The Zappone/Gilligan case

So what's the story legal stance while with the case? Are they still hoping for a win in the High Court like I heard last time round?

The case finished about 2 weeks ago

Here are some reports about the defence

Professor questions 'rosy' reports on lesbian parents

Wednesday October 11th 2006
Irish Independent
A LEADING academic has questioned the methodology of studies showing that children's welfare is not adversely affected when lesbian parents raise them.

Patricia Casey, professor of psychiatry at UCD, told the High Court that she "could not draw any conclusions" from the studies because of certain techniques used and the small sample sizes.

She was giving evidence on behalf of the State in the action by Katherine Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Ann Louise Gilligan, an academic, against the Revenue Commissioners and the State.

"One has to be very cautious," she said in relation to the reports.

The couple claims that the failure by Irish authorities to recognise their Canadian marriage breaches their right to marry under the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms. The State denies the alleged breaches of rights. In response to counsel for the State Mr Donal O'Donnell, Prof Casey said that any long-term conclusions from existing studies as to the long term development of children raised by lesbians could not be relied on because "of the small samples used," and because of the methods used.

One of these include a technique known as 'snowballing'. This is where all those individuals used in a study might all belong to a similar social group or know each other.

The claims about the welfare of children raised in same sex families, on scientific grounds, could not be supported because nobody knows what the reality was, Prof Casey said.

She also pointed out that only one of the studies previously mentioned during this case was a longitudinal one, and while there had been work done in relation to lesbians couples, no study had ever been carried out about children raised by homosexual men.

"One has to be very cautious," she said in relation to the finds of these reports.

"We need more vigorous studies that what already exist," she said.

Under cross-examination from counsel for Dr Zappone and Dr Gilligan, Prof Casey said that the samples taken need to be big enough, because only then could one adapt them to the general population.

She did not agree with counsel that even if the individual studies were flawed, that the overall picture they form is correct.

The landmark case is in its second week of evidence. Evidence on behalf of the State was concluded yesterday and legal submissions are to be made today.

Ann O'Loughlin


Child welfare findings disputed in lesbian case

11/10/2006



Irish Times

A psychiatrist has described as "unreliable" the findings of a number of studies which indicate that the welfare of children is not adversely affected through being raised by a lesbian mother or by two lesbian partners.

Such findings could not be relied upon in relation to the long-term development of children because of the methodology used and the small samples involved, Prof Patricia Casey said.

The studies in question were outlined to the High Court last week by experts testifying on behalf of a lesbian couple, Dr Katherine Zappone and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan, who want the State to recognise their marriage in Canada as valid.

Yesterday, Prof Casey, professor of psychiatry at UCD, said she "could not draw any conclusions" from the studies because of certain techniques used and the small sample sizes involved.

More vigorous studies were needed, she said. She was giving evidence on behalf of the State in the action by Dr Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Dr Gilligan, an academic, who in proceedings against the Revenue Commissioners and the State, claim the failure by the authorities here to recognise their Canadian marriage as valid breaches their rights under the Irish Constitution, European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms. They also argue that, if their Canadian marriage is not recognised, they should have the right to marry within the State.

The defendants deny the alleged breaches of rights.

Yesterday, Prof Casey told Mr Donal O'Donnell SC, for the State, that any long-term conclusions from existing studies as to the long-term development of children raised by lesbians could not be relied on because "of the small samples used" and because of the methods used.

The claims about the welfare of children raised in same-sex families, on scientific grounds, could not be supported because nobody knows what the reality is, she said.

Only one of the studies mentioned during the case was a longitudinal one - which pursued children to the age of 25 - and while there had been work done in relation to lesbian couples, no study had ever been carried out about children raised by homosexual men, Prof Casey said.

Also yesterday, Prof Linda Waite, giving evidence from Chicago via video link, said she had carried out a study on the institution of heterosexual marriage which supported the conclusion that heterosexual marriage improves the physical and emotional health of the partners with benefits also accruing to children.


Constitution rules out same sex marriage, court told

12/10/2006



Irish Times
Marriage is an institution involving two people of the opposite sex given "special protection", under the Constitution but the Constitution does not give same sex couples the right to marry, lawyers for the State have argued before the High Court.

The right to marry does not apply to lesbians or gay couples because the Constitution's wording on marriage unambiguously refers to a man and a woman, Paul Gallagher SC said.

Donal O'Donnell SC, also for the State, said a lesbian couple who contend their Canadian marriage should be recognised here or that they should have the right to marry here were making a "bold claim" that would have consequences if upheld by court. There was no social change or public consensus that allows the courts to redefine what was meant by marriage, he said.

The Constitution's definition did not mean someone could simply "marry the person you love". If that were the case, then the definition set out in Article 41 would be "completely malleable".

Both counsel were making submissions for the State in the action by Dr Katherine Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan, an academic, against the Revenue Commissioners and the State.

They claim the State authorities' failure to recognise their Canadian marriage breaches their right to marry and to equality of treatment under the Constitution, European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms. They also argue that if their Canadian marriage, obtained in British Columbia in 2003, is not recognised here they should have the right to marry within the State.

The State denies the alleged breaches of rights.

Yesterday, Mr Gallagher said the Constitution's wording on marriage was "plain and unambiguous". There was nothing that would alter "the natural meaning of those words". Any interpretation that the Constitution provides same sex couples with the right to marry was incorrect, he said. There was no legal statute that allowed the concept of marriage to be radically changed, counsel argued. Marriage was an institution between two people of the opposite sex, given "special protection," under the Constitution.

Mr Gallagher said the State had not breached the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms, as the respective European courts had also defined marriage as something between a man and woman.

He rejected the couple's claims that the tax code had unfairly discriminated against them.

Counsel further denied claims that the Revenue had acted unlawfully by refusing to recognise the plaintiffs as married for tax purposes. The Revenue had, at all times, acted fairly and openly and were subject to "unjust criticism".

Since the State decriminalised sexual activity between homosexual men in 1993, a lot of legislation, including the Equal Status Act and the Unfair Dismissal Act, had been introduced to counter discrimination against people on grounds of sexual orientation, Mr Gallagher also submitted.

Mr O'Donnell said the understanding of marriage either in 1937 or in 2006 did not extend to same sex couples. For good or ill, marriage was defined as something between persons of the opposite sex and was given special protection in the Constitution on the grounds that it forms an important part of the family - the base unit of society. The plaintiffs claim was "unsustainable", he said.

Although the Constitution does not specifically state that marriage is between man and woman or include a ban on a same sex union, it was self evident that such unions were not contemplated when the Constitution was adopted, Mr O'Donnell said.

The only way the Constitution could be changed was by the people in a referendum and this was "a clearly identifiable route". The hearing continues today before Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne.





Same-sex pair 'have no right to marriage'

Thursday October 12th 2006
Irish Independent
SAME sex couples do not have the right to marry under the Irish Constitution, lawyers for the State told the High Court yesterday.

State Counsel Paul Gallagher SC said the wording in the Constitution that deals with marriage "clearly relates to a union between a man and a woman" and it was impossible to conclude that the term referred to relationships between people of the same sex.

Mr Gallagher was making submissions on behalf of the State in the continuing action, being heard by Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, by Dr Katherine Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan, an academic, against the Revenue Commissioners and the State.

The couple claim the failure by the authorities here to recognise their Canadian marriage as valid here breaches their right to marry under the Irish Constitution, European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms.

They also argue that if their Canadian marriage, obtained in the Province of British Columbia in 2003, is not recognised they should have the right to marry within the State.

The State denies the alleged breaches of rights.

Mr Gallagher said the wording of the Constitution in relation to marriage was "plain and unambiguous".

There was nothing that "would alter the natural meaning of those words".

When it came to interpreting the Constitution "plain words must be given a plain meaning".

He said that any interpretation the Constitution allows same-sex couples the right to marry is incorrect.

Marriage is an institution between two people of the opposite sex, which was given "special protection," under the Constitution, he said.

Counsel said the State had not breached the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms, as the respective European Courts had also defined marriage as something between a man and woman.

He said that the Tax code had not unfairly discriminated against them.

Donal O'Donnell SC, also representing the State, said that plaintiffs were making a "bold claim", which, if upheld by the court, would have a range of consequences.

He rejected the claim that there was a social change or public consensus that would allow the courts redefine what is meant by marriage.

The plaintiff's claim, he said, was "unsustainable".

The hearing, which is now in it second week, resumes today.

Ann O'Loughlin

JohnnyMCG wrote:

Sigh - The PDs do not support gay marriage

Sorry, gay partnership.

Judgement is to be given tomorrow at 11am