Public Consultation on The Family in Bunreacht na hÉireann

Yoda

From an advertisement on page 9 of today's Irish Times:

THE ALL-PARTY OIREACHTAS COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
The Family
The Committee invites written submissions

Bunreacht na hÉireann (the Constitution of Ireland) contains its main provisions in relation to the family in Articles 41, 42 and 40.3.

Following the enactment of the Constitution, legislation relating to the family has been developed in line with those Articles and elucidated by the courts in a substantial body of case law.

The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, which is charged with reviewing the Constitution in its entirety, is now examining these Articles to ascertain the extent to which they are serving the good of individuals and the community, with a view to deciding whether changes in them would bring about a greater balance between the two.

The Committee wishes to invite individuals and groups to make written submissions to it, whether in general terms or in terms of specific issues such as:

* how should the family be defined?

* how should one strike the balance between the rights of the family as a unit and the rights of individual members?

* is it possible to give constitutional protection to families other than those based on marriage?

* should gay couples be allowed to marry?

* is the Constitution's reference to woman's 'life within the home' a dated one that should be changed?

* should the rights of a natural mother have express constitutional protection?

* what rights should a natural father have, and how should they be protected?

* should the rights of the child be given an expanded constitutional protection?

* does the Constitution need to be changed in view of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Submissions should reach the Committee at the address below before 31 January 2005

The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution
Fourth Floor, Phoenix House
7-9 South Leinster Street
Dublin 2

Fax: 01 662 5581
Email: info@apocc.irlgov.ie

damien

Posted this on the UCC LGB site, the USI website and the CIT LGb site.

Everyone needs to reply to this consultation. EVERYONE.

Get off your apathetic homosexual asses and respond or your future will be decided without your input.

Yoda

After I typed this in (at 14:14) and posted it here I sent a note, in Irish, to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee asking for the text of the ad in Irish. They sent it to me at 15:37. Now that's the kind of government service I like.

Damien, did you post it to the GCN LGB discussion list?

I think we could do with some discussion of each of the points on this forum, to help us consider the issues.

damien

I don't take part in that forum, so no. I might have an old login though.

Yoda

The GCN forum is down right now anyway.

Rredwell

Will there be a referendum(a) after this public consultation?

Yoda

One would imagine so, if recommendations suggest that it would be sensible.

Yoda

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

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

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

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

3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

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

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

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

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

iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

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

Yoda

1. The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2. Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3. 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4. The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

5. In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

Yoda

1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

3. 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

FranknFurter

damien.m wrote:

Everyone needs to reply to this consultation. EVERYONE.
Get off your apathetic homosexual asses and respond or your future will be decided without your input.

Personally, and iv seen this so often, one of the main reasons people fail to participate in these things is the feeling they do not *entirely* understand the mixture of issues involved, and may only feel that they only want to respond to a single part, ie: the gay marraige issue, just as an example.

I dunno, perhaps if there was a general template response drawn up for each issue and another for the entire paper, more people would feel they can have their say.

Iv seen that work so often in community development related issues over the years

*shrug*

Yoda

The public consultation does NOT require a response to all of the questions, or even more than one of the questions. Important as father's rights are, for instance, I have no experience with the matter and will not be responding to that part in my submission. Perhaps it would help to discuss each point in turn on this list?

Stark

Okay I'm pretty clueless when it comes to issues of law, but here's my draft reply for submission:

How should the family be defined?
The family should be defined as a unit consisting of adult guardians and children where the guardians are morally and legally responsible for the children.

how should one strike the balance between the rights of the family as a unit and the rights of individual members?
(not sure)

is it possible to give constitutional protection to families other than those based on marriage?
Yes. Base family definition on the legal concept of “guardians” as opposed to parents.

should gay couples be allowed to marry?
Yes, under separation of Church and state rules, all loving couples of legal age, intellect etc. should be allowed marry, regardless of gender. The Churches arguments for disallowing gay marriage are pretty flaky to begin with and have been shown to be based on bigotry rather than doctrine. It's the state's duty to protect minorities from this kind of mindset.

is the Constitution's reference to woman's 'life within the home' a dated one that should be changed?
Yes, but protection should remain so that parents get to spend enough time with their children. Tax breaks should be improved for guardians of children (changes in taxation schemes in recent years have worked against couples raising children).

should the rights of a natural mother have express constitutional protection?
Yes. They should be allowed contact with their offspring, but not at the expense of adoptive parents’rights.

what rights should a natural father have, and how should they be protected?
Natural father should have all the same rights as a natural mother. In the case of custody disputes in traditional family situation, father should not be discriminated against.

should the rights of the child be given an expanded constitutional protection?
unsure.

does the Constitution need to be changed in view of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
unsure.

qwertyphobia

One point I feel our submission should be making is that we don't need a constitutional change to give co-habating couples the same rights as married couples. There is no way in hell that a constitutional amendment will be passed.


Your submission don't have to be all leagl speak either that side will hopefully be covered they can be as simple as letters stating your circumstance and how you are left more vurnable or disenfranchised by the current system

fozzle

I've posted this in the NUIG LGB forum.

Flukey

There is a common misconception that gays and lesbians can't marry. Lots of gay men have wives and lots of Lesbians have husbands, which disproves this assertion.

falteringstar

my draft is including my opinion that a constitutional amendment is not necessary to achieve gay marriage, marriage is not defined in the constitution. therefore gay marriage can be brought about through the legislative process. (but i could be wrong)
but what im feeling they want to do is define marriage in the constitution, and that if this is the case it should be defined as 2 consenting adults and not man and woman.

falteringstar

Should we all rush to support this?
After all at present the constitution contains absolutely no definition of marriage or of what constitutes a married couple. These are currently defined in legislation then, which can be changed without a referendum. This lack of a constitutional definition may eventually work to our advantage.
Of course the possible outcome of this committee is that they will define marriage in the constitution and it may not be to our advantage. We could get some rights by getting constitutional recognition in civil unions, but these may not be full rights and certainly would not be fully equal.
I think we need to be aware of the possibility that this process could go either way for us really, and reflect this in our submissions by demanding (is this too strong a word) full equality, through recognition in marriage.

What’s everyone else think, I am being too paranoid?

Annasopra

Flukey wrote:

There is a common misconception that gays and lesbians can't marry. Lots of gay men have wives and lots of Lesbians have husbands, which disproves this assertion.

Is that meant to be funny or just plain damn stupid?

Personally I'm not sure if Marriage should be defined in the constitution because this could create situations where changing evolving social situations will necessitate Referenda. I think that the marriage word needs to be taken out of this debate and it needs to focus on "Equal Partnership Rights" because lets face the word's gay marriage conjure images in some peoples minds of 2 hairy six foot five rugby players in fairy dresses

Annasopra

I was looking for some more information on this cause I was going to make a submission and I came accross this link

http://www.family-men.com/Parental%20Rights%20Irl%202004.htm

I am nearly getting physically sick at reading about this group called the national mens council of Ireland (I didn't even know it existed!!)

Yoda

They do seem a bit peculiar. I've been looking through their stuff. The essay "How Does Marriage Benefit the Civil Society?" is rather flawed.

Marriage is not simply a contractual relationship between two people or a government-sanctioned form of intimate partnership. It is also a central institution in the civil society.* As such, marriage performs certain critical social tasks and produces certain social goods that are valuable to the community and far harder to achieve through individual action, private enterprise, public programs or through alternative institutions.

But of course, it is simply a contractual relationship. "Marriage is a childrearing instutution" they claim. But this is not true. Many marriages are childless. We must redefine this: "Marriage is a nurturing institution."

Yoda

Thinking wickedly:

Dear sirs, I am a gay Irish man interested in securing equality under the law with regard to my choice to marry whom I wish. May I assume that the National Men's Council of Ireland will represent my needs and interests? They may be orthogonal to the rights of fathers, but it seems plain that a National Men's Council should represent all of a country's men.

Yoda

Hmm Messiah, does your post belong in this thread?

MrOrdinary

perhaps we should start getting out of our little section here because at the end of the day the majority of people in here have the same view(preaching to the converted). How about taking it to another section, outside of the LGBT and hearing the general publics opinion? :eek:

Yoda

What each of us needs to do (as we are Irish citizens) is to make our views on the Family in our Constitution known to the people who are asking us our opinions.

MrOrdinary

thats what I did, I just emailed them my opinion.

Yoda

Do share it with us, if you wish.

damien

*bump*

Hmm_Messiah

PC froze at work and when back up was asked to log in to boards again, when i did it seemeed to have sent my post here for some reason !!

Sorry

I dunno how to move it

damien

A mod can split it and move it into the other thread.

Hmm_Messiah

Regarding consultation on changes to the constitution it might be worth repeating somethign mentioned in anothe rpost.

Some people may have an opinion but be struggling to formulate it, or in some other way feel intimadated by the eloquent or precise terms used by others.

In that case posting their "opinion" here might give the the benefit of seeign how it comes across etc,

BUT equally important they should feel free just to submit how they feel as best they can, their opinion is as valid as that of any more learned or eloquent person, and as also mentioned there is no need to respond to anythign, if any word mentioned in the ad triggers athought then just jot it down.

Personally I have a problem with constituional law as it does not allow easily for evolving society, each word is held somewhat sacresanct and changes necessite referenda etc. We are all aware of how beliefs and regulations can become outdated; while there is now an opportunity to bring our constitution into sync with this this time, it will within a short time need review again. I'd agree that the less definition of terms the beter, a constitution should embody the spirit of a nation's will, and allow leglisation then reflect the needs/common good at any time.

reading through the post so far I appluad how well some people have framed their words and thoughts.

In short (well short for me ) I think personally, looking at terms like society, family, marriage, institution, parental rights etc the thing I would wish stated and protected by Our constitution is simply

"All persons are equal notwithstanding their sexual orientation , identity or gender. All adults will be consider equal under the law."

We can the define marriage as a rship between two adults, withoutreference to gender and so on