2nd homophobic article in Examiner within 2 weeks

damien

The 2nd homophobic article from the Examiner in as many weeks. Mullen goes on to prove his point by quoting from a group that calls itself the Institute of Marriage and Public Policy which sounds fine but it only has one objective and that is to oppose gay marriage. It is an ultra-conservative right wing christian group by the looks of it.

Same-sex test case is taking us into a social and ethical minefield
By Rónán Mullen

KATHERINE Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan have served up, perhaps sooner than we expected, what is fast becoming the hottest political potato in western civilisation: the same-sex marriage issue.

While the Zappone-Gilligan legal case is ostensibly about tax, the women are also trying to advance the cause of same-sex marriage in Ireland. They underwent a legal marriage ceremony in Canada in September 2003 and they argue that if this had been a heterosexual union the revenue commissioners would not have disallowed their claim for allowances as a married couple.

They say that the tax acts do not define the terms ‘husband and wife’ or ‘marriage.’ They claim they are suffering discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, and breaches of their rights to marry and to respect for their private and family life.

It is reported that they will argue that this refusal is a breach of their rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. That will be a difficult case to make.

Article 12 of that convention says: “Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.”

That doesn’t seem to help them very much. It is true that the Court of Human Rights wriggled a bit on this issue in the Christine Goodwin case in 1995 when it said: “The court is not persuaded that at the date of this case it can still be assumed that these terms must refer to a determination of gender by purely biological criteria.”

But the attitude of the Irish courts may be influenced by a recent case in which the German Constitutional Court decided that decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are not binding in Germany when they conflict with the German constitution. This is significant, because of the obvious conflict with the Irish constitution involved in the recognition of same-sex marriage here.

Marriage is more than a contract between two individuals. It has a public dimension. Society has an interest in a couple’s relationship because marriage is the time-honoured, tried and tested means of providing social protection for the stable upbringing of children. As a result the state bestows certain benefits such as inheritance and pension rights, and shared tax-free allowances, on married couples. Such positive discrimination is designed to encourage marriage and safeguard the nurturing of children.

For homosexual couples to seek similar recognition for their own unions seems strange. It is an obvious fact that homosexual couples as such are not about begetting children and so their relationship (whatever its merits) does not have the same social dimension as marriage. It is true that some same-sex couples do raise the children of one or other party, but what the state thinks of this as a matter of public policy is something that has yet to be decided. The best interests of children must be paramount in any review of policy in this area; we cannot allow them to become pawns in a political struggle.

Suppose Zappone and Gilligan succeed in widening this state’s definition of ‘marriage’? Will homosexual couples have a constitutional right to adopt children as a result? The issue of adoption by homosexual people is a highly emotive one and nowhere more than in Spain where the government has recently set about liberalising the law. “There are thousands of children in Spain living with homosexual parents,” said the Spanish deputy prime minister a few weeks ago. “More than 50 studies agree that there are no differences among children who grow up in homes with homosexual parents.”

If that were true, it would be of some comfort to those who are concerned that the welfare of children is being forgotten in the rush to change laws. But a 2001 report published in the United States by the Marriage Law Project and the Ethics and Public Policy Centre finds otherwise. “No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting” evaluated 49 studies on same-sex parenting.

The authors conclude that the studies which say that children are not adversely affected are all “gravely deficient.” A more recent report, produced by the Washington-based Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, identifies that at least three scientific reviews have pointed to “the serious limitations of the social science literature on gay parenting.”

The onus is firmly on those who want to legitimise radical new social structures to prove in advance that society won’t pay a heavy price. Some gay and lesbian activists protest that they are not interested in marriage or adoption. All they want is some kind of recognition of their union and the same rights as married couples in tax, inheritance, pensions, etc.

The campaign for recognition represents something of an about-turn because these activists used to say that society should have no interest in their private lives. If it is none of society’s business what homosexual people do, why should society now be invited to recognise their unions in its laws? Respect for the rights of homosexuals as persons is vital. But is it really the State’s business to provide an appropriate ritual in which they can solemnise their relationships? Are there other arrangements based on people’s desire for self-fulfilment which the state would then have to recognise?

We can more easily sympathise with claims for equality in financial and practical matters. But while it may seem that Zappone and Gilligan are only trying to get parity with married heterosexual couples, it’s not that simple. If they succeed they will be jumping ahead of the posse and getting those special privileges which are reserved for heterosexual marriage as the ideal environment for bringing up children. Yet there are many groups in society, not just gay and lesbian couples, which do not enjoy the same privileges.

Take, for example, those charming bachelor brothers who appear on the Bank of Ireland ad. You know the ones I mean - the two bald gents who look on smiling while the female vet mutters to herself and delivers a baby calf.

When one of those old farmers dies, his brother will pay tax on anything he inherits from his sibling over and above €45,644. If these two farmers were a homosexual married couple, and assuming Zappone and Gilligan succeed in their case, the surviving brother wouldn’t have to pay tax at all. Where is the equality in that?

Zappone and Gilligan may deserve credit for having the courage of their convictions. But they are not alone in having convictions about marriage and the needs of society. They are taking us into a social and ethical minefield, and they should not be surprised or offended if people object - after all, this is still a democracy. If they, correctly, demand of others a respect for their rights, they must also acknowledge the rights of others to hold different views, to disagree with their analysis of human relationships and to oppose the radical changes they wish to promote. What we need now is a lengthy, searching and courteous debate. It is up to all of us to make it so.

More about this here:
http://www.gcn.ie/newgcn/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4725

DoctorEdgeWild

Unbelievable - I cant believe an editor thought that was actually fit to print. The farmer point is probably the worst piece of journalism I have ever seen.

damien

This is after a main headline the other day stating gay marriage would cost the taxpayer 2 Billion a year.

Stark

When one of those old farmers dies, his brother will pay tax on anything he inherits from his sibling over and above €45,644. If these two farmers were a homosexual married couple, and assuming Zappone and Gilligan succeed in their case, the surviving brother wouldn’t have to pay tax at all. Where is the equality in that?

While we're making our points based on homosexual incest cases ...

Idiot.

ixoy

An absolute disgrace. I'm never going to grace their coffers now with my hard-earned cash.

It's interesting how they talk about equality and yet don't see the need to recognize homosexual couples. To then use that case of it not being "fair" to a situation where the farmers are brothers - how on earth is that situation remotely fair as it currently stands?! How could they argue new laws would not make it fairer? Not withstanding the fact the co-habiting couples bill could also include situations for these hypothetical brothers. But let's not facts and rationality get in the way when we're having a good old attack against the "homosexual agenda". Pitiful and not worthy of the lowest tabloid hack.

TCamen

Respect for the rights of homosexuals as persons is vital. But is it really the State’s business to provide an appropriate ritual in which they can solemnise their relationships?

Surely it's the business of the State to protect & enshrine the rights of all its citizens, not just the poor children who will become "pawns" to be used by evil gays in their bid for world domination-- someone PLEASE think of the children!

As for the gay farmer brother example, wtf?! Did the "journalist's" farmer brother die recently & leave him inheritance that was taxed perhaps? :mad:

A shockingly bigotted article.

elivsvonchiaing

Stark wrote:

While we're making our points based on homosexual incest cases ...

Idiot.

Do you seriously think the surviving brother wouldn't be down the pub boasting to his mates how he pulled one over on the revenue commissioners!

I agree this argument was in very bad taste.

I think gay-couples should only be recognized by the taxman if they can demonstrate that they are a couple in life - not hard to do if together for 2 years. In death, if married abroad etc. Two brothers living together for years need to be editors on a incest mag or something for this to be convincing!

I could just see the two brothers scenario being abused - in particular by farmers: They are the tail wagging the dog imho! The law needs to be thought out on this one - as it generally is - possibly as a fruit of this gutter journalism !

damien

Ok, this is really important. Everyone that read that article by Mullen and felt upset needs to write a letter of complaint to the editor of the examiner and to the CEO of the Examiner.

The editor is Tim Vaughan
His email is Tim.Vaughan@examiner.ie and editor@examiner.ie

The Examiner CEO is Tom Murphy. His email is Tom.Murphy@examiner.ie

And of course Mullen's email is Ronan.Mullen@examiner.ie

Write a letter of complaint and send it to all three. Keep it professional and even if you want to highlight to Mullen what an utter tosser he is, don't.

When you have emailed, I'd suggest posting a copy of the email here so that others can use it as a template. I'd also encourage you to get everyone you know to email in and complain too.

If you are on other webforums I'd post about it there too. Post the article and post the contact details of those in the Examiner. Please warn everyone to keep the emails civil too. Anything abusive will do a disservice to everyone else.

Rock Climber

There was a guy on questions and answers during the week,I remember who gave that exact same example.

The catholic arch bishop of Dublin,I think also mentioned recently that rights including those for gays who are in a committed relationship should be given, thats tax rights etc.
The idea of two brothers together is fair enough,I'd imagine the example of two best friends living together and not being gay would need a legal document for to gain rights if such were given, the former just could simply work on a birth cert.
It's a fair request but an awkward one, that revenue or ministers for finance are probably cursing gays for causing it indirectly to have been brought up.
What mullen has to say regarding begetting children is pure homophobic shoite though,If he hadnt said that I'd have given him the benefit of the doubt elsewhere.

Trouble is, that view is out there in the establishment and only slowly changing

shoegirl

damien.m wrote:

The 2nd homophobic article from the Examiner in as many weeks. Mullen goes on to prove his point by quoting from a group that calls itself the Institute of Marriage and Public Policy which sounds fine but it only has one objective and that is to oppose gay marriage. It is an ultra-conservative right wing christian group by the looks of it.


If these two farmers were a homosexual married couple, and assuming Zappone and Gilligan succeed in their case, the surviving brother wouldn’t have to pay tax at all. Where is the equality in that?

Thats not the point of recognising gay relationships. If the brother die intestate the survivor has automatic entitlements. The gay couple has none at all, and would have great difficulty in proving financial interest in many cases, even if they had contributed to housing etc.

Much of the battle for recognition is primarily about inheritance and rights when one partner is sick. This is quite reasonable.

As for the arguement regarding children, many gay couples have children, and all children are entitled to be treated equally under the constitution.

damien

Rock Climber wrote:

There was a guy on questions and answers during the week,I remember who gave that exact same example.

That was him. He can't even come up with a new example for his newspaper "piece".

Rock Climber

damien.m wrote:

That was him. He can't even come up with a new example for his newspaper "piece".

I know it's going off topic but he was ugly too.
He probably has rejection issues...

DoctorEdgeWild

Heres a copy of the letter I mailed to editor@examiner.ie,





Dear Sir,

I am writing in to complain about an article that appeared in your paper by Ronan Mullen regarding same sex marriages and the recent Zappone-Gilligan legal case. I found the article badly researched, poorly written and offensive.

As a 23 year old reader of your paper, I am used to being challenged and provoked by well argued opinionated pieces, absent from many contemporary papers. This however was blatantly homophobic and did nothing to provoke debate, rather in time honoured and bigoted fashion served as a rallying cry for the more ignorant among us.

I am disappointed that a quality newspaper and editor allowed this article to reach the printing stage.

Yours sincrely,

Darren O' Byrne.

Stark

Here's a copy of the e-mail I sent in to Tom Murphy (CEO) and Tim Vaughan (Editor):

Dear xxxx,

I am writing to you in response to what I feel is heavily biased journalism in recent editions of your newspaper. I am a regular reader of your paper but am somewhat disappointed of late. In particular question, are two articles written by Fionnán Sheehan and Rónán Mullen in regard to homosexual "marriage".
The first point I'd like to make is that they seem to get their facts confused. The article subsequently published by Pat Brosnan was a nice attempt at restoring balance but failed to point out these people were using figures based on the idea of every person in the tax loop claiming the same benefits as a married couple to back up their distorted views on homosexual "marriage". If this were the case, then the cost to the taxpayer may very well be €2billion. However government estimates have shown the actual figure to be closer to €167 million.
Mullen's argument about marriage being solely for the purposes of begetting children is a tired old argument and is as offensive to childless couples as it is to same-sex couples.
Mullen then proceeds to base the rest of his article solely on the "findings" of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. This has a fine sounding name, but in fact its sole purpose is to oppose gay marriage. From what people can tell, they appear to be an ultra-conservative far right wing Christian group. As a professional journalist working for a supposedly trusted newspaper, I would have expected him to research a variety of findings and viewpoints and then form an opinion based on these. Rather he has formed a narrow viewpoint for himself, and then gone out and found an extremist group to validate his views, whilst simultaneously ignoring all other findings in the field.
In this case I was able to take the opinions given on board and compare them with actual facts. However, like many people I have a trust agreement with broadsheet newspapers to bring me factual and unbiased reporting. There are many issues on which I am not well informed, as unlike journalists it is not my full time job to research them. I have no choice now but to assume that the same style journalism displayed above is potentially being applied to many other Examiner articles that I read, and so I will no longer be buying the Examiner.

Yours,
xxxxxxxxxxx

damien

Well done folks, keep it going:

The Sheehan article is here.

This is the opening part of his piece:

Gay challenge: married couples may face tax hikes

By Fionnán Sheahan, Political Correspondent
MARRIED couples face paying more tax if gay and cohabiting couples get legal recognition.

Official estimates put the ultimate cost to the Exchequer of knock-on tax changes at up to €2 billion a year.

Wow, 2 Billion. Totally and utterly WRONG.

All co-habiting couples getting the same rights as married couples will cost the the tax payer €167million. Same sex couples would cost 1 13/770th of that which is €2.81million if the figure of 1300 is used.

The 2billion figure comes from a very hypothetical scenario where every person in the tax system would get the same rights as married couples. The 77,000 co-habiting couples or 1300 same sex couples will not cost us 2billion.

This is from the tax Strategy Groups Draft document here (I have highlighted the main parts)

To give married credits and bands as well as the home carer credit and mortgage interest relief) to cohabiting couples (approximately 78,000 at present) would cost about €167 million in a full year on a pre-Budget 2004 basis. If such an approach proved not to be possible, the costs could be very significantly higher indeed. For example, to complete the process of widening the standard rate band and to remove the concept of transferability of credits between spouses, while at the same time ensuring that nobody was worse off than at present (effectively all single taxpayers would receive a personal credit at the value of the married credit) would cost an estimated €2 billion in a full year.

damien

Some additional facts for letter writing. (This took a bit of research):


Mullen:

The cso figure for 2002 states almost 8.4% of families are unmarried. So his argument that marriage is about kids is wrong in that way. I currently do not have easy access to figures for married couples without any kids but it's taken for granted in this modern age that there are many childless couples in this state.

The Institute of Marriage he mentions is here: http://www.marriagedebate.com/

I did a background check on Maggie Gallagher who I believe runs it and she is not for same sex marriage. The website looks unbiased but it is run by those who oppose same sex marriage.

The report Mullen mentions " No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us about Same-Sex Parenting"

This is a well famous anti-gay piece of propganda that is summarised by one academic here:

by "Dr. Robert Lerner and Dr. Althea Nagai" (actually, neither of them is a medical doctor - Lerner has a Ph.D in sociology, Nagai a Ph.D. in political science), a pamphlet that was commissioned and is distributed by the right-wing Marriage Law Project and is available as a free download from its website.

The Marriage Law Project is a legal initiative operated by the law school of the Washington, D.C.-based Catholic University of America. ..Its sole purpose of existence is to spike the legal literature with anti-gay viewpoints and to render ideological and legal assistance to those who would deny gays and lesbians their civil and human right to marry. It is, in other words, an entity that is not interested in sponsoring genuine scientific research, since it subscribes to a preconceived ideological viewpoint that same-sex relationships are immoral.

More here: http://web.archive.org/web....ttp

Ironically enough Ronan mentioned a report of theirs about same sex parenting not being up to scratch but today on their website they linked to the following article on yahoo showing that kids with same sex parents are no different to any other kids.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....djusted

damien

Rónán's former employer is Archbishop Demond Connell, the guy who gave out about the President receiving communion in a protestant church.

newgrange

damien.m wrote:

Rónán's former employer is Archbishop Demond Connell, the guy who gave out about the President receiving communion in a protestant church.

By their friends you shall know them.
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Victor

To give married credits and bands as well as the home carer credit and mortgage interest relief) to cohabiting couples (approximately 78,000 at present) would cost about €167 million in a full year on a pre-Budget 2004 basis. If such an approach proved not to be possible, the costs could be very significantly higher indeed. For example, to complete the process of widening the standard rate band and to remove the concept of transferability of credits between spouses, while at the same time ensuring that nobody was worse off than at present (effectively all single taxpayers would receive a personal credit at the value of the married credit) would cost an estimated €2 billion in a full year.

Stated tax and social welfare policy is towards the individualisation of tax credits and benefits anyway, making this point irrelevant.

Stated policy is towards providing child benefit as opposed to a child tax credit.

WexCan

Sent to Examiner Editor and CEO:

Sir,

Having read Ronan Murphy's article entitled "Same-sex test case is taking us
into a social and ethical minefield" in last Friday's Examiner, I refuse to
buy the Examiner until its journalists wake up and realise that bias isn't considered
kosher in the press. Such amateur journalism is indeed pitiful.

This article does nothing but condone homophobia and attempt to convert its
readers into conservative heterosexists who believe that gay marraige is wrong,
being gay is wrong and the only people who deserve to be in life-long, loving
relationships are the "normal" heterosexual people.

Mullen's argument that gay couples do not satisfy the criterion that marriage
is for the purpose of reproducing is well-worn and quite frankly laughable at
this stage. Look at all the heterosexual childless couples in the country. And
what about adoption? What's wrong with gay couples adopting children? God forbid
the children might actually grow up in a secure and loving environment.

"Respect for the rights of homosexuals as persons is vital. But is it really
the State’s business to provide an appropriate ritual in which they can solemnise
their relationships?"

Homosexuals. This word is, by now, considered derogatory. Homosexual people,
gay people - these are more acceptable. These two sentences really sum the whole
article up - the gay community is held at a distance while conservative heterosexists
decide what we can and can't do. Is it really the State's business to provide
an appropriate ritual in which heterosexual people can solemnise their relationships??
Another example of amateur, biased journalism.

--
"Take, for example, those charming bachelor brothers who appear on the Bank
of Ireland ad. You know the ones I mean - the two bald gents who look on smiling
while the female vet mutters to herself and delivers a baby calf.

When one of those old farmers dies, his brother will pay tax on anything he
inherits from his sibling over and above €45,644. If these two farmers were
a homosexual married couple, and assuming Zappone and Gilligan succeed in their
case, the surviving brother wouldn’t have to pay tax at all. Where is the equality
in that?"
--

The above is quite simply a stupid argument. If it was a brother and sister,
the same would apply. If they were married, they wouldn't have to pay tax. (And
to be honest, using arguents vaguely referencing incest is most definitely in
bad taste.)

Basically, this article suggests that gay and lesbian relationships are of lesser
importance than heterosexual relationships because they are not for the purpose
of "begetting children".

Such ridiculous bias has no place in a newspaper covering a wide range of demographic
groups and I am sorry to see that this article reached the printing stage in
the first place.

Speaking as a 16 year old gay person, I hope this trend of homophobic and blatantly
biased journalism does not continue.

Yours, etc

C Doyle
Dublin

Annasopra

It's not the first time Mullen has been writing biased pieces

http://www.gaire.com/e/f/view.asp?parent=217862