Lisbon Treaty and Gay Rights

worldrepublic

There has been a lot of emphasis, from an Irish perspective, on how the Lisbon Treaty will enable women to have a choice with respect to the products of conception.

Now that we all live in a more diversified culture that promotes variety and choice, what are the thoughts on true equality for Gay Irish citizens? Marriage and adoption rights, for everyone, including lesbians, gay men and transgendered people will be the first stepping stones. I think that while the Lisbon treaty is a complex document with, inevitable, a down-side, it is bound up with the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is promoted within the gay community. Some countries, for example Poland, are trying to be selective regarding treatments of the charter, in the context of their parliamentary debates on the issues of the Lisbon Treaty.

In addition to Irish perspectives, it would be good to discuss the perspectives of other countries and cultures.... after all Ireland is not homogenous, there are many cultures and peoples living here.

Any thoughts?

djpbarry

worldrepublic wrote: »

There has been a lot of emphasis, from an Irish perspective, on how the Lisbon Treaty will enable women to have a choice with respect to the products of conception.

There has? News to me.

worldrepublic

Here a recent article summarizing the main concerns about changes effected by Lisbon Treaty:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_6900000/newsid_6901300/6901353.stm

Some sections relevant to the matter of Gay rights:

The Irish government agreed in December 2008 to hold the new vote by November 2009, in return for a set of EU "legal guarantees" aimed at addressing various concerns raised by voters. The EU pledges not to impose rules on Ireland concerning taxation, "family" issues - such as abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage - and the traditional Irish state neutrality.

Poland is also due to sign up to the guarantees on the Charter of Fundamental Rights negotiated by the UK. During the treaty negotiations, Polish leaders voiced concern that the charter could contradict Polish law in moral and family matters.

Does the Charter of Fundamental Rights feature in the new treaty?
No. There is a reference to it, making it legally binding, but the full text does not appear, even in an annex.

...................................

tlev

Ireland should have things anyway. Its silly not to, I mean, if people want to get an abortion they will go to England, likewise with marriage, if they want to commit suicide they will go Switzerland. It would be easier if this stuff was all accepted.

worldrepublic

tlev wrote: »

Ireland should have things anyway. Its silly not to, I mean, if people want to get an abortion they will go to England, likewise with marriage, if they want to commit suicide they will go Switzerland. It would be easier if this stuff was all accepted.

Thanks for your points, but when you say "likewise with marriage", the point here is that going outside of Ireland for gay marriage is pointless because it won't be legally effective in Ireland (i.e. where the couple in question reside).

Also, "it would be easier if this stuff was all accepted" .... that's not really sufficient in the way of social attitudes.

Rather, the point, within a European context, is to learn to embrace that which is different.

tlev

Don't get me wrong I didnt mean it in any negative sense . I don't know about embracing because a lot of people are somewhat close minded towards that which is different but even acceptance of another's choices would be a step in the right direction.

FutureTaoiseach

A a gay man I see no evidence that Lisbon is necessary for the furtherance of gay rights. Member states can legislate for them domestically. In any case, it would be a mistake to assume that issues like gay marriage are No.1 for gay voters. They aren't for me. We don't need the Charter. The advantage of the status-quo from an Irish perspective is that we can amend our own Constitution to address this issue. If we wanted to expand gay rights under the Charter, we would need all member states to agree, and then to ratify such amendments. Which is better?

wylo

tlev wrote: »

Ireland should have things anyway. Its silly not to, I mean, if people want to get an abortion they will go to England, likewise with marriage, if they want to commit suicide they will go Switzerland. It would be easier if this stuff was all accepted.

So do you think we should all be allowed smoke weed because you can in holland?

ei.sdraob

wylo wrote: »

So do you think we should all be allowed smoke weed because you can in holland?

i believe there was thread on the subject

beside raising money in taxes, hitting the drug market, you will also make people more mellowed out

not to mention think of all the great debates we could be missing out on boards

tlev

wylo wrote: »

So do you think we should all be allowed smoke weed because you can in holland?

I don't smoke at all but sure why not. Alcohol, normal tobacco and fastfood are all greater problems in society than weed and people consume them in vast amounts so I don't think weed would change us all that much.

worldrepublic

tlev wrote: »

I don't smoke at all but sure why not. Alcohol, normal tobacco and fastfood are all greater problems in society than weed and people consume them in vast amounts so I don't think weed would change us all that much.

I really have to disagree here. Two of the biggest problems facing Europe are the "War on Terror" (WOT) and the "War on Drugs" (WOD). Ireland will not be brought into line with Holland, rather Holland will be brought into line with Europe. These are the facts and WOT/WOD deniers, Lisbon no-voters, and conspiracy nuts are not helping one bit. Zero tolerance is necessary.

worldrepublic

and quite obviously fastfoods are approved by the international/transnational food regulatory bodies, or they would be so heavily marketed. People must trust in approved foods and stop questioning the system, which is part and parcel of the govermental and corporate structure designed to bring stability and harmonization to the world. So called "health food" advocates/nuts are the insidious problem makers

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

and quite obviously fastfoods are approved by the international/transnational food regulatory bodies, or they would be so heavily marketed. People must trust in approved foods and stop questioning the system, which is part and parcel of the govermental and corporate structure designed to bring stability and harmonization to the world. So called "health food" advocates/nuts are the insidious problem makers

Ireland will not be brought in line with Holland ever. Yes I know that, I was merely stating that I wouldn't be against the legalisation of cannabis. Ireland is very conservative and I was making the point that these things should be in place not that they will.

And yes fastfoods are approved but so is alcohol and cigarettes but just because they are approved doesn't make them good. I'm not saying they should be banned only that there are things out there that cause more damage than cannabis. There is a war on drugs only because they are illegal, make them legal and you have sorted your problem out. I think people who take drugs are stupid but that is there life not mine.

Why should I trust anything? I don't eat ANY prepared foods as who knows what is put in them. There is a massive obesity problem in the world which has been caused by misinformation and again uneducation with regards to carbohydrates. Cheap foods shovelled into the mouths of the masses, trust eh? Again we are going off topic but I had to state my arguement.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The advantage of the status-quo from an Irish perspective is that we can amend our own Constitution to address this issue. If we wanted to expand gay rights under the Charter, we would need all member states to agree, and then to ratify such amendments. Which is better?

That's a subtle logical fallacy, but it's a logical fallacy nonetheless.

Your argument is predicated on the premise that, should we ratify the Charter (via Lisbon), that would preclude us from amending our Constitution to expand gay rights. That premise is false.

worldrepublic

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a subtle logical fallacy, but it's a logical fallacy nonetheless.

Your argument is predicated on the premise that, should we ratify the Charter (via Lisbon), that would preclude us from amending our Constitution to expand gay rights. That premise is false.

As mainstream scientists are fond of telling us, Logic is merely a means of structuring language. However, either side of an argument can correctly structure language so as to describe just about anything.
That is why logic is integral to theology and philosophy, but is treated with a lot of suspicion in the laboratory.



People need to vote for Lisbon as it will simplify and streamline the various debates occurring internally to each separate country. The Lisbon Treaty gives the Euro Charter legal standing. If the Euro Constitution overrides the Irish constitution, then there is no ongoing debate. In fact, the debate is already over: women have a choice with respect to the products of conception and gay marriage and adoption rights have been predetermined from the wider European perspective. Voting yes to Lisbon will enable a quantum leap with respect to positive social and cultural diversification. So you see, Lisbon cannot be anything but positive and empowering.

philologos

worldrepublic wrote: »

Now that we all live in a more diversified culture that promotes variety and choice, what are the thoughts on true equality for Gay Irish citizens? Marriage and adoption rights, for everyone, including lesbians, gay men and transgendered people will be the first stepping stones. I think that while the Lisbon treaty is a complex document with, inevitable, a down-side, it is bound up with the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is promoted within the gay community. Some countries, for example Poland, are trying to be selective regarding treatments of the charter, in the context of their parliamentary debates on the issues of the Lisbon Treaty.

Marriage and adoption for LGBT couples are probably unconstitutional. Issues that change such an important part of Irish life such as the family should be put to a democratic vote. Judicial activism is anti-democratic. Unelected officials deciding about key areas of policy isn't something that goes down well with me.

We need to discuss these areas more fully in Ireland before they can come into light. We could also potentially consider future changes in civil partnership legislation instead of going down the road of marriage.

worldrepublic

Jakkass wrote: »

Marriage and adoption for LGBT couples are probably unconstitutional. Issues that change such an important part of Irish life such as the family should be put to a democratic vote. Judicial activism is anti-democratic. Unelected officials deciding about key areas of policy isn't something that goes down well with me.

We need to discuss these areas more fully in Ireland before they can come into light. We could also potentially consider future changes in civil partnership legislation instead of going down the road of marriage.

Did you watch the Pride march through Dublin yesterday on RTE? Were you actually there? Various spokespeople said we do not need to think in terms of obstructive stepping stones. We need to make a quantum leap on all the issues -Lisbon is therefore the way forward and will bring hope and change to Europe.

Nothing less than changing the face of Irish culture in the terms of diversity and positivity, hope and change, is acceptable. There is actually no decision process -we are collectively moving forward and beyond that now. Voting yes or no is irrelevant -change is coming en mass. It would however be more pleasant for everyone if we voice a positive opinion this time around.

philologos

worldrepublic wrote: »

Did you watch the Pride march through Dublin yesterday on RTE? Were you actually there? Various spokespeople said we do not need to think in terms of obstructive stepping stones. We need to make a quantum leap on all the issues -Lisbon is therefore the way forward and will bring hope and change to Europe.

I didn't watch this march, but I don't see this as evidence that we need to discuss about this together as a society first. People disagree with you on this issue, and they need to also have their say and their contribution as to why they oppose gay marriage.

worldrepublic wrote: »

Nothing less than changing the face of Irish culture in the terms of diversity and positivity, hope and change, is acceptable. There is actually no decision process -we are collectively moving forward and beyond that now. Voting yes or no is irrelevant -change is coming en mass. It would however be more pleasant for everyone if we voice a positive opinion this time around.

There is a decision making process involved in changing how we do family, and changing how relationships are structured in Ireland. Not everyone views "moving foward" in the same way as you do, that's why we need to consult together about this. Not everyone views a "positive opinion" in the same way you do.

This is a forum, not a podium. People will disagree with you, and they have every right do so. I see no reason why we cannot develop civil partnerships as being a distinct relationship structure from marriage. Some homosexuals actually see this as preferrable.

As for the Lisbon Treaty, what sections of it refer to gay marriage? I voted yes the last time.

worldrepublic

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't watch this march, but I don't see this as evidence that we need to discuss about this together as a society first. People disagree with you on this issue, and they need to also have their say and their contribution as to why they oppose gay marriage.



There is a decision making process involved in changing how we do family, and changing how relationships are structured in Ireland. Not everyone views "moving foward" in the same way as you do, that's why we need to consult together about this. Not everyone views a "positive opinion" in the same way you do.

This is a forum, not a podium. People will disagree with you, and they have every right do so. I see no reason why we cannot develop civil partnerships as being a distinct relationship structure from marriage. Some homosexuals actually see this as preferrable.

As for the Lisbon Treaty, what sections of it refer to gay marriage? I voted yes the last time.

Your phrase: "Some homosexuals actually see this as preferrable." is very offensive. The correct term is "homosexual persons".

oscarBravo

worldrepublic, the next time you ask someone to leave a discussion on this forum, you'll be leaving the forum.

philologos

worldrepublic wrote: »

Your phrase: "Some homosexuals actually see this as preferrable." is very offensive. The correct term is "homosexual persons".

I'd prefer it if you would deal with my points rather than with elements of my language. I don't see what possibly is wrong with the term "homosexuals". Plural of homosexual.

I'd be interested to see if someone could clear up the Lisbon Treaty and it's relationship to gay marriage. I didn't think that it had any impact on such issues.

Edit:

The Irish government agreed in December 2008 to hold the new vote by November 2009, in return for a set of EU "legal guarantees" aimed at addressing various concerns raised by voters. The EU pledges not to impose rules on Ireland concerning taxation, "family" issues - such as abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage - and the traditional Irish state neutrality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6901353.stm

Does this mean the Lisbon Treaty can impose rules on abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage in other nations?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Jakkass wrote: »

Does this mean the Lisbon Treaty can impose rules on abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage in other nations?

No. The guarantees guarantee that the Lisbon treaty doesn't do things that aren't in the Lisbon treaty.

worldrepublic

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

No. The guarantees guarantee that the Lisbon treaty doesn't do things that aren't in the Lisbon treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty legally supports the European Charter, which can bring us lot's of new rights, like gay rights and rights for women to choose. This is all positive going forward.

The matter of the "guarantees" is irrelevant in this context, as the guarantees are not legal guarantees, but simply take the form of positive rhetoric -it is important for women and gay men to understand that the Lisbon Treaty does effect legal change with regard to gay rights and positive choice for women. This is a substantive basis for voting yes.

PopeBuckfastXVI

worldrepublic wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty legally supports the European Charter, which can bring us lot's of new rights, like gay rights and rights for women to choose. This is all positive going forward.

The matter of the "guarantees" is irrelevant in this context, as the guarantees are not legal guarantees, but simply take the form of positive rhetoric -it is important for women and gay men to understand that the Lisbon Treaty does effect legal change with regard to gay rights and positive choice for women. This is a substantive basis for voting yes.

You are almost entirely incorrect.

The guarantees take the form of a legally binding international agreement, lodged with the UN, and have the exact same authority as the Lisbon treaty will have, or, for instance, the Belfast Agreement has.

The Charter only applies to EU legislation, and national implementation of EU legislation, not to purely national legislation.

philologos

worldrepublic wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty legally supports the European Charter, which can bring us lot's of new rights, like gay rights and rights for women to choose. This is all positive going forward.

Having just read the European Charter, it says absolutely nothing concerning gay marriage or abortion.

worldrepublic wrote: »

The matter of the "guarantees" is irrelevant in this context, as the guarantees are not legal guarantees, but simply take the form of positive rhetoric -it is important for women and gay men to understand that the Lisbon Treaty does effect legal change with regard to gay rights and positive choice for women. This is a substantive basis for voting yes.

The guarantees are legal guarantees I thought. Are the Government lying to us?

If by positive choice for women you mean the forced deaths of the unborn, I cannot be in agreement with this.

Scofflaw

worldrepublic wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty legally supports the European Charter, which can bring us lot's of new rights, like gay rights and rights for women to choose. This is all positive going forward.

The matter of the "guarantees" is irrelevant in this context, as the guarantees are not legal guarantees, but simply take the form of positive rhetoric -it is important for women and gay men to understand that the Lisbon Treaty does effect legal change with regard to gay rights and positive choice for women. This is a substantive basis for voting yes.

The Charter doesn't contain "rights for women to choose", and the guarantees are legally binding international agreements.

correctively,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a subtle logical fallacy, but it's a logical fallacy nonetheless.

Your argument is predicated on the premise that, should we ratify the Charter (via Lisbon), that would preclude us from amending our Constitution to expand gay rights. That premise is false.

No. Rather it is based on a worldview that says the appropriate place for dealing with the codification of human rights issues such as these is in the national sphere rather than the European sphere. But having said that, we are not to know how a possible conflict of competing rights in a court case with respect to the Charter would end up in terms of relative rights of persons in different categories to whom rights are apportioned by the Charter. I am merely hypothesising on that point, in general terms.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No. Rather it is based on a worldview that says the appropriate place for dealing with the codification of human rights issues such as these is in the national sphere rather than the European sphere.

That's a view that's completely inconsistent with your claim to be pro-EU. You, like many others who claim to be pro-EU but anti-Lisbon, are actually pro-a-hypothetical-EU-you'd-like-to-see-but-doesn't-exist.

But having said that, we are not to know how a possible conflict of competing rights in a court case with respect to the Charter would end up in terms of relative rights of persons in different categories to whom rights are apportioned by the Charter. I am merely hypothesising on that point, in general terms.

I'm having trouble accepting "it's just barely possible that in some hypothetical situation in the future an aspect of this treaty might just possibly cause an as yet unforeseen problem" as a compelling reason to vote against Lisbon.

If I approached my life in that way, I'd never get out of bed.

PopeBuckfastXVI

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a view that's completely inconsistent with your claim to be pro-EU. You, like many others who claim to be pro-EU but anti-Lisbon, are actually pro-a-hypothetical-EU-you'd-like-to-see-but-doesn't-exist. I'm having trouble accepting "it's just barely possible that in some hypothetical situation in the future an aspect of this treaty might just possibly cause an as yet unforeseen problem" as a compelling reason to vote against Lisbon.

If I approached my life in that way, I'd never get out of bed.

Well you made that post even though it's just barely possible that in some hypothetical situation in the future an aspect of your post might just possibly be understood and accepted as true by the poster you're addressing...

worldrepublic

The best laid plans...

Mario007

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i believe there was thread on the subject

beside raising money in taxes, hitting the drug market, you will also make people more mellowed out

not to mention think of all the great debates we could be missing out on boards

in czech republic the economists were looking at legalising drugs for a better tax intake, but figured out they'd only get about 1 million euro more. this is due to the fact that drugs decrease productivity and smoking marrihuana(that was the main drug contemplated) would decrease sales for alcohol(according to the statistics) so you'd pretty much balance out the pros and cons...