10,000 Irish Gays Missing Out On Marriage

UnionOfStudents

10,000 IRISH GAYS MISSING OUT ON MARRIAGE

3 May 2006

The Union of Students in Ireland (USI) has welcomed the publication of a new study revealing the number of gays and lesbians who have chosen to marry in countries that uphold marriage equality.

Marriage equality is enshrined in the laws of the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and the US state of Massachusetts, where the constitution forbids the creation of second-class citizens.

In the first 20 months after equality was legalised in Massachusetts, 14,682 residents wed a partner of the same sex. Ireland's population is one-third smaller than Massachusetts,' suggesting that the number of Irish citizens who would marry in Ireland if they weren't banned from doing so could exceed 10,000.

USI gay and lesbian spokesperson Steven Conlon said: "It is possible that over 10,000 gay Irish citizens would take advantage of a change in the law to get married by 2008.

The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy found that in Massachusetts, which is very similar to Ireland but with a larger population (6 million), almost 15,000 residents married a partner of the same sex during the first 20 months of marriage equality.

"The right to marry the person one chooses is a civil right, but a civil right that is being denied to literally thousands or Irish citizens. By refusing to legislate for marriage equality, the Irish Government is creating a category of second-class citizens.

"So long as the Government of Ireland refuses to join the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Massachusetts in legislating for marriage equality, the Union of Students in Ireland will oppose and condemn it for denying civil rights to so many.

”History will judge the Irish people on how well we lead by moral example, so we must not be afraid to stand alongside the countries standing up for marriage equality."

Marc Shoffman

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/law/2005-1359.html

Boston

You left out denmark and Spain, which as far as I'm aware allow for full gay marriage, also. Your figures are deceptive. I can't find the figures now, but I'm sure i read somewhere that the uptake in either Britian or denmark, is very low .

damien

I'd agree with Boston and take it further. What the USI said and how they came up with their figures is a work of total fiction. If you want to advocate for gay marriage then try and base your work on reality(The thing that exists off campus).

Why not first identify how many gay couples exist right now in Ireland (the census may help you there) and then go and survey 1000-2000 gay couples in long-term relationships and see do they want marriage. Maybe then you could come to some kind of conclusion that wasn't 2/3 hot air and 1/3 wishful thinking.

Massachusetts has a completely different culture, socio-economic structure, constitution and demographic to Ireland. Ireland should be compared to the UK and even Spain, both countries which allow limited or full marriage rights and even then you cannot be the ones to use maths to predict an outcome.

UU

Apparently our government have to bring in some form of union for gay couples according to the EU laws which states it.

Bringing in marriage is quite risky in that it may cause more problems that it's worth such as conservative religious groups, etc. causing uproar!
Actually there has to be a vote to bring in marriages for gays because it means changing the actual definition of marriage in the constitution. Perhaps Civil Partnerships might be the best thing which will be brought in in a few years......

Annasopra

UU wrote:

Bringing in marriage is quite risky in that it may cause more problems that it's worth such as conservative religious groups, etc. causing uproar!

it worked in good old catholic Spain - so why not Ireland

UU wrote:

Actually there has to be a vote to bring in marriages for gays because it means changing the actual definition of marriage in the constitution. Perhaps Civil Partnerships might be the best thing which will be brought in in a few years......

The Irish Constitution does not define marriage as between a man and a woman so the definition in the Constitution does not need to be changed - Any definitive legal advice to say a referendum is needed has not been provided

As regards civil partnerships, I think they alleviate some problems but are not full equality - only incremental

UU

Johnnymcg wrote:

it worked in good old catholic Spain - so why not Ireland

The Irish Constitution does not define marriage as between a man and a woman so the definition in the Constitution does not need to be changed - Any definitive legal advice to say a referendum is needed has not been provided

As regards civil partnerships, I think they alleviate some problems but are not full equality - only incremental

I suppose your right. Most people in Spain have gotten used to it anyway. It was just convenient that they got a new liberal government which brought marriages in. I thought the public had to vote to bring in same-sex marriages there?

Are you sure that our Constitution doesn't define marriages as a heterosexual union? It's just that in Home Economics we have to study marriage and it said that marriage is "a legal contract btween two people of opposite genders". Maybe I should not believe everything I read!

Well, yeah I'd love if there were marriages for all over here but I shouldn't hope for too much. It was only recently that homosexuality was actually permitted over here. Civil Partnerships aren't as good as marriage but they're still a "stepping stone". If we had a really liberal government, we may have a chance . . . . . .

Boston

UU wrote:

I suppose your right. Most people in Spain have gotten used to it anyway. It was just convenient that they got a new liberal government which brought marriages in. I thought the public had to vote to bring in same-sex marriages there?

Are you sure that our Constitution doesn't define marriages as a heterosexual union? It's just that in Home Economics we have to study marriage and it said that marriage is "a legal contract btween two people of opposite genders". Maybe I should not believe everything I read!

Well, yeah I'd love if there were marriages for all over here but I shouldn't hope for too much. It was only recently that homosexuality was actually permitted over here. Civil Partnerships aren't as good as marriage but they're still a "stepping stone". If we had a really liberal government, we may have a chance . . . . . .

Your Home Economics Book/Teacher is not a a legal document. Now I'm not a high flying law student, but this doesn't seem to define what a marriage is, full stop. though I seriously doubt any goverment would/could bring it civil partnership let alone gay marriage, without a referendum.

moridin

There've been threads on this before.

It's not stated anywhere in the constitution that a marriage has to be between two people of opposite genders.

However, it is legislatively stated in the Civil Registration Act of 2004:

For the purposes of this Act there is an impediment to a marriage if-

(a) the marriage would be void by virtue of the Marriage Act 1835 as amended by the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Acts 1907 and 1921,

(b) one of the parties to the marriage is, or both are, already married,

(c) one or both, of the parties to the intended marriage will be under the age of 18 years on the date of solemnisation of the intended marriage and an exemption from the application of section 31(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1995 in relation to the marriage was not granted under section 33 of that Act,

(d) the marriage would be void by virtue of the Marriage of Lunatics Act 1811, or

(e) both parties are of the same sex.

Annasopra

I seriously doubt any goverment would/could bring it civil partnership let alone gay marriage, without a referendum.

eh civil partnership most definitely does not require a referendum

The law reform reform commission have stated this

the Commission is of the view that the law as it stands allows the
Oireachtas to legislate in respect of the non-marital family insofar as
it does not place such relationships in a more favourable position than
the marital family.

The whole point of suggesting civil partnership in the first place is because marriage may require a referendum because of article 41.1.2 in the constitution

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.

Boston

Johnnymcg wrote:

eh civil partnership most definitely does not require a referendum

The law reform reform commission have stated this

the Commission is of the view that the law as it stands allows the
Oireachtas to legislate in respect of the non-marital family insofar as
it does not place such relationships in a more favourable position than
the marital family.

The whole point of suggesting civil partnership in the first place is because marriage may require a referendum because of this sentence in the constitution

I don't see it happening without one. Wasn't the recent civil partnership bill shot down, because there was no way for it to happen without a referendum? I don't see any goverment of the country being strong enough to bring in Gay rights on their own back.

damien

LiouVille wrote:

Wasn't the recent civil partnership bill shot down, because there was no way for it to happen without a referendum?

No it was because the bill pretty much said "marriage but with another name". If marriage was available but with a different name then it wouldn't be as special as the constitution says it is and so the law would be ruled as unconstitutional probably even before the bill was passed. Norris' Bill really was stupid, despite the noble sentiment.

Boston

damien.m wrote:

No it was because the bill pretty much said "marriage but with another name". If marriage was available but with a different name then it wouldn't be as special as the constitution says it is and so the law would be ruled as unconstitutional probably even before the bill was passed. Norris' Bill really was stupid, despite the noble sentiment.

So yes, it would have require a referendum due to the special nature of marriage.

Hmm_Messiah

A referendum is NOT needed necause of the special status of family in the constitution. The term is undefined and open then to the interpretation of the Supreme Court.

The problem is how likely a SC Judge is to allow same sex partnerships equate to marriage, and if they did SC decisions can be found to be in error by subsequent court rulings.

A referendum is then the best option, though its also an option for some one to challenge the present understanding of the term marriage. Essentially EU Law supercedes the constitition (Art 29.4.3 and 29.4.10) so I imagine eventually a European Court of ustice case will be taken

damien

LiouVille wrote:

So yes, it would have require a referendum due to the special nature of marriage.

You don't need a referendum for civil partnerships because you don't need a referendum for a law.

Boston

damien.m wrote:

You don't need a referendum for civil partnerships because you don't need a referendum for a law.

On second thoughts, dealing with you aint worth my time or effort. Whatever.

Hmm_Messiah, The constitution is also states that institution of marriage should be protected from attack. What an attack is would also be open to interpretation. Point is, regardless of the actual need for a referendum, I don't believe any government will ever introduce civil partnership or marriage with out one, even if purely to protect their own arses.

damien

LiouVille wrote:

I said A referendum would have been needed for Norris's Civil partnership bill,

Except referenda don't make bills acts and don't make them law. Thats what an executive is for. Referenda are for changing the constitution. If there was a referendum there wouldn't have been a need for Norris' bill now would there?

or at least that's the reason given for it's collapse.

The reason for it's withdrawal, not collapse, was that it was kindly pointed out to Senator Norris that the bill would be found to be unconstitutional. The finding of a bill to be unconstitutional is not linked to the need for referenda.

Hmm_Messiah, The constitution is also states that institution of marriage should be protected from attack. What an attack is would also be open to interpretation.

Nope, that's been defined in case law yearssssssssssssss back.

damien

LiouVille wrote:

On second thoughts, dealing with you aint worth my time or effort. Whatever.

Good doggy.

Hmm_Messiah

I'm not gonna do so good in my law exam so
I wonder how my lecturer passed being of the same mind?
If only we all had your all-encompassing grasp of the minutae of law.

We belong to an entity called the EU, whose legislation negates anything written by "comely maidens dancing at the cross-roads" De Valera's quaisi-canonical code of 1967. Same sex marriages are presently legal in certain Eu states, eventually
1. the European Court of Justice will determine that prohibiting such marriages is contrary to Eu legislation on equality and human rights. or
2. An irish citizen will marry in say Spain, and the ECJ will determine that this must be recognised under Irish Law.

A referendum is not needed to enforce EU legislation.

The problem with previous attempts at private members bills is they were poorly written = bad law.

As an aside I think personally a great way to have recognised the new millenium, or the centenary of 1916 would be to propose an entirely new Constitution based on the new realities, defining all rights as they are, a priori truths not somethign given by the grace of God, a God which hitorically excludes great numbers of the Irish citizens of 2006.

Annasopra

Wasn't the recent civil partnership bill shot down, because there was no way for it to happen without a referendum?

No - it was shot down because it may have been unconstitutional

Civil Partnerships do NOT require a constitutional referendum

To quote the law reform comission again

the law as it stands allows the Oireachtas to legislate in respect of the non-marital family insofar as it does not place such relationships in a more favourable position than the marital family.

If marriage was available but with a different name then it wouldn't be as special as the constitution says it is and so the law would be ruled as unconstitutional probably even before the bill was passed.

It is my understanding that it may have been unconstitutional not because it was "marriage with a different name" but because it allowed for a 6 month dissolution period which may have meant that it put non-marital relationships in a "more favourable position"

I don't believe any government will ever introduce civil partnership with out one, even if purely to protect their own arses.

I think that you seriously underestimate all Irish politicians