Civil Partnership Bill to be debated in Dail Dec 3rd

Annasopra

The Civil Partnership Bill will be debated by Dail Eireann at 6:45pm on Dec 3rd



http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=13528&&CatID=60

Thursday 3 December 2009 Dáil Éireann (Oireachtas Live)

6.45pm

* Civil Partnership Bill 2009 (to adjourn at 8.45pm)
(Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform)
o Order for Second Stage
o Second Stage

Arathorn

Great, the catholic church better not kick up about this after that shameful report just published

ixoy

Is there not strong potential for us to get over-shadowed by another day of strikes? Certain party members might refuse to cross lines in a show of "solidarity" and thus lessen the debate.

Annasopra

ixoy wrote: »

Is there not strong potential for us to get over-shadowed by another day of strikes? Certain party members might refuse to cross lines in a show of "solidarity" and thus lessen the debate.

Yes that is a possibility and also the public gallery may not be open

Are you talking about Labour and Sinn Fein TDs?

If you are maybe contact them

Annasopra

Arathorn wrote: »

Great, the catholic church better not kick up about this after that shameful report just published

They're to insert a religious conscience opt out whereby registrars or providers of goods and services can refuse to provide that good or service because of their religious objections

http://www.greenparty.ie/en/news/latest_news/cuffe_welcomes_introduction_of_civil_partnership_bill
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/d5/content/support-grows-religious-freedom-amendment

You can contact TDs here to object to this

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=12684&&CatID=138

BlueLepreachaun

YAY! Seperate but equal!...fantastic...

Nebit

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

YAY! Seperate but equal!...fantastic...

wow, u moan alot:p

BlueLepreachaun

Yeh, I get a bit uppidy about being a second class citizen, its just something that grinds my gears ye know? Like traffic..

Nebit

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Yeh, I get a bit uppidy about being a second class citizen, its just something that grinds my gears ye know? Like traffic..

Lol relax dude, was only joking.
Besides this bill is a step forward, enjoy it.

mobius42

Nebit wrote: »

Lol relax dude, was only joking.
Besides this bill is a step forward, enjoy it.

True, but lets hope it's not the last step forward. There is a danger that the political establishment (who have little interest in gay people) will think that "the gays" have been handled now that this bill is passed. This bill will hopefully be soon followed by another bill granting proper equality to gay people.

Nebit

mobius42 wrote: »

True, but lets hope it's not the last step forward. There is a danger that the political establishment (who have little interest in gay people) will think that "the gays" have been handled now that this bill is passed. This bill will hopefully be soon followed by another bill granting proper equality to gay people.

i agree whole-heartedly. But in order for us to do that we need a stepping stone, i believe (i hope) that this is it.:D

BlueLepreachaun

I'll be out of this doomed trash heap of a country long before gay people ever see equality, Ireland embarrased itslef in the past with enough half assed "steps forward" that we now cringe at (condoms are legal but you need a perscription...you can terminate your pregnancy but you better do it in Wales....you can get a divorce but you have to wait 5 years...we'll leave the schools in the hands of an organized child rape syndcate desguised as a church but we promise we'll maybe have some oversight this time), you'd think we'd have learned from those mistakes and taken a few bold steps forward regarding individual freedom.
The fact that this half assed duluted and overdue bill is being introduced by a homophobic minister who represents an adminsitration that actively banned same sex partnership of any form not 2-3 years ago is espechally insulting.

What they shoudl be doing is passing a gay marraige bill and heading off any supreme court challenges from 50something catholic owlones with cobwebs in their vaginas by getting the President to send it straght to the Supreme Court and settle this question of the constutionality once and for all, and since there was no oringinal intent to restrict marriage (since gay marraige was not fathomable when the cosntutition was passed) and since marraige is not defined in the constution, I don't see any problem with them giving such a bill the green light, and then it can never be challenged again.
Then this country would be as progressive as South Africa...what a bold step forward...we can't even reach the same level of civil rights the ex-aparthied guys have...

Nebit

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

I'll be out of this doomed trash heap of a country long before gay people ever see equality, Ireland embarrased itslef in the past with enough half assed "steps forward" that we now cringe at (condoms are legal but you need a perscription...you can terminate your pregnancy but you better do it in Wales....you can get a divorce but you have to wait 5 years...we'll leave the schools in the hands of an organized child rape syndcate desguised as a church but we promise we'll maybe have some oversight this time), you'd think we'd have learned from those mistakes and taken a few bold steps forward regarding individual freedom.
The fact that this half assed duluted and overdue bill is being introduced by a homophobic minister who represents an adminsitration that actively banned same sex partnership of any form not 2-3 years ago is espechally insulting.

What they shoudl be doing is passing a gay marraige bill and heading off any supreme court challenges from 50something catholic owlones with cobwebs in their vaginas by getting the President to send it straght to the Supreme Court and settle this question of the constutionality once and for all, and since there was no oringinal intent to restrict marriage (since gay marraige was not fathomable when the cosntutition was passed) and since marraige is not defined in the constution, I don't see any problem with them giving such a bill the green light, and then it can never be challenged again.
Then this country would be as progressive as South Africa...what a bold step forward...we can't even reach the same level of civil rights the ex-aparthied guys have...

I hate to point out this but you want the government to look 'forward' and not in the past, yet you bring up issues that occurred in the past.
Don't get me wrong i agree with you that it should be approved but slandering and calling the country this that and the other will get you nowhere or anybody else for that matter.

The foundations should be set now for 'equality' to be established. To my knowledge there are very few places out there that give us full rights anyway. It's only a matter of time and the 1st accomplishment is always the hardest. It should all happen very quick now and more and more rights be issued.

Calm down and enjoy this! (:D lol i sound the rite old hippy)

BlueLepreachaun

There may be few places that give ful rights but whats wrong with Ireland, FOR ONCE being at the front of social change? Do we always have to follow others 50 years later? If places that piss all over individual freedom , like the USA and South Africa, can do it, we definitly can.

Nobody in history every worn their liberties by being calm and waiting for slow steady reforms, it just doens't work that way.
Irish social progress (pathetic and slow as its been) has, if you look back, always come TO the dail not FROM the Dail, due to extreme angry outside pressure, abortion, divorce, contraception, womens rights, all these reforms were only introduced to the dail or referendum after intense campaigns from outside.

I dont think you know your enemy here, the civil partnership bill is not seen by conservatives as a stepping stone to marraige its seen as a "shut them up" measure. "ah sure you have de civil unions what are ye complainin for", if you dont wanna take my word for it ask Dermot, the man in charge of this bill:

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/may/25/ministers-slammed-over-anti-gay-speeches/

During the debates, McGahon vigor ously protested the decriminalisation of homosexuality saying, "I regard homosexuals as being in a sad category, but I believe homosexuality to be an abnormality, some type of psycho-sexual problem that has defied explanation over the years. I do not believe that the Irish people desire this normalisation of what is clearly an abnormality. . .


"Homosexuality is a departure from normality and while homosexuals deserve our compassion they do not deserve our tolerance. That is how the man in the street thinks. I know of no homosexual who has been discriminated against. Such people have a persecution complex because they know they are different from the masses or normal society.

They endure inner torment and it is not a question of the way others view them. . . The lord provided us with sexual organs for a specific purpose.

Homosexuals are like lefthand drivers driving on the right-hand side of the road."

In response to this speech, Ahern said, "I do not often find myself in agreement with my constituency colleague, Deputy McGahon, but on this occasion I am, " before expres - sing reservations on the breakdown of the family and gay adoption. "Will we eventually see the day in this country when, as has happened in the USA, homosexuals will seek the right to adopt children? We should think seriously about this possibility, " he said.

Think about that quote and the reasoning behind it, the "ah they're going to far with all this rights stuff" outlook behind it.


You don't seriously beleive the guy who introduced a blashpemy bill gives a rats ass about gay rights and is gonna follow this up with a same sex marraige bill down the road? FG and Labour may be more socially liberal but they (esp the former) have plenty of bat**** crazy conservative voters in their base as well, FG TDs went ape **** at the notion of dropping the age of consent to 16 (as in the UK) not long ago.

(concludes rant)

Nebit

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

There may be few places that give ful rights but whats wrong with Ireland, FOR ONCE being at the front of social change? Do we always have to follow others 50 years later? If places that piss all over individual freedom , like the USA and South Africa, can do it, we definitly can.

Nobody in history every worn their liberties by being calm and waiting for slow steady reforms, it just doens't work that way.
Irish social progress (pathetic and slow as its been) has, if you look back, always come TO the dail not FROM the Dail, due to extreme angry outside pressure, abortion, divorce, contraception, womens rights, all these reforms were only introduced to the dail or referendum after intense campaigns from outside.

I dont think you know your enemy here, the civil partnership bill is not seen by conservatives as a stepping stone to marraige its seen as a "shut them up" measure. "ah sure you have de civil unions what are ye complainin for", if you dont wanna take my word for it ask Dermot, the man in charge of this bill:

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/may/25/ministers-slammed-over-anti-gay-speeches/



Think about that quote and the reasoning behind it, the "ah they're going to far with all this rights stuff" outlook behind it.


You don't seriously beleive the guy who introduced a blashpemy bill gives a rats ass about gay rights and is gonna follow this up with a same sex marraige bill down the road? FG and Labour may be more socially liberal but they (esp the former) have plenty of bat**** crazy conservative voters in their base as well, FG TDs went ape **** at the notion of dropping the age of consent to 16 (as in the UK) not long ago.

(concludes rant)

Again i agree with you for the most part. Sure i was at many of the protests. i just believe that people should stop saying oh this bill does feck all for gays because even if it starts off as a conservative method of 'keep them quiet for now' IT IS STILL A STEPPING STONE!
most social reforms have started off like this in many countries.

As soon as this bill is passed i'll be right back out there with you protesting for better rights, but for now i will enjoy the fact that our boycotting and protesting has won another battle.

Am i happy with the contents of the bill? not really, its basically a name we're getting. we have no rights as it were and the next of kin/ adoption issues are the ones i feel will in the future most effect me.
Money i couldn't give a rats arse it's these issues i wish to correct first.
However once we have the civil partnership, we will get more and more rights next of kin will certainly be addressed for legal reasons and once it becomes clear (in the governments eyes) that there can be stable relationships (via stats) then gay adoption shall be approved.

BlueLepreachaun

South Park Gay Rights Protest: Episode "Follow that Egg"

Governor: I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else?

Governor: You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as "married", you can be... butt buddies.

Governor: Instead of being "man and wife", you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed", you'll be...

Governor: ...butt buddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom", you'd be...

Governor: ...butt buddies.
Mr. Slave: We wanna be treated equally!
Governor: You *are* equal. It's just that, instead of getting engaged, you would be... butt buddies. And everyone is happy!
Woman: [from the lesbian crowd] Well, what about lesbians?
Governor: Well, like anyone cares about f**kin' dykes!

Governor: [embarrassed] Oh, God, I was sure that would work.

LookingFor

Johnnymcg wrote: »

They're to insert a religious conscience opt out whereby registrars or providers of goods and services can refuse to provide that good or service because of their religious objections

http://www.greenparty.ie/en/news/latest_news/cuffe_welcomes_introduction_of_civil_partnership_bill
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/d5/content/support-grows-religious-freedom-amendment

You can contact TDs here to object to this

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=12684&&CatID=138

Is this actually going ahead?

What's next? Pharmacists who won't sell condoms because of 'religious conscience'? A doctor who won't do a blood transfusion?

Can a civil servant exempt themselves from work on divorce due to 'religious conscience'?

Why on earth is this is being brought up now?

If you cannot execute the law because of religious views then you shouldn't have a job that requires you to execute the law. Period.

edit - The more I think about this the more ludicrously dangerous this seems to me. If this were incorporated, then Christ, dump the bill entirely. It'd be one step forward and ten steps back - not just for gay people, but for anyone who believes in seperation of 'church'/religion and state. I'd like some context though. Did unions raise this? Or was it religious institutions?

mobius42

LookingFor wrote: »

Is this actually going ahead?

Not at present. It's also unlikely to be introduced at the next stage. Apparently, it's not an issue as only civil registrars can carry out civil partnerships under the new bill. Even if a priest wanted to officiate over a civil partnership, he couldn't.

Civil registrars are state employees and have to carry out the laws of the state. There was also no objections by them to remarrying divorced people, so this issue shouldn't come up. People like photographers also cannot refuse to work at civil partnerships under existing equality legislation.

LookingFor

mobius42 wrote: »

Not at present. It's also unlikely to be introduced at the next stage. Apparently, it's not an issue as only civil registrars can carry out civil partnerships under the new bill. Even if a priest wanted to officiate over a civil partnership, he couldn't.

Civil registrars are state employees and have to carry out the laws of the state. There was also no objections by them to remarrying divorced people, so this issue shouldn't come up. People like photographers also cannot refuse to work at civil partnerships under existing equality legislation.

I'm glad to hear it's not something likely to pass. But out of curiousity, do you know anything more about the context of this proposal?

Reading that article it seemed to be a blanket thing so that for example a Parish Council wouldn't be 'forced' to offer access to the a church hall for a gay couple's civil partnership celebration. It wasn't suggested it would be a specific exemption in this case, but an exemption for anyone providing any service to couples.

The latter being the case I dunno how any politician could think it was a good idea if they thought it through. Then again, I dunno if I should be surprised that if some politicians don't think stuff like this through. I contacted the two TDs mentioned in the Irish Catholic report for clarification on how this came up and what the substance of the proposal was...awaiting a reply.

mobius42

LookingFor wrote: »

I'm glad to hear it's not something likely to pass. But out of curiousity, do you know anything more about the context of this proposal?

No, because such a proposal hasn't been clearly laid out by any politician. Various religious groups have just been lobbying for an exemption. It completely violates equality legislation, so I'd be amazed if it was introduced.

Annasopra

LookingFor wrote: »

I'm glad to hear it's not something likely to pass. But out of curiousity, do you know anything more about the context of this proposal?

It was suggested by the Iona Institute in October

Maman poulet has some details - It will probably still be proposed by Senator Ronan Mullen

http://www.mamanpoulet.com/wont-somebody-think-of-the-florists/

If you read Ionas website you might find more

BlueLepreachaun

LookingFor wrote: »

What's next? Pharmacists who won't sell condoms because of 'religious conscience'?

This is current US Federal Law, brought in under Bush, just to give you a base reading of how stupid an idea it is.

No, because such a proposal hasn't been clearly laid out by any politician. Various religious groups have just been lobbying for an exemption. It completely violates equality legislation, so I'd be amazed if it was introduced.

Mary Coughlin in her marraige bill a while back banned gay marraige specfiically, I dont' think its much of a stretch for Dermo to stick this in as a sop to social conservatives (like himself..)

In New York state there was a Same Sex Marraige bill intorduced, it did't pass , but check out this speech by a NY senator in the debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxidhcy0

She could give lessons to our TDs

Annasopra

2nd stage is scheduled to resume this Thursday

Thursday 21 January 2010 Dáil Éireann (Oireachtas Live)

10.30 a.m.

* Order of Business
* Adoption Bill 2009 (Seanad)
(Department of Health and Children)
o Second Stage (Resumed)
* Civil Partnership Bill 2009
(Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform)
o Second Stage (Resumed)

Annasopra

For anyone interested Maman Poulet will be organising a liveblog

http://www.mamanpoulet.com/civil-partnership-bill-debate-resumes-on-thursday/

catchup

This should be requires reading for all our legislators;

San Diego’s conservative republican mayor Jerry Sanders speaks out on why he supports an end to California’s ban on gay marriage.

This appeared in the HuffPo but it’s so good that I felt the need to post it in its entirety.

____________________________

I was proud to testify this week in what I believe will soon be seen as one of the defining civil rights cases of our time, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. I did so as a Republican mayor, a father, and a former police chief with over 26 years of experience on the force. But I also testified as an American who has seen the effects of discrimination – and who believes that discrimination against anyone, anywhere, is unacceptable.

My thinking on this important issue has evolved significantly in the past few years. Not long ago, I believed that civil unions were an acceptable alternative for same-sex couples. Like many people, I mistakenly thought there was no difference between a civil union and a marriage.

My eyes were opened in 2007, when I had to decide whether to support a ban on same-sex marriage in my capacity as mayor of San Diego. Through conversations with friends and supporters, I realized that my position was inconsistent with one of my core principles as a police officer and as mayor, which is that every community deserves to be treated with equal dignity and respect.

The irony is that I held this mistaken view about marriage equality even though my oldest daughter, Lisa, is a lesbian. When she was growing up, Lisa was my constant companion on weekends as I ran errands and did chores around the house. I called her my shadow. We are as close as a father and daughter can be, and when she came out to her family, my wife and I told her we loved her and only wanted her to be happy.

Running for mayor in 2005, when my city had a host of financial and legal problems, I did not believe that marriage equality was an issue for city governments to address. When I was asked, I said I supported civil unions, believing they were an acceptable compromise on a divisive issue. I frankly did not give the issue much thought.

Then two years later, the City Council passed a resolution supporting a court challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage. I had 10 days to decide whether to sign or veto the resolution.

I was advised that signing the resolution could end my political career, because I would be reversing a position I took as a candidate, and potentially alienating my Republican base. Lisa, who had worked to my campaign, told me she would support my decision because it was important for San Diego that I remained its mayor.

As late as the evening of the ninth day, I believed I would veto it.

That night, my wife and I hosted a gathering of gay and lesbian friends and neighbors in our backyard. I told them I intended to veto the resolution. Then I listened as they explained how disappointed and hurt they were that I would want to deny them a fundamental civil right, the right to marry the person you love and have that marriage recognized by the rest of society.

About 15 people spoke that night. But before the first one was finished, I shared their disappointment. It was then that I realized that all opposition to same-sex marriage, including my own opposition, was grounded in prejudice.

I knew my position was wrong, and that marriage equality was an issue I needed to address as mayor. And I knew I would sign the resolution.

The next day, I explained my position to the citizens of San Diego. The press conference became an instant hit on YouTube. As I said that day, I hope that everyone will find someone they love deeply, someone with whom they can share life’s experiences and grow old together. I cannot look anyone in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, are any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife.

Sometimes I find it hard to believe that I came so close to making the wrong decision, and to endorsing government-sanctioned discrimination. As it turns out, I was reelected to a second term the next year. My position on marriage equality definitely made it more difficult. But I know I would have regretted vetoing that resolution a lot more than losing that election.

Now, more than two years later, I have testified in federal court about my decision and the rationale behind it. I told the court that, as someone who has spent most of his lifetime in public service, I understand that when government tolerates discrimination against any class of people, it makes it easier for citizens to do the same thing.

I was proud that Lisa was in court with me, along with her wife, Meaghan, whom she married in Vermont last month. Meaghan is like another daughter to me, and she has brought great happiness into our family.

The defendants in this case — those who would deny equal rights to others — would like us to believe that they are the true victims of discrimination. They argue that their opposition to marriage equality has made them targets of violence. They’ve made this argument as their excuse for withholding documents from the public, and it is as self-serving as it is inaccurate.

From my own experience as a police officer and mayor, I can say that the overwhelming evidence is that violence is directed against gays and lesbians, not those who would deny them equality.

In my own city, there have been terrible hate crimes committed against gays and lesbians, including a savage beating just a few years ago of a young man attending the Pride Festival. The perpetrators of this type of violence are only encouraged by those who want their own prejudices to be validated through government-sanctioned discrimination. It’s like giving them permission.

History tells us that the first step toward true equality has always been equality under the law. Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is no different than denying black people the right to sit in a “whites only” section of the restaurant. The law and our own experience tell us that “separate but equal” is an oxymoron. Separate is never equal.

I’m happy that Lisa and Meaghan were able to marry — as would be anyone who knows them and sees their love and commitment to each other. But I’m also saddened to think that because some people would deny them this fundamental civil right, they had to been married 3,000 miles from their friends, co-workers and family. I hope that Perry v. Schwarzenegger changes that, and that America renounces this type of discrimination, as it has so many others.

Aard

Good article, and good poster-boy for 'liberal Republicanism'. I hope more follow.

Annasopra

Stage 2 resumes again today at 11:30 am - Live Blog http://short.ie/yk3r4r

youngblood

Ok- So forgive me total ignorance
but what happens now???

Annasopra

youngblood wrote: »

Ok- So forgive me total ignorance
but what happens now???

The Bill has passed the second stage so it now goes to 3rd stage which is committee stage

the Bill is now referred to the Select Committee on Justice, Equality and Women’s Rights for debate on amendments


See these links for an explanation of the stages

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/guide.htm

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/national-government/houses-of-the-oireachtas/legislation

Annasopra

Alex_Jones wrote: »

If you keep it up, men will be giving birth before you know it.

great idea

Aard

Caught it on the news the other night. I was pleasantly surprised at some of the reactions and comments. Sean Power I'm looking at you!