Arrrggghhh!!! - FF Senator leads move to deny gay couples right to register

aaronquigley

A GROUP of Fianna Fáil TDs and Senators is seeking to reverse a Government decision to allow gay and lesbian couples register their relationships with the State.

A party motion put forward last night by Wexford-based Senator Jim Walsh demanded that nothing should be done in the upcoming Civil Partnership Bill that would in any way lessen the "special status" enjoyed by heterosexual marriage under the Constitution.

The issue is to be discussed at next week's meeting of Fianna Fáil's parliamentary party, and the Government is likely to ask the parliamentary party's justice committee to consider it.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0627/1214516624201.html

I'm a little stunned.:( I've been waiting for this bill for years and now this. I just wrote to every single senator and my two FF TDs. After all this time and the program for government etc. it's such a slap in the face.

I'd like to see if there are more details of what Senator Walsh has written (he was the first person I wrote to explaining mine and my partners situation)

Aaron.

L1011

Ah, anonymous infighting, just what FF needs at the moment...

jim.walsh@oireachtas.ie, although I doubt he reads it or will respond to my question...

rainbow kirby

*sigh*

Sometimes it feels like nothing will ever change in this country.

Cupcake_Crisis

its a giant step backwards!!
when hey talk about not wanting to destroy the 'special' status of straight mariages, are they talking about the 50% of straight marriages that end in divorce????
civil partnership is an insult to begin with, but to even take that away from us is just stupid!!

philologos

That's the way politics works though really. If you want your viewpoint to be heard you dive in, find a group of people who share a similarity to you politically, and form a group to pursue your political goals, and probably the political goals of others in the population at large. It's up to the people to make sure that they get their interests heard somehow.

Cupcake_Crisis

its not like we dont try to get our viewpoint heard, but it just seems to be getting to the stage now where no matter how hard we push, we will continue to be ignored. I dont mean that we should stop trying, but this is all very disheartening:(

who is this

I'd say its very unlikely they'll succeed.

If they thought that they could block the bill, then they'd wait till it was brought before the Oireachtas for voting.

They're just trying this, because they know it'll pass if it is brought before the house.

Also, while I strongly dislike Fianna Fáil, I don't think even they (as a party) would allow it to be blocked. One reason: it was on the agreed program for government which was conditional for the Greens' support (not that the Greens have seemed very enthusiastic in this area so far, mind you),

Two: it was on their own manifesto. To take their time with a bill is one thing (because their manifesto didn't propose a time frame), but when one is being drafted, blocking it would be outright lying on their part. While they did that to the Labour bill, the party can't say they're own bill is unacceptable for any reason, other than "we don't want to give them any rights".

Three: Think of the other parties' reactions. While Fianna Fáil's proposals are far from ideal, and Fine Gael's were really no better, if the party blocked this, Fine Gael, Sinn Féin, Labour etc. (I just highlighted Fine Gael, since they're largest opposition party) would (hopefully) not hesitate to launch a series of scathing attacks on FF, and almost certainly the Greens for allowing them to break this commitment. This wouldn't just be the government failing their commitments: it would be them wasting a lot of resources to almost make them, then deciding against it. The party already officially agreed to this when they went into government with the Greens. They can't start deciding now whether they'll follow through on it

4red

Taoiseach presses on with bill to recognise gay unions

By Senan Molony Deputy Political Editor

Irish Independent

Saturday June 28 2008

TAOISEACH Brian Cowen yesterday faced down malcontents in Fianna Fail over the granting of rights to gay partners.

With FF Senator Jim Walsh readying a motion in defence of traditional marriage for the next meeting of the FF parliamentary party, Mr Cowen insisted the Government would press on with its commitment to regularise homosexual unions in the Civil Partnership Bill.

"We have to proceed with the commitments we have made," Mr Cowen said, noting that the promise to register civil partnerships for gays and lesbians was one of the planks of the Programme for Government.

The draft legislation just published by the Government was "within the confines of the Constitutional constraints", Mr Cowen said in Birr, Co Offaly, yesterday.

Attorney-General Paul Gallagher has already advised the coalition partners that the Constitution is explicit in recognising marriage as a heterosexual union, meaning that the Government would have to bring a referendum to the people if it wanted to establish a right of "gay marriage".

"Obviously, the institution of marriage is protected in this legislation and is in no way undermined," Mr Cowen said, addressing one of the central concerns of what is thought to be up to 30 Fianna Fail TDs and senators.

Passed

While it is doubtful that any motion directly critical of government policy would be put, let alone passed, at next Tuesday's Fianna Fail party meeting in Leinster House, Mr Cowen made in clear that the bill would proceed into law.

"The parties in Government have committed themselves to bringing forward this legislation," he said.

"We need to get on with regularising these situations so people can have their rights vindicated."

He added forcefully: "The institution of marriage is in no way affected."

Mr Walsh was unavailable for comment yesterday.

However, in a statement, he said that it was not his intention to enter into public debate on the motion prior to the parliamentary party meeting because doing so would be inappropriate.

"The motion fully accepts and acknowledges the need to address relevant issues pertaining to these relationships, but calls for the continuation of supports for marriage, which are both unique and special, in accordance with the constitutional requirement," his statement said.

- Senan Molony Deputy Political Editor

Bottle_of_Smoke

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

civil partnership is an insult to begin with, but to even take that away from us is just stupid!!

What's the main difference between marriage & civil partnership? I thought it was just that it's not in a church? And id so why would a gay couple want to have the church involved?

who is this

4red wrote:

Attorney-General Paul Gallagher has already advised the coalition partners that the Constitution is explicit in recognising marriage as a heterosexual union

Since when? Whatever about it being there in some form (which I dispute), it is not explicit. At most it is implicit - at most. To say same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional is one thing. To say that it is explicitly so is an absolute lie. If it were explicit, the KAL case wouldn't have proceeded since there would be no chance of them winning.

philologos

who is this wrote: »

Since when? Whatever about it being there in some form (which I dispute), it is not explicit. At most it is implicit - at most. To say same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional is one thing. To say that it is explicitly so is an absolute lie. If it were explicit, the KAL case wouldn't have proceeded since there would be no chance of them winning.

In all cases of uncertainty I think a referendum should be had. If yes, homosexual marriages to be recognised as marriages and not civil unions, if no marriages to be recognised as between a man and a woman, and civil partnerships to be recognised between homosexual couples.

seamus

who is this wrote: »

At most it is implicit - at most. To say same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional is one thing. To say that it is explicitly so is an absolute lie.

The thing about the constitution is that when the arguments get down to looking at the bare words, what they try to determine is the *intention* of the document at the time it was written. Whatever you want to call it, you would have a hard time convincing anyone that Eamonn DeValera had Gay marriage in mind when he wrote that section. Indeed, given DeV's idealogical stance, I would imagine his intention was to give favourable treatment to all married men and women above all single men and women (to convince people to get married ASAP).

Although this bill is going to go in regardless of TD protests, I think the gay community now need to be wary of moving things on too quickly. In real terms, acceptance of homosexuality is still very new in Ireland. While the under-40's age group show overwhelming support for equal rights of gay people, once you move into the upper age ranges, that support diminshes and it turns more and more sour. The Irish are very much an, "Ah shure let everyone be happy" kind of people, but if you start trying to screw with the constitution, you'll find that people get quite antsy about it.

The voting power of the over 50's should never be underestimated - I think it'll be at least 20 years before the idea of gay marriage (as opposed to some sort of civil union) doesn't raise protests and walk-outs among politicians.

who is this

Yeah, but on previous occassions the Supreme court has made judgements based on the constitution using articles the writers never would've intended to be used like that (terribly phrased sentence, I know ) - e.g. right to contraception was definitely not intended to be there.

But regardless, my issue with a referendum would be the absurdity of it (or at least as I see it). The current definition is between a man and a woman. That would need to be changed. But the constitution has no definition. So what exactly would they propose we change? We need to add a definition? Doesn't that then acknowledge there isn't one at the moment? Let us not forget also, that the summary judgement of the KAL case did not say that same-sex marriage if legislated by the Oireachtas, would be unconstitutional. It might have said it in the full judgement (which I haven't read) but I doubt it. That would seem too important to leave out of her summary.

I get what you mean about the over 50s, but I don't think an issue like this is as predictible as most. For example: I was once talking to my friend about a referendum on this. He said he'd vote yes. But the suddenly, my other friend said "Aren't you gonna ask what I'd vote?". I asked her "I thought you said you're not gonna vote for years after your 18" (she's 17 now). She then, to my great surprise said "Yeah. Cause I hate politics. But if this came up, I'd vote for that". And she wasn't the only person I've heard say something like that.

It's not exactly the Lisbon Treaty. It's a very easy to understand proposal. Young turnout could be higher than normal.

Nevyn

who is this wrote: »

Yeah, but on previous occassions the Supreme court has made judgements based on the constitution using articles the writers never would've intended to be used like that (terribly phrased sentence, I know ) - e.g. right to contraception was definitely not intended to be there.

Yup the damned pre amble to the constitution.

who is this wrote: »

I get what you mean about the over 50s, but I don't think an issue like this is as predictible as most. For example: I was once talking to my friend about a referendum on this. He said he'd vote yes. But the suddenly, my other friend said "Aren't you gonna ask what I'd vote?". I asked her "I thought you said you're not gonna vote for years after your 18" (she's 17 now). She then, to my great surprise said "Yeah. Cause I hate politics. But if this came up, I'd vote for that". And she wasn't the only person I've heard say something like that.

It's not exactly the Lisbon Treaty. It's a very easy to understand proposal. Young turnout could be higher than normal.

I think that is were hope lies but only if the younger generations come out to vote unfortunately it's the older generations who table the motions.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think that is were hope lies but only if the younger generations come out to vote unfortunately it's the older generations who table the motions.

How is it unfortunate that the older people in the community have a right to vote on constitutional issues?

Nevyn

I never said it was unfortunate the older genertaions have the right to vote I said it is a shame that it is only the older generations are the ones in the Dáil and the Senad and it is they who table such motions and prepare the papers to change the laws.

who is this

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yup the damned pre amble to the constitution.



I think that is were hope lies but only if the younger generations come out to vote unfortunately it's the older generations who table the motions.

That's what makes me the most angry.

The government says its unconstitutional (as if to say if it weren't they'd legalise it - Fianna Fáil? As if). But then they refuse to test that. If the courts operated a system of standing like the US (not sure if they do) unless McAleese referred such a bill, no one would have sufficient standing to challenge the constitutionality. But by any means, if the SC ruled it unconstitutional then at least they could prove "Well see. We told you so". They are constantly getting attacked on their claim of unconstitutionality, so if they're so confident, why not just do it and prove it's unconstitutional? And if that's all that is really holding them back, then why isn't the civil partnership proposal functionally identical to marriage?

Then if it were unconstitutional, they would have to put it to referendum. But they refuse. They claim such a referendum would fail, but I'd love to know what research (if any) they have to back that up. The last Times poll before Lisbon predicted the result with uncanny accuracy. And the last Times poll, or really any, show the public favour this. So why would it fail? Since it had failed once and passed by such a small margin, I'm sure polls before the divorce referendum showed it would fail and it didn't. And it certainly didn't stop FG from having the referendum anyway. These polls show it would pass, and they think it won't?

In both cases they refuse to take the course of action because in the first case, they might be proven wrong (and despite what FF say, they're opposed to same-sex marriage out of their personal opinions, not the constitution), and in the second case, because while not certain, current polls suggest such a referendum would pass.

And end angry rant.

No wait there's more actually: the preamble doesn't make explicit reference to a particular god. The only explicit point is that it is a Christian god. Not neccesarily Catholic. Some Christian churches support same-sex marriage (and contraception) and MANY Christians do.

philologos

who is this wrote: »

No wait there's more actually: the preamble doesn't make explicit reference to a particular god. The only explicit point is that it is a Christian god. Not neccesarily Catholic. Some Christian churches support same-sex marriage (and contraception) and MANY Christians do.

Well speaking for myself. I think where there is doubt certainty needs to be found, and people should have a right to vote on an issue as topical as this one.

I would personally, and apologies if I do offend anyone, be far happier to keep civil partnership separate from conventional marriage, as I see marriage to be the union of a man and a woman, and the formation of what is to become a family unit. Quite clearly I'm not a part of those rather few Christians who would wish same sex marriage, but I do encourage that if two homosexuals wish to live together that they have the same financial rights as married straight people do.

who is this

Jakkass wrote: »

Quite clearly I'm not a part of those rather few Christians who would wish same sex marriage

Just to point out (I'm not attacking the rest of your post) that most Irish people support it, but most of them also identify as either Catholic or Church of Ireland according to census figures (therefore Christians, and so a bit more than "rather few")

seamus

Jakkass wrote: »

I would personally, and apologies if I do offend anyone, be far happier to keep civil partnership separate from conventional marriage, as I see marriage to be the union of a man and a woman, and the formation of what is to become a family unit.

But that's a theological/philosophical viewpoint more than any kind of realistic one.

There's no reason why a gay couple could not form a family unit, either through adoption or surrogacy. What is the difference between a gay couple who have to adopt and a heterosexual couple who have to adopt?

Perhaps the "family unit" argument was a good one 20 or 30 years ago, but it's no longer true. Sociological and moral conditions now provide all people, married or single, gay or straight with the same opportunites to form family units without stigmatism or financial constraint.

I completely see the argument from the "families provide children, which provide the future", but in a modern context that's far too simplistic.

Would you support gay marriage (ignoring whatever you think about the suitability of such an environment for children), if the people getting married agreed that they would adopt/raise at least one child?

hot2def

you'll have to excuse the massive rant here, but hey, what are we all on the internet for anyway?



Personally, I say screw gay marriage. The constant insisting that civil partnership isn't enough or an insult, and we are owed gay marriage is not helpful. The reason that most people see marriage as being a man and a woman is because it has been for thousands of years. Why the hell pit yourself against a deeply ingrained archetype, when you could spend your time fighting for basic civil rights?

I am an adult, if I wish to enter a contract with another adult (any other adult) to say *we* own this house or *we* have the right to see each other in hospital or *we* financialy support each other what's the problem? We could get these things faster if there weren't a group of people insisting that it be called marriage. Even if the government forced gay marriage through, and I firmly believe they could only do it undemocratically, the vast majority of people on this planet wouldn't see it as actually marriage. Its just a word, let them have it. Why ape these people? Look what a sham they have made of marriage anyway....

Give me rights, you can keep the validation.....

philologos

seamus wrote: »

There's no reason why a gay couple could not form a family unit, either through adoption or surrogacy. What is the difference between a gay couple who have to adopt and a heterosexual couple who have to adopt?

Again I'm taking a risk here, and I don't mean to offend. However there are issues even in adopting children, due to loss of identity looking for their real parents in a lot of cases. There would be more confusion and lack of identity if they realised that they had two fathers or two mothers, when the biology clearly indicates that they must have had a father and a mother. I think it would lead to problems in quite a lot of situations as opposed to the father mother unit.

who is this

But if you don't call it the same thing then it isn't.

By that I mean, assuming it is enacted, the government could easily (for example) revoke taxation rights of a "civil partnership" in a few years, deciding its costing too much, while leaving the rights there for marriage.

Or if you want a mathematic proof of it (:D):
Let X = 1
and Y = 1.
X and Y are called different things, but we can still say X = Y. The difference is just a name. But because they are called different things, there's nothing to stop us changing X to 2. So now X=2 but still Y=1. So now X≠Y.

But maths aside, aesthetics are somewhat important. Do you think Brian Cowen would prefer to call his wife, the lovely Mary, his "civil partner"? I doubt it, unless they're entering some business deal with each other, and wishing to highlight that she is not the least bit barbaric.

And to say that adoption would be an issue due to the lack of a parent of one sex is completely untrue. Are people constantly accusing single parents of doing a bad job? Some, but very few. And the biology issue is just as true when (like me for example) adopted by two white Irish parents when biologically you very clearly aren't white (or at least not entirely).

Just because something seemed right in the past, doesn't mean it is now.

seamus

Jakkass wrote: »

Again I'm taking a risk here, and I don't mean to offend. However there are issues even in adopting children, due to loss of identity looking for their real parents in a lot of cases. There would be more confusion and lack of identity if they realised that they had two fathers or two mothers, when the biology clearly indicates that they must have had a father and a mother. I think it would lead to problems in quite a lot of situations as opposed to the father mother unit.

I'll ask it again though:

Would you support gay marriage (ignoring whatever you think about the suitability of such an environment for children), if the people getting married agreed that they would adopt/raise at least one child?

Because this is the argument that you give your for not allowing gay marraige - that marriage is the foundation of the "Family unit". What if gay people agreed to create a family unit after getting married? Again, ignore any social or psychological arguments, because there is yet to be anything conclusive or persuasive either way in that regard.

philologos

I personally wouldn't. But I already know a person who is in a family unit like this, so I don't think it's something that actually needs to be legislated for. I personally wouldn't advise it, but I don't think we can legislate against it.

who is this wrote:

Just to point out (I'm not attacking the rest of your post) that most Irish people support it, but most of them also identify as either Catholic or Church of Ireland according to census figures (therefore Christians, and so a bit more than "rather few")

I'd advise you to make a poll over at the Christian forum.

Sapien

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally wouldn't. But I already know a person who is in a family unit like this, so I don't think it's something that actually needs to be legislated for. I personally wouldn't advise it, but I don't think we can legislate against it.

The family unit of which you speak is, at present, not protected by law. In the case of the death of one of the parents, there would be no gaurantee that the surviving parent would be granted custody. Legislation is required, and this problem will not be addressed by the incoming bill.

who is this

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd advise you to make a poll over at the Christian forum.

No need. As I said. We already have stats to back up my claim. So there's no point getting like that about it.

Regular visitors of such a forum would not be representative of the average person's opinion anyway: they would have a greater than average interest in or dediction to the religion, they would be computer literate, have internet access etc. Unless of course you wish to suggest that someone is not really a Christian unless they are a reader of the Christian forum on boards.ie . Of course the same point carries through here. People reading this forum would likely have a greater-than-average interest in issues like this. Of course in all of the above "they" refers not to everyone, just a typical poster.

A poll carried out asking people on the street, while like all polls somewhat biased (since only the kind of person who is willing to stop will be polled), is not nearly as much so. I can't think of any significant trait which would make someone more or less likely to stop. Or is the issue with the Census statistics I've quoted?

philologos

Could you provide me to think of that opinion poll please that suggests that the majority of Christians in Ireland would support gay marriage, over civil partnership? I just don't understand how it's compatible. That's just me though I guess.

No I wouldn't be as tight as to assume that you have to read the Christian section on Boards.ie to be a Christian

Did the Census have a section on LGBT rights? I still think it would be interesting if a thread was posted in the Christianity section just to get an idea.

Rev Hellfire

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd advise you to make a poll over at the Christian forum.

The Christian forum is not representative of the views of the majority of irish christians, any poll their is valueless.

who is this

I'm cross referencing polls (if that's what you call it) of course.

I'm not going to provide census figures since I assume you can look that up yourself if neccessary.

Ok then. From census figures 89% population identify as either Catholic or Church of Ireland Christian (and identity is my definition by the way). I assume this is not in dispute. I'm ignoring others to save myself adding.

Then we'll take a Times online poll (yes I know not entirely representative, but I don't see it as overtly biased, and I can't find another one quickly). This poll puts support at 63%. Allowing for bias of internet users, I doubt anyone would dispute the fact that this shows that at the very least support is over 50%.

Therefore, mathematically, there must be at the very least a 52% overlap. But this is minimal because we are assuming that Christians are less likely to give support.

And to make things irrefutable, we'll say true support is only 51% (certainly an underestimation). Again that leaves an overlap 40% who support it and identify as Christian. While they become a minority in this scenario, it is still larger than "rather few".

who is this

Sorry, here's a link to that poll.

They removed the links to older polls from the new site so I had to find it by changing the link (and the site loads slow, so it was time consuming)