along with it" line.

Obviously you vote no in all referendums (as the constitution is in an awful state).

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 08-05-2015 12:58PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Obviously you vote no in all referendums (as the constitution is in an awful state).

Off the top of my head, I can't recall them all. I've voted against some EU-related referenda (which I'd guess is what most of them are about), but not all of them.

I voted against the International Criminal Court, as I felt an Irish soldier serving with the UN should be entitled to have any case against him heard in an Irish court. I though it was a bit much to say "off you go to Chad, and if anything screws up you're on your own."

Couldn't help noticing that time that no-one knew what the International Criminal Court was, and I recall a journalist saying on a "Drivetime" programme on RTE that the Department of Foreign Affairs weren't able to produce a copy of the Treaty setting it up when asked. But, sure, go along with it. Who'd be against International Criminals being brought to court? They're international, Ted.

Anyway, I'm open to voting yes when there's a reason.

BoatMad · 08-05-2015 01:00PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Off the top of my head, I can't recall them all. I've voted against some EU-related referenda (which I'd guess is what most of them are about), but not all of them.

I voted against the International Criminal Court, as I felt an Irish soldier serving with the UN should be entitled to have any case against him heard in an Irish court. I though it was a bit much to say "off you go to Chad, and if anything screws up you're on your own."

Couldn't help noticing that time that no-one knew what the International Criminal Court was, and I recall a journalist saying on a "Drivetime" programme on RTE that the Department of Foreign Affairs weren't able to produce a copy of the Treaty setting it up when asked. But, sure, go along with it. Who'd be against International Criminals being brought to court? They're international, Ted.

Anyway, I'm open to voting yes when there's a reason.

me too , voted no to serval EU treaties , especially later ones, no to ICC and will vote no to lowering age of president

SireOfSeth · 08-05-2015 01:04PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Off the top of my head, I can't recall them all. I've voted against some EU-related referenda (which I'd guess is what most of them are about), but not all of them.

I voted against the International Criminal Court, as I felt an Irish soldier serving with the UN should be entitled to have any case against him heard in an Irish court. I though it was a bit much to say "off you go to Chad, and if anything screws up you're on your own."

Couldn't help noticing that time that no-one knew what the International Criminal Court was, and I recall a journalist saying on a "Drivetime" programme on RTE that the Department of Foreign Affairs weren't able to produce a copy of the Treaty setting it up when asked. But, sure, go along with it. Who'd be against International Criminals being brought to court? They're international, Ted.

Anyway, I'm open to voting yes when there's a reason.

But surely there was more important things to be dealt with at the time. :rolleyes:

constance tench · 08-05-2015 01:11PM

To safeguard the existing rights of others, another option may be to add the text to
Article 40 (Personal rights),
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html#article40

'Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two human persons without distinction as to their sex.'

and, repeal section 2 (2) (e) of the Civil Registration Act 2004.

For the purposes of this Act there is an impediment to a marriage if—
...(e) both parties are of the same sex.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0003/

BoatMad · 08-05-2015 01:19PM

constance tench wrote: »

To safeguard the existing rights of others, another option may be to add the text to
Article 40 (Personal rights),
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html#article40

'Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two human persons without distinction as to their sex.'

and, repeal section 2 (2) (e) of the Civil Registration Act 2004.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0003/

what about Vulcans, hang on this is very discriminatory

ByfocalPhoto · 10-05-2015 06:45AM

I confess I haven't read back over this whole thread but has anybody looked at the tax implications of opening marriage up to all combinations of two adults ?
If there is a yes vote same sex spouses will quite reasonably look for the same tax perks available to existing married couples.
Perhaps an economist might let us know the projected cost to the exchequer. I have a horrible feeling that if it is excessive the government may reduce the married tax benefits to all married couples to balance the books. Can the average "coping class" family afford another financial hit ?
I am a foreigner so I can't vote in this but I am an Irish tax payer of some years standing so this does directly affect me.

Can anybody comment ?

gravehold · 10-05-2015 06:56AM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I confess I haven't read back over this whole thread but has anybody looked at the tax implications of opening marriage up to all combinations of two adults ?
If there is a yes vote same sex spouses will quite reasonably look for the same tax perks available to existing married couples.
Perhaps an economist might let us know the projected cost to the exchequer. I have a horrible feeling that if it is excessive the government may reduce the married tax benefits to all married couples to balance the books. Can the average "coping class" family afford another financial hit ?
I am a foreigner so I can't vote in this but I am an Irish tax payer of some years standing so this does directly affect me.

Can anybody comment ?

One of the reasons to vote is so gay couples can get the tax breaks, yes if it costs to much the government could reduce it but I doubt there would be enough gay marraiges to warrant it.

It should be removed anyway as it's discriminatory against unmarried people

ByfocalPhoto · 10-05-2015 07:20AM

gravehold wrote: »

It should be removed anyway as it's discriminatory against unmarried people

It would be off topic to pursue that but we could could do a whole thread on what's wrong with that statement.

gravehold · 10-05-2015 08:54AM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

It would be off topic to pursue that but we could could do a whole thread on what's wrong with that statement.

It give tax breaks to married people, what about long term coiple that don't believe in marriage why should they be excluded, hell why should a couple get a tax break at all

MrWalsh · 10-05-2015 08:56AM

gravehold wrote: »

It give tax breaks to married people, what about long term coiple that don't believe in marriage why should they be excluded, hell why should a couple get a tax break at all

Tax breaks for married people is a completely different topic, why don't you open a thread on it and stop trying to derail this one?

gravehold · 10-05-2015 09:08AM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Tax breaks for married people is a completely different topic, why don't you open a thread on it and stop trying to derail this one?

So one asked could the referendum lead to tax breaks being reduced or removed due too many applying while improdable it could happen. So marraige tax breaks ismon topic

gravehold · 10-05-2015 09:37AM

Will gay married couples adopted kids be allowed to attend rc schools, I can't see why the schools would admit them it's against the ethos and this will lead to poorer education for many kids adopted by gay couples

ByfocalPhoto · 10-05-2015 09:39AM

I have been told by an accountant that civil partnerships already get the tax breaks and inheritance rights and the world hasn't ended. So the whole question might be answered already.

Whether or not married couples should get tax breaks in the first place is definitely off topic so I won't be drawn.

gravehold · 10-05-2015 09:40AM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I have been told by an accountant that civil partnerships already get the tax breaks and inheritance rights

Really, why do the yes side say they don't?

oscarBravo · 10-05-2015 09:48AM

gravehold wrote: »

Will gay married couples adopted kids be allowed to attend rc schools, I can't see why the schools would admit them it's against the ethos and this will lead to poorer education for many kids adopted by gay couples

Yet another compelling argument for getting religion out of our schools for good. That said, offering discrimination as an argument in favour of discrimination is... an interesting tactic.

gravehold · 10-05-2015 09:53AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yet another compelling argument for getting religion out of our schools for good. That said, offering discrimination as an argument in favour of discrimination is... an interesting tactic.

But can it happen? Could kids adopted by gay couples not be allowed into rc schools which lets face it are the good schools here

timetogo · 10-05-2015 09:59AM

gravehold wrote: »

But can it happen? Could kids adopted by gay couples not be allowed into rc schools which lets face it are the good schools here

I don't think so

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/going_to_primary_school/types_primary_school.html

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0007.html#partii-sec7

Why do you think it could?

For a yes voter you really seem to nitpick on every possible negative tangent no matter how irrelevant.

gravehold · 10-05-2015 10:03AM

timetogo wrote: »

I don't think so

citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/going_to_primary_school/types_primary_school.html[/url]

irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0007.html#partii-sec7[/url]

Why do you think it could?

For a yes voter you really seem to nitpick on every possible negative tangent no matter how irrelevant.

They have to follow the Catholic ethos and two married gays go against that so the adopted kid would also be not following the ethos.

Atm kids not following the ethos don't have to be accepted into the schools ie the unbaptised.

Theh can obviously still go to the non religious schools but most are worse and hard to find in the country

eviltwin · 10-05-2015 10:07AM

gravehold wrote: »

They have to follow the Catholic ethos and two married gays go against that so the adopted kid would also be not following the ethos.

Atm kids not following the ethos don't have to be accepted into the schools ie the unbaptised.

Theh can obviously still go to the non religious schools but most are worse and hard to find in the country

Where do the children of gay people go to school now?

Why do they accept children of divorced couples, cohabiting couples and single parents then? Schools won't deny a place to children of gay people.

gravehold · 10-05-2015 10:10AM

eviltwin wrote: »

Where do the children of gay people go to school now?

Why do they accept children of divorced couples, cohabiting couples and single parents then? Schools won't deny a place to children of gay people.

Yes but they have said if this passes they will be stronger against this kinda thing, they will stop civil marriage ceremonies. I can see then not want to support gay couples adopting kids.

They could take a stance on it like they have being hinting

timetogo · 10-05-2015 10:10AM

gravehold wrote: »

Theh can obviously still go to the non religious schools but most are worse and hard to find in the country

Thankfully that's being resolved slowly. Its only going to get better. I've a nephew going a brilliant educate together school. They seem to be getting more and more popular, so in the future parents won't have worry about religious ethos anymore.

Also the numbers will be so small it won't be that hard to find a better school if a child of gay people is discriminated against. Can't imagine schools getting great publicity out of that.

eviltwin · 10-05-2015 10:12AM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes but they have said if this passes they will be stronger against this kinda thing, they will stop civil marriage ceremonies. I can see then not want to support gay couples adopting kids.

They could take a stance on it like they have being hinting

Is this a reason to vote no?

I don't think even the church would be bad enough to deny a child an education for something his or her parents do.

gravehold · 10-05-2015 10:12AM

timetogo wrote: »

Thankfully that's being resoveld slowly. Its only going to get better. I've a nephew going a brilliant educate together school. They seem to be getting more and more popular, so in the future parents won't have worry about religious ethos anymore.

The local one here is full of Muslim kids even though the school is non religious, the kids not mudlim get flack I imagine a kid with gay parents would get huge bulling as muslims hate that kind of thing

timetogo · 10-05-2015 10:14AM

gravehold wrote: »

The local one here is full of Muslim kids even though the school is non religious, the kids not mudlim get flack I imagine a kid with gay parents would get huge bulling as muslims hate that kind of thing

Well let's educate the Muslims as well as the Catholics.
Bullying is nothing to do with school admission policies though and will obviously lessen as gay marriage becomes accepted.

I don't think we would have stopped discriminating against black people or women because some ill educated people bullied people about their race or gender which would have been happening in schools too.

I think this is getting a bit off topic

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

Comments