Civil Partnership Bill 2009 has been published!

The_Minister

Goodshape wrote: »

Quick question -- if I were to 'register a civil partnership' with my Brazilian boyfriend, would he be given the same rights to Irish citizenship as if we were to marry?

Getting married to someone does not give tem an automatic right to citizenship.

solice wrote: »

I find it peculiar that 2 people of the opposite sex cannot enter into a civil partnership:

That is also discrimination!

I would imagine that is to avoid a situation like in Holland, where the introduction of civil partnership led to overnight divorce.
People turned their marriage into a partnership, then dissolved it immediately.

ixoy

The_Minister wrote: »

I would imagine that is to avoid a situation like in Holland, where the introduction of civil partnership led to overnight divorce.
People turned their marriage into a partnership, then dissolved it immediately.

But civil partnerships can't be dissolved immediately either - looking through the legislation the couple have to spend 2 of the 3 last years apart for dissolution.

Splatterly

I'm not as knowledgable on the creation of laws and legislation that I'd like to be. My question is this:
What more does this legislation have to go through before it comes law?

I did read through the bill (not in depth) and the only reference I could see to a date was something about from the date the Minister decrees

As my partner and I are waiting to be "committed" (well, if I said married, I could get lynched!), I would really appreciate it if someone could explain the process of this becoming a law

Goodshape

The_Minister wrote: »

Getting married to someone does not give tem an automatic right to citizenship.

in fairness, I didn't say anything about automatic right.

solice

Splatterly wrote: »

I'm not as knowledgable on the creation of laws and legislation that I'd like to be. My question is this:
What more does this legislation have to go through before it comes law?

I did read through the bill (not in depth) and the only reference I could see to a date was something about from the date the Minister decrees

As my partner and I are waiting to be "committed" (well, if I said married, I could get lynched!), I would really appreciate it if someone could explain the process of this becoming a law

The bill is published and that gives you the 95% of what the new legislation will be. Just so you know how slow this country can be...about three years ago if not more, the new defamation bill was published. This might be familiar more recently because of proposed amendments to it i.e. the new blasphemy law. So despite the fact that the bill was published three years ago, it has not been passed into legislation yet. The oireachtas has not voted on it yet!

More than likely the Civil Partnership Bill will be in law by the end of the year and there will not be any amendments to the bill as you see it. If I were you, I would set your date for any time in 2010. I suggest a spring wedding.

Congratulations and best of luck

Splatterly

solice wrote: »

The bill is published and that gives you the 95% of what the new legislation will be. Just so you know how slow this country can be...about three years ago if not more, the new defamation bill was published. This might be familiar more recently because of proposed amendments to it i.e. the new blasphemy law. So despite the fact that the bill was published three years ago, it has not been passed into legislation yet. The oireachtas has not voted on it yet!

More than likely the Civil Partnership Bill will be in law by the end of the year and there will not be any amendments to the bill as you see it. If I were you, I would set your date for any time in 2010. I suggest a spring wedding.

Congratulations and best of luck

Thanks for that. I appreciate it

LegacyUser

The bill affects co-habiting couples as well. The government wants to distract attention from the economic situation and drum up support wherever it can. That makes this bill useful. I suspect it will be passed within a year.

LegacyUser

This is of course the offending part of the Constitution:

Article 41 P3,1* wrote:

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.

Basically it means that any Homosexual Marriage would need a referendum to change the paragraph. Personally I would like to see it put to the electorate, we need open and frank discussion on the possibility of Gay Marriage.

mobius42

IANAL, but does that passage really prevent gay marriage? Unless the Constitution defines what "the institution of marriage" is and in this case defines it as between a man and a woman, technically that article does not.

The_Minister

mobius42 wrote: »

IANAL, but does that passage really prevent gay marriage? Unless the Constitution defines what "the institution of marriage" is and in this case defines it as between a man and a woman, technically that article does not.

There are several ways of interpreting the Constitution (ask in Legal Discussion for more info).

Basically, it is generally thought that the spirit of the Constituion matters more than just the specific wording. (The literal interpratation says that the actual words must be used).

While it doesn't actually say marriage = man + female, it's pretty obvious that gay marriage is not included in the "institution of marriage".


I'm knackered and I'm not explaining this right (early starts suck ), but basically - it does if the Supreme Court says it does.

LegacyUser

Can anybody tell me how getting "commited" will go....will it be in the likes of a registry office or will it be popping into the post office to buy one

I of course would be hoping for something official like a registry office type thing so that my friends and family could celebrate in the same way as we did for my brother to his wife but I just don't trust this government and suspect it might be brushed under the carpet and got in a dull office down some back alley

Thanks

LegacyUser

I am in an opposite-sex partnership for the last two years and we have a child of 1 year, I am 22 and he is 30, our home is his house, mortgage, car loans etc everything in his name, so I see how this bill might help if we were to seperate, but my question is would we be better off just going and getting married? Is this bill the same as marraige without the big day? Im really confused as to how you could about doing all this and what it really means

common_parlance

Goodshape wrote: »

Quick question -- if I were to 'register a civil partnership' with my Brazilian boyfriend, would he be given the same rights to Irish citizenship as if we were to marry?

I did a bit of sniffing around and found this from the Irish Immigration Council on the treatment of married couples in applications for citizenship for one spouse:

"The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (as amended) provides in Section 15A(1) that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform may, in his or her absolute discretion, grant an application for a certificate of naturalisation to the non-national spouse of an Irish citizen if that applicant

(a) is of full age,
(b) is of good character,
(c) is married to that citizen for a period of not less than 3 years,
(d) is in a marriage recognised under the laws of the State as subsisting
(e) and that citizen are living together as husband and wife and that citizen submits to the Minister an affidavit in the prescribed form to that effect,
(f) had immediately before the date of the application a period of one year’s continuous residence in the island of Ireland,
(g) had, during the 4 years immediately preceding that period, a total residence in the island of Ireland amounting to 2 years,
(h) intends in good faith to continue to reside in the island of Ireland after naturalisation, and
(i) has made, either before a judge of the District Court in open court or in such manner as the Minister, for special reasons, allows, a declaration in the prescribed manner, of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State."

Of course, the peppering of those requirements with the terms "marriage" and "husband and wife" mean that a gay partnership won't count. There will be no amendment to this arising from the Civil Partnership Bill. Thus, your Brazilian boyfriend would be treated as any immigrant without a family connection. That means that he would have to have been resident in the State for a total of 5 out of the previous 9 years, and as such would experience a 2-year delay in being able to access citizenship.

So, inequality abound. And incidentally, even if civil partnerships are altered so that we are treated as married couples, we are still at the Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern's, absolute discretion, doh!

Arathorn

common_parlance wrote: »

I did a bit of sniffing around and found this from the Irish Immigration Council on the treatment of married couples in applications for citizenship for one spouse:

Of course, the peppering of those requirements with the terms "marriage" and "husband and wife" mean that a gay partnership won't count. There will be no amendment to this arising from the Civil Partnership Bill. Thus, your Brazilian boyfriend would be treated as any immigrant without a family connection. That means that he would have to have been resident in the State for a total of 5 out of the previous 9 years, and as such would experience a 2-year delay in being able to access citizenship.

So, inequality abound. And incidentally, even if civil partnerships are altered so that we are treated as married couples, we are still at the Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern's, absolute discretion, doh!

Thats interesting, yet another example of in-equality

common_parlance

OK, so I've been looking into the difference between marriage and civil partnerships. Between rights that are yet to be dealt with (i.e. where there are 'promises' for 'equivalent' - but not necessarily equal - treatment to married couples), and other rights that are not even mentioned, I have come up with the following:

• no joint assessment for income tax
• no capital gains and capital acquisitions tax exemptions (e.g. partner's inheritance)
• no stamp duty benefits as in married couples
• no social welfare benefits
• no equality of access to citizenship for foreign civil partners (as per previous post)
• no provision for custody of partner's children
• no provision for maintenance payments for partner's children
• no next of kin rights (e.g. emergency hospital situations) for gay co-parents (i.e. civilly partnered 'step-parents')
• no adoption rights (single people (gay or straight) and married couples may currently adopt; however, gay couples are only allowed to foster, not to adopt)
• no constitutional protection of gay people's families
• and as a final slap, easier dissolution of civil partnerships compared to divorce

Now, I may be wrong on some of these and would be open to correction. But if some, most or all of the above are the case, what on earth DO we get out of civil partnerships!?

Annasopra

common_parlance wrote: »

OK, so I've been looking into the difference between marriage and civil partnerships. Between rights that are yet to be dealt with (i.e. where there are 'promises' for 'equivalent' - but not necessarily equal - treatment to married couples), and other rights that are not even mentioned, I have come up with the following:

[*]no joint assessment for income tax
[*]no capital gains and capital acquisitions tax exemptions (e.g. partner's inheritance)
[*]no stamp duty benefits as in married couples
[*]no social welfare benefits
[*]no equality of access to citizenship for foreign civil partners (as per previous post)
[*]no provision for custody of partner's children
[*]no provision for maintenance payments for partner's children
[*]no next of kin rights (e.g. emergency hospital situations) for gay co-parents (i.e. civilly partnered 'step-parents')
[*]no adoption rights (single people (gay or straight) and married couples may currently adopt; however, gay couples are only allowed to foster, not to adopt)
[*]no constitutional protection of gay people's families
[*]and as a final slap, easier dissolution of civil partnerships compared to divorce

Now, I may be wrong on some of these and would be open to correction. But if some, most or all of the above are the case, what on earth DO we get out of civil partnerships!?

We cannot say for definite what the tax or social welfare implications will be because they are actually going to be dealt with in separate legislation so the parts that I have highlighted in Bold are not correct and we cannot say until we see the Finance and Social Welfare Bills what effect there will be

Annasopra

Splatterly wrote: »

I'm not as knowledgable on the creation of laws and legislation that I'd like to be. My question is this:
What more does this legislation have to go through before it comes law?

I did read through the bill (not in depth) and the only reference I could see to a date was something about from the date the Minister decrees

As my partner and I are waiting to be "committed" (well, if I said married, I could get lynched!), I would really appreciate it if someone could explain the process of this becoming a law

The timeframe is unknown but several times government TDs have said it will be law before 2010

The next stages are the Bill will be discussed by the Oireachtas committee on Justice, Equality etc

After the committee has discussed - it goes back before the Dail and TDs can suggest amendments

There will then be a debate on the Bill after all the amendments have been made

It then gets referred to the Seanad for more debate and amendments

Once the Seanad and Dail have passed it - it will then become law once it is signed by the President

Bren1609

Out of interest does anyone know approx how many same sex couples intend on getting "married" when the law is eventually passed?

Iwasfrozen

Bren1609 wrote: »

Out of interest does anyone know approx how many same sex couples intend on getting "married" when the law is eventually passed?

Well it's not really "married" brcause that would be illegal, but I suspect thousandes will be Partnered.

Daisy D

Bren1609 wrote: »

Out of interest does anyone know approx how many same sex couples intend on getting "married" when the law is eventually passed?

I'd also like to point out, it's not just for the gays...plenty of family siblings, parents and their adult children, co-habiting couples, etc can benefit from it.

And does it matter how many get partnered?-it's about equality, not about getting just as many SUV's and white picketed fences as the other suburban nirvana hetrosexual married couples.

LegacyUser

Daisy D wrote: »

I'd also like to point out, it's not just for the gays...plenty of family siblings, parents and their adult children, co-habiting couples, etc can benefit from it.

And does it matter how many get partnered?-it's about equality, not about getting just as many SUV's and white picketed fences as the other suburban nirvana hetrosexual married couples.

Civil partnership is just for gays (by defintion in the bill itself)!

There are no provisions for siblings etc. And co-habiting couples (non related and in an intimate relationship) will be recognised as co-habiting but cannot avail of a civil partnership unless they are same sex.

Daisy D

Unregistered wrote: »

Civil partnership is just for gays (by defintion in the bill itself)!

There are no provisions for siblings etc. And co-habiting couples (non related and in an intimate relationship) will be recognised as co-habiting but cannot avail of a civil partnership unless they are same sex.

yes, you've just proved my point. It's not just for LGBT. It can be for cousins of same sex....but they can both be straight. The bill states they cannot be siblings, but same sex only. And therefore does allow for relatives who are not siblings to avail of it for inheritance etc....I have just read the a page that describes exactly who benefits from it and the two lines I read were:

The Bill proposes the introduction of two separate schemes:
(a) A civil partnership registration scheme confined to same-sex couples
(b) A ‘presumptive’3 cohabitation scheme for unmarried, unregistered
cohabitants, whether of the same sex or the opposite sex (provided they
are not close relatives).

Annasopra

Daisy D wrote: »

yes, you've just proved my point. It's not just for LGBT. It can be for cousins of same sex....but they can both be straight. The bill states they cannot be siblings, but same sex only. And therefore does allow for relatives who are not siblings to avail of it for inheritance etc....I have just read the a page that describes exactly who benefits from it and the two lines I read were:

Your point was..

I'd also like to point out, it's not just for the gays...plenty of "family siblings, parents and their adult children, co-habiting couples, etc can benefit from it.

The only correct part of your list "family siblings, parents and their adult children, co-habiting couples" is cohabiting couples

LegacyUser

Unregistered wrote: »

Civil partnership is just for gays (by defintion in the bill itself)!

There are no provisions for siblings etc. And co-habiting couples (non related and in an intimate relationship) will be recognised as co-habiting but cannot avail of a civil partnership unless they are same sex.

edit;correcting myself-for a same sex couple by definition as opposed to gay couple