Equality of marriage and love

efb · 04-06-2015 7:48pm

Referenda results are always challenged. Usually some nut with an axe to grind

Pherekydes · 04-06-2015 7:54pm

I love the guy who won't recognise the court in the case of his own separation applying to the court to overturn the result of a referendum.

SpaceTime · 04-06-2015 7:57pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Or building a theocratic backwater of their own.

Does it come with free pizza??

efb · 04-06-2015 7:59pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Or building a theocratic backwater of their own.

anyone thinking of the Fr Ted episode where the nuns sing on hold

Shrap · 04-06-2015 9:34pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Great, Kilkenny in the news....and not for a good reason...sigh

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/legal-bids-to-challenge-same-sex-marriage-result-due-1.2237552

Clare too, but I'm actually delighted with this one:

One challenge has been initiated by Gerry Walshe, an electrician, from Lisdeen Road, Co Clare, while the second is brought by Maurice J Lyons, a gardener, with an address at Callan, Co Kilkenny.
‘Not fair or impartial’
It is understood the grounds of Mr Walshe’s challenge, brought against Ireland and the Attorney General, the referendum returning officer and the Referendum Commission, include a claim that the referendum process was not fair or impartial in relation to monies spent.

Excellent. How are they going to prove that then, with the distinct and consistent lack of transparency from the No campaign? Are they going to be having to find out exactly where Iona's funding has come from at last? Will the few hundred Grannies please stand up and explain how you afforded all those posters and Youtube ads for MFM?

This is exciting actually. I can see this going BADLY wrong for the applicants as they try in vain not to disclose the No campaign's obvious money bags.

Hotblack Desiato · 04-06-2015 10:49pm

Going Strong wrote: »

More green ink madness in the letters section of today's Irish examiner.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/yourview/there-is-a-need-for-us-to-protect-gods-law-334504.html

Suppose same-sex marriage is not compatible with God’s law?
Will its insertion into the constitution be a catastrophe for the country and will we all suffer the consequences?

Foreplay and a bit of lube and it'll insert just fine love.

Nodin · 05-06-2015 4:54am

Cabaal wrote: »

.................... But a women has every right in the world to not be married if she doesn't want to be.

Enough of that talk, ye big hairy hippy liberal ye.

Shrap · 05-06-2015 1:36pm

I happen to have a spy inside the court today. Judge is particularly unimpressed with the wang of BS and the playing for more time off of Walshe (up first, Lyons up later). Both are self-representing, no counsel, but both are being advised (used, perhaps) by someone my friend describes as a sinister chap. Through my mad sleuthing abilities, we have since identified him as one Robert Eldridge, Executive Director, Institute of Family and Marriage - "Doing what men have always done … protecting their Families, Faith and Freedom from attack by Big Business and Big Government".

Some recognised No campaigners down the back, and I quote "Lots of bright young things with holy medals and thousand yard stares", but none of the usual suspects.

I think the referendum is entirely safe.

Shrap · 05-06-2015 1:39pm

efb wrote: »

Usually some nut with an axe to grind

Two nuts, but it seems you're bang on. So far, no case.

SpaceTime · 05-06-2015 1:41pm

Can't really see this going very far.

I just wish they'd hurry up though! I've at least two gay weddings to go to in 2016...

Shrap · 05-06-2015 1:42pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

Can't really see this going very far.

Me neither. Friend who knows these things has said "Judge is all fcuk dat noise".

Shrap · 05-06-2015 1:45pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

I just wish they'd hurry up though! I've at least two gay weddings to go to in 2016...

They'll be chucked out I'd say. This is only applications for leave to bring petitions. Will keep you updated.

Shrap · 05-06-2015 4:34pm

Yup, thrown out and they have to pay costs. Bunch of nutters, judge saw straight through them, although Lyons was quite eloquent apparently but basis of his argument that the amendment affects the woman's right in the home provision which is where we belong :pac::pac:

robindch · 05-06-2015 4:41pm

Shrap wrote: »

[...] thrown out [...]

Not just thrown out, but slung out of the highest window in the land, as hard as the good Justices could manage:

http://www.thejournal.ie/marriage-ref-challenge-2144931-Jun2015/

The Journal wrote:

Costs were also awarded against both men with the judge adding that he “may have taken a different view had any substantive arguments been made.” This was not the case.

Ouch.

Delirium · 05-06-2015 4:44pm

you can practically see the withering look from the judge in the text :pac:

Shrap · 05-06-2015 5:11pm

SW wrote: »

you can practically see the withering look from the judge in the text :pac:

According to my source, Kearns wouldn't have a lot of patience for a bizarre circus of fools on a Friday afternoon anyway

Turtwig · 05-06-2015 5:44pm

Shrap wrote: »

I happen to have a spy inside the court today.

The gaystapo have spies everywhere!:eek:

Shrap · 05-06-2015 6:04pm

Turtwig wrote: »

The gaystapo have spies everywhere!:eek:

I don't exactly sit at the (rather nice) policy tabe, in the gorgeously decorated gay atrium, but I do my bit. Just call me "the cleaner"

Cabaal · 05-06-2015 6:25pm

Did abit of research about the chap from Kilkenny, seems he's pretty religious alright. Curious if he has links to any of those American groups that fund Iona & Co or was he just a pawn for them and their viewpoints.

Turtwig · 05-06-2015 6:34pm

I think the Kilkenny chap has used the right to be forgotten feature. There's a huge discontinuity in link searchs for his previous court appearances. Yesterday there was also a dearth of results for his name despite it being news headline material.

Could of course be wrong.

Shrap · 05-06-2015 6:40pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Did abit of research about the chap from Kilkenny, seems he's pretty religious alright. Curious if he has links to any of those American groups that fund Iona & Co or was he just a pawn for them and their viewpoints.

Turtwig wrote: »

I think the Kilkenny chap has used the right to be forgotten feature. There's a huge discontinuity in link searchs for his previous court appearances. Yesterday there was also a dearth of results for his name despite it being news headline material.

Could of course be wrong.

The only link I could find between the two of them was this fella I mentioned who was advising them both in court. Seems from his facebook & linkedin he used to work for "Christian Action/International Defence & Aid Fund for Southern Africa" and is now a self styled institute and Council. All organisations appear to be defunct and there's nothing up to date on him AFAIK.

Shrap · 05-06-2015 6:47pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Did abit of research about the chap from Kilkenny, seems he's pretty religious alright. Curious if he has links to any of those American groups that fund Iona & Co or was he just a pawn for them and their viewpoints.

I'd say he's a pawn for this Roger Eldridge bloke, if anything. That's how it appeared in court. Source says, although definite feeling of YD in the back pews, there were no obvious movers and shakers and they reckon that even MFM knew this was a waste of time. Am thinking these are little folk now landed with a big bill.

Cabaal · 05-06-2015 7:32pm

Shrap wrote: »

I'd say he's a pawn for this Roger Eldridge bloke, if anything. That's how it appeared in court. Source says, although definite feeling of YD in the back pews, there were no obvious movers and shakers and they reckon that even MFM knew this was a waste of time. Am thinking these are little folk now landed with a big bill.

What's a ball figure for taking a legal challenge like this?

PopePalpatine · 05-06-2015 7:35pm

Shrap wrote: »

I'd say he's a pawn for this Roger Eldridge bloke, if anything. That's how it appeared in court. Source says, although definite feeling of YD in the back pews, there were no obvious movers and shakers and they reckon that even MFM knew this was a waste of time. Am thinking these are little folk now landed with a big bill.

Who's Roger Eldridge? I just searched for him on Boards, all I got was this:

Dudess wrote: »

Hmmm. I too often wondered why this, of all cases, attracted such massive attention. I suppose his cockiness throughout. Possibly his Late Late appearance shortly after the murder. He was so calm - not shocked calm, but completely blasé.
Glad he went down, but every shred of evidence was circumstantial - I wonder will this set a precedent for future cases. I mean, it was pretty darn obvious that O'Reilly did it, but what about other cases riding on purely circumstantial evidence? An appeal, or several, is on the cards, no doubt.
And I wonder will there be some sort of support from men's groups on the strength of his emails criticising his wife and her alleged treatment of their sons? As well as his concern about custody once they broke up? I wonder if John Waters, Roger Eldridge et al will voice their concern - not in support for a convicted murderer, but maybe making a "look what men can be driven to"-type argument. I remember similar points were made the time that guy in Cork abducted his little girl and went into hiding for about 18 months, only to shoot her and himself when the net closed in.

Wertz: you didn't post a comment on the 43-page Maddy thread? Good on you - you obviously don't waste as much time on Boards as some of us do!!

Shrap · 05-06-2015 7:56pm

Cabaal wrote: »

What's a ball figure for taking a legal challenge like this?

Good question. Will ask, but friend unfortunately not on the receiving end of the larger fees so may not know.

Shrap · 05-06-2015 7:59pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Who's Roger Eldridge? I just searched for him on Boards, all I got was this:

Seemingly, a lone wolf (institute/council/fool). Appears to be linked to the organisations I mentioned, but only on his say so. Try him on fb while page still public. That's how I identified him.

PopePalpatine · 05-06-2015 9:02pm

Shrap wrote: »

Seemingly, a lone wolf (institute/council/fool). Appears to be linked to the organisations I mentioned, but only on his say so. Try him on fb while page still public. That's how I identified him.

Jaysus, what a piece of work:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/father-to-continue-battle-against-protection-order-67181.html (Here he is, claiming the Domestic Violence Act is an attack on "the family")

Hotblack Desiato · 05-06-2015 9:32pm

https://rationshed.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/ireland-letter-to-the-minister-of-justice-re-irregular-arrest-and-detention-by-the-gardai-of-husband-who-wants-to-maintain-the-integrity-of-his-marriage/

2 July 2009

For the attention of the Minister for Justice

I am the Executive Director of the Family Rights and Responsibilities Institute of Ireland.

We were set up by the National Mens Council of Ireland and Mothers at Home organisations who between then represent the Family men and women of Ireland.

Our aims and objectives are to encourage, support and protect the Family founded on Marriage.

The institution of marriage is under attack from many quarters and we operate a Family Help and Marriage Reconciliation Group for spouses who wish to protect the integrity of their Marriage and protect their children from unlawful interference from any third party. Much to our dismay the majority of attacks on the Family founded on Marriage come from State bodies.

One of the members of our Family Help and Marriage Reconciliation Group, Mr Maurice Lyons of Courtnabooly West, Callan, Kilkenny has been attempting to keep his Marriage going despite his wife having left him and taken the children away – aided and abetted by the State.

He is at all times open to Reconciliation so he has no intention of seeking or being granted a Judicial separation or a Divorce. He has not made an appearance in any legal proceedings which would give the Court jurisdiction to make orders involving his Family. In spite of this he has received documents claiming to be valid Orders of the Circuit court granting him a judicial separation. These fraudulent orders have then be used to harass him with threats and he has been forced to make a criminal complaint to the gardai about the perpetrators of this fraud – the solicitors representing his wife and the Court officers. This complaint lies with the Gardai but they are trying to ignore it.

He also has a complaint against members of the gardai who entered his house illegally, again using the fraudulent order to harass and threaten him that is being investigated by the Garda Ombudsman Commission. (GSOC Ref. 840155-04-09)

Today at about 11am three Gardai entered his property and trespassed on the driveway for about an hour. They tried to gain an unlawful entry and set off the burglar alarm. More Garda arrived and they starting knocking his front door down and did some considerable damage.

Mr Lyons asked through the window what their purpose was and he was told they had a Warrant for his arrest. They refused to give him a copy of it and instead five gardai handled him very roughly and held him whilst handcuffing him.

He was then taken to Kilkenny Garda Station and that is where he remains. He was allowed a one minute conversation with me where he relayed this account to me of what happened.

In essence Mr Lyons has been arrested because he is open to reconciliation. Gardai using public monies are being used, like a private army, to intimidate Mr Lyons and force him to give the court jurisdiction to break up his Marriage against his wishes.

It is likely that the Gardai are being used, like a private army, to remove Mr Lyons from his home so that another person can gain entry to it and force him out.

It is also possible that this intimidation could be being used by the Gardai, as in Donegal, to prevent a proper investigation and charges against members of the force.

In the circumstances this detention appears to be without proper process and in violation of the Constitution rights of him and his Family. We assert that Mr Lyons should be released immediately and the matter investigated.

There are a large number of citizens in support of the institution of Marriage from around the country who are following this matter and will be making their protest known if the matter is not dealt with satisfactorily. We trust the minister will do the right thing.

God bless, Roger Eldridge

Executive Director, Family Rights and Responsibilities Institute of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon

Wow.

PopePalpatine · 05-06-2015 9:34pm

It's like FOTLs and the rosary bead-rattlers rolled into one!

Hotblack Desiato · 05-06-2015 9:34pm

Turtwig wrote: »

I think the Kilkenny chap has used the right to be forgotten feature. There's a huge discontinuity in link searchs for his previous court appearances. Yesterday there was also a dearth of results for his name despite it being news headline material.

Could of course be wrong.

I don't think DuckDuckGo or non-EU versions of Google are affected by that?

Turtwig · 05-06-2015 9:34pm

I think I understand the Roscommon vote better now. :pac:

Cabaal · 05-06-2015 10:28pm

Wow, just wow, what sort of person do you have to be to think you can keep your marriage with another person together when that person clearly wants so little to do with you anymore that they've gone to court.

Again, wow, words fail me.....

Shrap · 05-06-2015 11:09pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://rationshed.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/ireland-letter-to-the-minister-of-justice-re-irregular-arrest-and-detention-by-the-gardai-of-husband-who-wants-to-maintain-the-integrity-of-his-marriage/

Wow.

Cabaal wrote: »

Wow, just wow, what sort of person do you have to be to think you can keep your marriage with another person together when that person clearly wants so little to do with you anymore that they've gone to court.

Again, wow, words fail me.....

Hmm. I think you'd have to be the kind of person who gets put forward as a puppet by an even nastier person since 2008. Have to say I feel a bit sorry for him (sorrier for the ex wife, obviously). Let's just say that when I went looking for Maurice Lyons earlier, his photo was easily identifiable out of a list of Maurice Lyons by the fervent look on his face and the virgin mary statue in the background. There may be issues, and I don't believe he found help for them with this Eldridge weasel.

Shrap · 05-06-2015 11:33pm

Cabaal wrote: »

What's a ball figure for taking a legal challenge like this?

My friend reckons this:

It only costs if you lose! The lads today have to pay fees for two senior counsel, two junior, time put in, appearances and a few other court officials. Today prob cost north of 20,000 to 50,000. Bringing the case in the first place only costs a few euro to file the papers. High court costs run about 10,000 per day but they took on two respondents, Ireland (the AG) and the Referendum Commission. Silly boys.

That's v much an estimate and I'm going by the massive books of documents the state had, put together at short notice with lots of midnight oil being burned. Of course the boys had a case each so that's prob 20,000 each approx. Not sure where a gardener and a sparks will find that....

:eek::eek::D

Hotblack Desiato · 06-06-2015 12:11am

I was thinking "two senior counsel? didn't they represent themselves?" etc.

Then I remembered. They stupidly (well, even more stupidly than they were already being) added the Referendum Commission to the case. Therefore doubling the costs they have to pay.

:pac:

Hotblack Desiato · 06-06-2015 12:18am

He should probably have given a bit more thought to the name of the "institute" he is "executive director" of.

FRRII.

Hmm that conjures up a load of.. stuff... on the internet

Nodin · 06-06-2015 5:23am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://rationshed.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/ireland-letter-to-the-minister-of-justice-re-irregular-arrest-and-detention-by-the-gardai-of-husband-who-wants-to-maintain-the-integrity-of-his-marriage/

Wow.

"litigious" is the word I'd say, amongst others.

Nodin · 06-06-2015 5:26am

Shrap wrote: »

My friend reckons this:

:eek::eek::D

Your mate is probably right. Doubtless the bills are being prayed on to Jesus as we type.

iguana · 06-06-2015 10:10am

Shrap wrote: »

Hmm. I think you'd have to be the kind of person who gets put forward as a puppet by an even nastier person since 2008. Have to say I feel a bit sorry for him (sorrier for the ex wife, obviously). Let's just say that when I went looking for Maurice Lyons earlier, his photo was easily identifiable out of a list of Maurice Lyons by the fervent look on his face and the virgin mary statue in the background. There may be issues, and I don't believe he found help for them with this Eldridge weasel.

I have to say I feel quite sorry for him too. He is clearly delusional and what he despeartely needs is for someone with his best interests at heart to give him a sharp talking to, inject a dose of reality into his delusions and to convince him that he needs some serious psychological help. Instead he is being used by a man who is feeding his delusions in order to further his own agenda. Eldridge is destroying any future potential Lyons had to come to terms with his life and the role he played in getting to where he is. I suspect he is destroying any real chance Lyons' has to maintain or win back the love and respect of his children. He is turning him into a laughing stock and an embarrasment to his family while making him think that he is a hero.

SpaceTime · 06-06-2015 11:05am

Turtwig wrote: »

I think the Kilkenny chap has used the right to be forgotten feature. There's a huge discontinuity in link searchs for his previous court appearances. Yesterday there was also a dearth of results for his name despite it being news headline material.

Could of course be wrong.

He wouldn't have a right to be forgotten. Taking a court case is a matter of public record.

On another topic :

I find this whole thing of attempting to delete public records or make them harder to find is really just censorship of a sort. Also who decides this? Google?!

Turtwig · 06-06-2015 1:29pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

He wouldn't have a right to be forgotten. Taking a court case is a matter of public record.

On another topic :

I find this whole thing of attempting to delete public records or make them harder to find is really just censorship of a sort. Also who decides this? Google?!

The name search for him wouldn't be effective. Suppose Spacetime used his "right to be forgotten" that means when someone google's you results with the strings containing your name aren't reported for the scenarios you wish. In order to find the court case you'd have to dig it up the old fashioned way. Year, date, month, other named persons connected to the case, the type of case or sentencing etc. The process makes it rather difficult for people to google you directly and see things you don't want them to see. Say, news report on a guilty verdict.

Google does it on your request. They're legally obliged to do so. They fought against it and lost.

Brian Shanahan · 06-06-2015 3:45pm

iguana wrote: »

I have to say I feel quite sorry for him too. He is clearly delusional and what he despeartely needs is for someone with his best interests at heart to give him a sharp talking to, inject a dose of reality into his delusions and to convince him that he needs some serious psychological help. Instead he is being used by a man who is feeding his delusions in order to further his own agenda. Eldridge is destroying any future potential Lyons had to come to terms with his life and the role he played in getting to where he is. I suspect he is destroying any real chance Lyons' has to maintain or win back the love and respect of his children. He is turning him into a laughing stock and an embarrasment to his family while making him think that he is a hero.

So he's basically a fotl stuck on a slightly different form of legalistic woo then.

Turtwig · 06-06-2015 3:56pm

Fotl?

Brian Shanahan · 06-06-2015 4:18pm

Turtwig wrote: »

Fotl?

Freeman on the land. Google Bobby of the family Sluggs, it's absolutely hilarious.

But basically the whole thing is based around idiot premises like "the law is only a contract, you cannot be subject to it without prior agreement", "the government uses your birth cert to make money off insurance" and "your name, e.g. John Smith, only refers to your birth cert (called the strawman by fotls) and any correspondence addressed in your name is actually for your birth cert. So if you change your name by putting in a colon between forename and surname, or using 'of the family' or some other formulation, you cannot be indicted on foot of such a document."

SpaceTime · 06-06-2015 4:37pm

Turtwig wrote: »

The name search for him wouldn't be effective. Suppose Spacetime used his "right to be forgotten" that means when someone google's you results with the strings containing your name aren't reported for the scenarios you wish. In order to find the court case you'd have to dig it up the old fashioned way. Year, date, month, other named persons connected to the case, the type of case or sentencing etc. The process makes it rather difficult for people to google you directly and see things you don't want them to see. Say, news report on a guilty verdict.

Google does it on your request. They're legally obliged to do so. They fought against it and lost.

I know where it comes from but it's just that the search engine is being expected to make decisions on who has and hasn't a right to be forgotten.

Short of ordering the burning of newspaper archives, I think the law in this area is utterly ridiculous.

You can't just erase history!

robindch · 06-06-2015 5:00pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

[...] the whole thing is based around idiot premises like "the law is only a contract, you cannot be subject to it without prior agreement" [...]

Without wishing for one moment to suggest that the FOTL movement aren't fundamentally bonkers, the claim that "all law is contractual" is an interesting idea, and no more unarguable than anything else in law.

oscarBravo · 06-06-2015 6:08pm

robindch wrote: »

Without wishing for one moment to suggest that the FOTL movement aren't fundamentally bonkers, the claim that "all law is contractual" is an interesting idea, and no more unarguable than anything else in law.

It's an idea beloved of libertarians as well: "Social contract? I never signed one."

Hotblack Desiato · 06-06-2015 7:54pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

You can't just erase history!

It's all rather a bit Winston Smith-esque.

I can see it serving the individual interest quite well. I can't see it serving the public interest as there is no requirement to prove that the material is in any way incorrect.

Thankfully other search engines (and other geographical versions of the most popular search engine) are available.

Brian Shanahan · 06-06-2015 10:06pm

robindch wrote: »

Without wishing for one moment to suggest that the FOTL movement aren't fundamentally bonkers, the claim that "all law is contractual" is an interesting idea, and no more unarguable than anything else in law.

The argument you specifically quoted is most often used by fotls when they're stopped by the peelers driving down a botherín in the arse end of nowhere at 90mph (a turbo charged snail would still go faster, mind) without tax, insurance, nct or licence in an old banger held together by the rust.

They say because they don't agree to motoring legislation they are not bound by it, and therefore they can't be arrested for making the road a massively more dangerous place for the rest of us plebs.

Smiley92a · 07-06-2015 12:00am

robindch wrote: »

Without wishing for one moment to suggest that the FOTL movement aren't fundamentally bonkers, the claim that "all law is contractual" is an interesting idea, and no more unarguable than anything else in law.

If you're interested in some critical reading on state power and violence by someone who isn't mad, David Graeber's written some interesting stuff. He argues that state power is ultimately based on physical coercion. Of course, this might well be a necessary evil of living in a society, but interesting stuff nonetheless. His essay on bureaucracy in particular does the Foucaultian thing of casting apparently-benign institutions in a sinister light.

Equality of marriage and love

Comments