"Plan to grant legal rights to cohabiting couples criticised"

iptba

Plan to grant legal rights to cohabiting couples criticised
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0323/1224266876408.html

CARL O'BRIEN Chief Reporter

THE GOVERNMENT has been urged to scrap legislation that will introduce legal rights for unmarried couples who separate because it will provide a “bonanza” for lawyers as couples look to secure a share of each other’s wealth.

[..]

However, Ruth Deech, professor of law at London’s Gresham College, said the Irish law was set to be a “windfall for lawyers but for no one else except the gold-digger”. She said it was wrong to impose the penalties of a “failed marriage” on couples who may be trying out their relationship before marrying.

(didn't copy more for copyright reasons)

The way I have generally heard this legislation described is that it gives people rights. But as I heard it said it said before, if you give someone a right, one is taking away a right from somebody else (in this case, a sort of freedom). Or put another way, some people are going to end up with extra responsibilities.

Is what is proposed any different from "palimony"?

metrovelvet

I can see why they would want to do something like this for gay couples. However I think the solution there would be to let gay couples marry.

I do think if cohabitating couples want the same rights as married people, well the option there is to get married. I can see how a bill that gives cohabitating couples the same rights as married ones, can screw people up in terms of inheritance and children from outside that relationship, next of kin rights, and perhaps also rights in life or death situations in hospitals. People like to play house for a while before they decide to marry and plunge into all those responsibilities and a bill which eliminates any difference between marriage and cohabitation will take that leeway away.

And of course palimony is another risk factor there.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Seems a bit mad alright if the rights apply automatically.

Sure let couples apply for a civil partnership if they want marriage lite but seems silly to just give it automatically,

I mean is a couple even legally definitive? What if two guys share a flat but aren't a couple?

metrovelvet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Seems a bit mad alright if the rights apply automatically.

Sure let couples apply for a civil partnership if they want marriage lite but seems silly to just give it automatically,

I mean is a couple even legally definitive? What if two guys share a flat but aren't a couple?

Ah well its a great opportunity to make even more money for the lawyers and clog up the courts even further.

jammygit

The choice to co-habit is one which specifically excludes the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage - and the legal ties associated with that arrangement.

Our society allows for something called 'negative freedom'. That is, you are free as an individual to opt out of certain choices. Legislating for co-habitation reduces this freedom and creates a market for legal services. It imposes, on those who choose to co-habit, a burden of legal responsibility that they did not choose through marriage.

Pherekydes

What about couples who are not free to marry?

As an example, I was separated from my ex-wife in 1989, but cohabited with a different partner until December, when we brought the cosy little arrangement to an end. During that time, I was legally married to my ex-wife until 2008, when our divorce became absolute. Should such couples not have rights as couples in the eyes of the law? I'd imagine there are a lot of cohabiting couples who are not free to marry.

metrovelvet

Pherekydes wrote: »

What about couples who are not free to marry?

As an example, I was separated from my ex-wife in 1989, but cohabited with a different partner until December, when we brought the cosy little arrangement to an end. During that time, I was legally married to my ex-wife until 2008, when our divorce became absolute. Should such couples not have rights as couples in the eyes of the law? I'd imagine there are a lot of cohabiting couples who are not free to marry.

Are you arguing for bigamy?

If you are married already, then no you cannot get married.

Pherekydes

metrovelvet wrote: »

Are you arguing for bigamy?

This isn't about marriage, it's about rights.

A married man has the right to put his name on his child's birth cert; the child has automatic rights of succession. Should children from different relationships have different rights? Should my children from my first relationship have more rights than the children from my second relationship?

Wouldn't such a difference be discriminatory?

metrovelvet

Pherekydes wrote: »

This isn't about marriage, it's about rights.

A married man has the right to put his name on his child's birth cert; the child has automatic rights of succession. Should children from different relationships have different rights? Should my children from my first relationship have more rights than the children from my second relationship?

Wouldn't such a difference be discriminatory?

That has nothing to do with this but with guardianship. Your child would have the same rights as your legitimate children would.

THe children born in wedlock do not have any different rights of succession. Your land, your money, your whatevers will go to your wife or if cohabitating couples get the same rights, will go to your girlfriend.

Before starting a second family you should get a divorce first.

Pherekydes

metrovelvet wrote: »

That has nothing to do with this but with guardianship. Your child would have the same rights as your legitimate children would.

They don't have the automatic right to have their father's name on their birth certs. Ergo, their father must be appointed guardian by the court. So a clear case of discrimination against children born out of wedlock.

metrovelvet wrote: »

THe children born in wedlock do not have any different rights of succession. Your land, your money, your whatevers will go to your wife or if cohabitating couples get the same rights, will go to your girlfriend.

Isn't this the nub of the issue?

metrovelvet wrote: »

Before starting a second family you should get a divorce first.

I have two children who were born before divorce was legalised in Ireland. At the time, I didn't even think divorce would win. Maybe I should have held off indefinitely?

Maybe couples should simply not get involved in subsequent relationships?

metrovelvet

Pherekydes wrote: »

They don't have the automatic right to have their father's name on their birth certs. Ergo, their father must be appointed guardian by the court. So a clear case of discrimination against children born out of wedlock.?

That is because paternity has to be established. Once it is they do have the right to a name on the birthcert.

Pherekydes wrote: »

I have two children who were born before divorce was legalised in Ireland. At the time, I didn't even think divorce would win. Maybe I should have held off indefinitely?

Maybe couples should simply not get involved in subsequent relationships?

Well if it were a situation where you couldnt get divorced then it would be up to you as to whether or not you wanted to start another family out of wedlock. But you cant be married to one person and then be married to another person as well. That is bigamy. The problem here is not with the cohabitation vs marriage argument but the four year seperation requirement that holds no exceptions to it.

iptba

Pherekydes wrote: »

This isn't about marriage, it's about rights.

It's also about extra responsibilities. If one lives with somebody for three years with this law, then you break up, even when there's no children, one can be hit for maintenance (like a marriage).

I’m not sure whether this gives many extra rights to fathers.

The Corinthian

Pherekydes wrote: »

As an example, I was separated from my ex-wife in 1989, but cohabited with a different partner until December, when we brought the cosy little arrangement to an end. During that time, I was legally married to my ex-wife until 2008, when our divorce became absolute.

It took you 19 years to finalize your divorce? Even taking into account that divorce did not enter the books until 1996, it seems a ridiculously long time. I've known several who went from break-up to final dissolution in only a few years.

Should such couples not have rights as couples in the eyes of the law? I'd imagine there are a lot of cohabiting couples who are not free to marry.

They do, but they also got married, and while I believe that much of the baggage that is left after a marriage ends is positively medieval, neither do I believe that once the decision to enter one has been taken, by consenting adults, should it be an easy one to shrug off just because you may want to jump into another.

Pherekydes

metrovelvet wrote: »

That is because paternity has to be established. Once it is they do have the right to a name on the birthcert.

How is paternity established? If you are married, it's automatic. If you are not married, then you go before a judge and say you are the father and that's that. There were no tests.

metrovelvet wrote: »

That is bigamy.

Seriously, why did you bring bigamy into this discussion?

The Corinthian wrote: »

It took you 19 years to finalize your divorce? Even taking into account that divorce did not enter the books until 1996, it seems a ridiculously long time. I've known several who went from break-up to final dissolution in only a few years.

Well, I made a mistake. My divorce was final in 2005. But it was only legalised in 1996, so that's only 9 years. Besides that correction, we were living together for 6 years before divorce was introduced. We didn't consider divorce because our exes weren't really on our radar. In fact, they divorced us.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I believe that once the decision to enter one has been taken, by consenting adults, should it be an easy one to shrug off just because you may want to jump into another.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Personally, I was deserted. When I met someone new I had few thoughts on marriage. I was interested in a stable home, both for myself and my children.

I'd say I'm hardly unique in both my situation and my wants and needs. My children are/were not unique, either. The law should consider every child equally.

Stheno

metrovelvet wrote: »

The problem here is not with the cohabitation vs marriage argument but the four year seperation requirement that holds no exceptions to it.

In an ironic twist one could argue that with the absurd divorce laws we have requiring the four years of living apart, the rights proposed for cohabiting couples could actually lead to quicker resolution of marital breakups.

Now that sounds weird, but imagine the scenario:

Husband and wife break up in an acrimonious manner, which involves delay tactics/refusal to cooperate/use of children as pawns to drag out an agreement, and it spends years going through the courts.

Then one of the two gets into a cohabiting relationship whilst going through the divorce/seperation, and in the interest of themselves the other party realises that with the potential rights the cohabiting partner may inherit with the passage of time, they made end up worse off and agreement is made.

Might sound a bit off the wall but technically it's a situation that could arise given how long it takes to even get a legal seperation here. With waiting lists for mediation in some parts of the country running into several months, and not to mention a further wait of months for Legal Aid if one of the parties needs it, the timeframes are not as ridiculous as one might imagine.

One would imagine that should rights for cohabiting couples be written into law, that the law would be written in such a way as to accomodate the difficulty that would arise in such a situation, but who knows?

metrovelvet

I wonder if the cohabitation bill proclaiming equal status includes a four year dissolution clause.

metrovelvet

nouggatti wrote: »

In an ironic twist one could argue that with the absurd divorce laws we have requiring the four years of living apart, the rights proposed for cohabiting couples could actually lead to quicker resolution of marital breakups.

Now that sounds weird, but imagine the scenario:

Husband and wife break up in an acrimonious manner, which involves delay tactics/refusal to cooperate/use of children as pawns to drag out an agreement, and it spends years going through the courts.

Then one of the two gets into a cohabiting relationship whilst going through the divorce/seperation, and in the interest of themselves the other party realises that with the potential rights the cohabiting partner may inherit with the passage of time, agreement is made.

Might sound a bit off the wall but technically it's a situation that could arise given how long it takes to even get a legal seperation here. With waiting lists for mediation in some parts of the country running into several months, and not to mention a further wait of months for Legal Aid if one of the parties needs it, the timeframes are not as ridiculous as one might imagine.

One would imagine that should rights for cohabiting couples be written into law, that the law would be written in such a way as to accomodate the difficulty that would arise in such a situation, but who knows?

Now, imagine that the party who starts another cohabitating relationship in the midst of a four-5-6 however long separation/divorce then also dissolves the cohabitation. Rebounds are fun arent they?

Stheno

metrovelvet wrote: »

I wonder if the cohabitation bill proclaiming equal status includes a four year dissolution clause.

I don't believe so! Another arcane piece of law they will have to deal with if they grant equal rights in terms of sharing tax credits to cohabiting couples is the part of Revenue code which allows seperated/divorced couples to still be assessed jointly if they choose to, once neither has remarried.

CDfm

This is a crock trying to legislate for relationships where the couples do not want to formalise arrangements via marriage.

What kind of nuts come up with these kind of ideas. I mean wasnt wrecking the economy bad enough for them. If it aint broke dont fix it.

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

This is a crock trying to legislate for relationships where the couples do not want to formalise arrangements via marriage.

What kind of nuts come up with these kind of ideas. I mean wasnt wrecking the economy bad enough for them. If it aint broke dont fix it.

In fairness, civil partnerships for homosexual partners have been successful in several American states and several countries.

Where this bill potentially fails is in trying imo to please everyone, yet failing to take in the recognition of how our divorce/seperation laws will impact upon it.

Also it imposes the responsibility upon the couple to choose to opt out of the consequences, as opposed to offering the option to opt in to the arrangement.

CDfm

I am not against civil partnerships/ gay marriage but its voluntary and not enforced or automatic. A couple needs to take positive steps to enter into it. Thats the difference.

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

I am not against civil partnerships/ gay marriage but its voluntary and not enforced or automatic. A couple needs to take positive steps to enter into it. Thats the difference.

Precisely, this act appears to enforce the agreement, rather than allowing people to opt in, they have to opt out.

Will be interesting to see how it progresses.

iptba

My interest in this thread is the heterosexual couples angle (but of course others are free to bring up other issues as the title was perhaps not specific enough)

nouggatti wrote: »

Also it imposes the responsibility upon the couple to choose to opt out of the consequences, as opposed to offering the option to opt in to the arrangement.

Which I think in practice, most men won't bring up. So in practice, men will be left with some similar responsibilities to having been married without ever deciding to marry the person.

CDfm

is there a camaign against it ?

iptba

Just tying up a couple of points. The legislation on civil partnerships (ie homosexual committed couple who register their relationship) could have been dealt with in separate legislation to this one. This is huge on its own, affecting 100,000 (?????) couples and many more people in the future. The bit about unregistered couples seems it might be more suitable for a referendum in terms of its importance.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

Which I think in practice, most men won't bring up. So in practice, men will be left with some similar responsibilities to having been married without ever deciding to marry the person.

If left uneducated on the subject, I suspect you'd be right.

It really is a cretinous idea, simply designed to copy the UK's New Labour's nanny state policies. Monkey see, monkey do.

Another question is what happens to all those cohabiting couples at the time that any legislation comes into force? Is their time cohabiting counted retrospective to the time of the legislation or does the clock start ticking from then? What about couples who literally cannot afford to break up? If you're already living with someone, for perhaps years, how is going to sound when you suddenly suggest you might want to sign one of those opt-out agreements?

To me it really just smacks of more legislation directed to protect poor defenceless women in relationships with greedy, irresponsible men - as goes the stereotype.

Does anyone have a copy of the proposed legislation or even how likely it is going to be (wouldn't be the first time someone in the Dail proposed a dumb idea only to pull it later).

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

If left uneducated on the subject, I suspect you'd be right.

Even if they are educated on the subject, I don't see many men bringing it up - might put an end to lots of relationships (or so they would fear).

iptba

(I'm thinking of heterosexual couples)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0325/1224267012165.html

CIVIL PARTNERSHIP BILL: A LEGAL requirement for an attempt at reconciliation before granting the dissolution of a civil partnership would bring civil partnership closer to marriage and could give rise to a constitutional challenge, according to Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern.

All seems a bit odd. They seem to want to have some of the financial bits/responsibilities associated with being married but no requirement to see if it could be resolved.

An amendment that recognised the contribution either partner made to the rearing of children in the relationship could also give rise to such a challenge, he said.

If they are not going to recognise this, why put financial responsibilities on people? I can understand it with regard to maintenance payments for children (if there is not joint custody) but that's very different from the examples explicitly given where, the cut-off point is two years if there is a child, three years if there isn't i.e. they envisage payments even if the couple don't have children together.

CDfm wrote:

is there a camaign against it ?

Not that I'm aware. I've just done a few quick searches to see what I could find on yesterday's debate.
"civil partnership bill" "brendan howlin" ahern flanagan 2010
brings up various stuff past and present but (looking down it but not clicking every link) nothing much that isn't on the gay or religious angle e.g. haven't seen any bloggers. If people see stuff on the hetero angle (co-habiting couples), particularly anyone complaining, feel free to flag it (or PM me if you prefer).

The Corinthian

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-cohabiting-couples-face-a-rude-awakening-when-new-legislation-abolishes-living-in-sin-2112458.html

The bill was at committee stage in the Dail this week. Once it becomes law in the coming months any cohabiting couple that has been together for three or more years, two years if they have children, will find themselves caught in a legal web not of their own making.

I'm not sure what the legalities are of applying the law retrospectively to cohabiting couples, but if it can, now may be the time for people to visit a solicitor. Or move out.

iptba

I saw this in the MetroHerald. It's to do with marriage of course and not a final settlement.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/heir_ex_month_is_least_you_can_do_KEyDH6icW6aBrBxuGt5esN

The estranged wife of the Getty oil heir is looking to strike it rich in divorce court.

Jacqueline Getty claims she deserves to live the same opulent lifestyle she enjoyed as the wife of Gordon Peter Getty, grandson of legendary oilman J. Paul Getty.
In divorce papers filed in LA Superior Court, Jacqueline Getty said she needs to spend $314,727 a month to live like a Getty -- and that figure might be a low estimate.

Peter Getty is the son of Gordon Getty, who has an estimated worth of $2 billion and was ranked No. 158 in the latest Forbes 400 list of richest Americans.

[..]

The Gettys had no children together, but Jacqueline Getty had Gia Coppola on Jan. 1, 1987, and the oil heir has allegedly supported her.

metrovelvet

What is the process for it to become law?

iptba

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/partnership-bill-to-be-amended-48418.html

Partnership Bill to be amended

04 April 2010 By Niamh Connolly, Political Correspondent

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern is to amend the Civil Partnership Bill, to relax the obligations that cohabiting couples would face under the legislation.

The bill imposes significant legal liabilities on all couples living together for three years in respect of rights to property, maintenance payments, a share of pension entitlements or a claim on an estate. However, Ahern is expected to extend the three-year period to five years when the section of the bill dealing with cohabitation are discussed at committee stage in the Dáil.

etc

rolly1

Cdfm asked " is there a camaign against it ?"

Well in this thread somebody has produced a draft letter sent to TD's and Senators along with the justice committee outlining the undemocratic nature of the cohabitation provisions:

http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=29177

In depth legal discussion here:

http://www.politics.ie/justice/119347-civil-partnership-bill-2009-unconstititional-unfair.html

A discussion on it here also
http://www.rollercoaster.ie/boards/mc.asp?ID=325839&G=37&forumdb=1http://

And finally I have raised the issue on boards here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055682434&page=2


The draft legislation is here, section 15 deals with cohabitants:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4409/b4409d.pdf


The automatic nature of it is an affront to democracy and a major state interference into people's personal and private lives.


You can write to this guy Mr Alan Guidon at alan.guidon@oireachtas.ie (clerkof the justice committee on it) to express your views on it.

rolly1

Feature on the bill coming up now on Primetime

Boston

Bad idea tbh.

The Corinthian

Call me cynical, and even if this law covers childless couples, but the whole plan seems to me to be largely a means of shifting the cost of, in particular, lone parents allowance from the State to the father.

While child maintenance (up to €150 p.w. at district court level) is equal irrespective of marital status, it only covers the child or children, where a couple are unmarried, leaving the custodial parent (a woman in around 85% of occurrences) to either go out and work to support herself or claim LPA.

Where married, a custodial parent will also receive spousal support (up to €500 p.w. at district court level) and I suspect this would disqualify or, at the very least greatly reduce, LPA paid out by the State.

For the government to encourage single parents to work (by treating them more as job-seekers with children rather than full-time child carers) is difficult to do. Even were the unemployment levels lower, issues such as creche costs and regulation would be potentially expensive to address, and then there is the question that single parents often feel they should be stay-at-home parents - an entitlement that is even constitutionally supported.

So, someone's got to pay for them, and I suspect that a large part of this law is shifting that cost away from the government.

metrovelvet

^ Not really. It applies to childless cohabiting couples too.

CDfm

how the feck did the gay marriage legislation translate into this

i have no probs with homosexuals becoming hitched in whatever type of civil partnership they want and having all the rights and benefits of a married couple

but this legislation takes away freedoms

let gays marry and let that be the end of it

CDfm

rolly1 wrote: »

Cdfm asked " is there a camaign against it ?"

Well in this thread somebody has produced a draft letter sent to TD's and Senators along with the justice committee outlining the undemocratic nature of the cohabitation provisions:

http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=29177




You can write to this guy Mr Alan Guidon at alan.guidon@oireachtas.ie (clerkof the justice committee on it) to express your views on it.

i will send of some letters

thats practical and thanks for the link

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ Not really. It applies to childless cohabiting couples too.

I know this and even pointed this out (and the legislation even applies to same-sex couples), however with one third of children being born outside of marriage in Ireland one cannot ignore that there are many long term relationships, with children, out there that end and when they do the custodial parent becomes dependent on LPA. So I believe that at least in large part, this is what this legislation is designed to target.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

I know this and even pointed this out (and the legislation even applies to same-sex couples), however with one third of children being born outside of marriage in Ireland one cannot ignore that there are many long term relationships, with children, out there that end and when they do the custodial parent becomes dependent on LPA. So I believe that at least in large part, this is what this legislation is designed to target.

(I haven't had a chance yet to follow the links so maybe some of what I'm saying is covered in the campaign).

It would be interesting to know the thought process. Was it designed to support parents? If so, why did couples who don’t have children together get dragged into it.

The relevance of this is that perhaps that bit could be dropped with a bit of a campaign.

Stheno

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where married, a custodial parent will also receive spousal support (up to €500 p.w. at district court level) and I suspect this would disqualify or, at the very least greatly reduce, LPA paid out by the State.

Actually spousal support/maintenance applies regardless of whether or not there are children.

See: Citizens Advice

Maintenance following Separation and Divorce
Under Irish law, there is no clean break from the obligation to support one's spouse and children. A clause in a Separation Agreement stating that a spouse will not seek maintenance in the future or seek increased maintenance is unenforceable. The spouse can apply for a maintenance order and a court will consider this application, particularly if the circumstances of the parties have changed or the spouse who executed the agreement did not have legal advice at the time.

A divorced spouse can also apply to a court for a maintenance order or a variation of a maintenance order after the Divorce Decree has been granted. The only bar to an application is the remarriage of the spouse applying for the order.

So in that regard this bill is following the current model of maintenance for both partner and children.

iptba

Supposal support I think is based on recognising sacrifices that a partner might have made.

However, this law is making a distinction between marriage and co-habitants:

An amendment that recognised the contribution either partner made to the rearing of children in the relationship could also give rise to such a challenge, he said.

so I’m not sure why a person should get money in such a circumstance. If somebody decides to be a "kept woman" when there is no children involved, I think it’s quite a nice position to be in. I don’t know why you should then be entitled to more money after the relationship has ended. Or if you do, it should rather small rather than the multimillion dollar divorce settlements that are sometimes arrived at. If people want those rules for marriage, that’s one thing but this isn’t marriage.

Stheno

iptba wrote: »

Supposal support I think is based on recognising sacrifices that a partner might have made.

It's not, it's there regardless. Spousal support is completely seperate from child maintenace.

However, this law is making a distinction between marriage and co-habitants:

so I’m not sure why a person should get money in such a circumstance. If somebody decides to be a "kept woman" when there is no children involved, I think it’s quite a nice position to be in. I don’t know why you should then be entitled to more money after the relationship has ended. Or if you do, it should rather small rather than the multimillion dollar divorce settlements that are sometimes arrived at. If people want those rules for marriage, that’s one thing but this isn’t marriage.[/

But this law appears to be mimicing the seperation/divorce laws in that the relevant partner can claim for maintenance on the basis of the relationship and their contribution.

So deciding to be a kept man or woman in a relationship outside of marriage, under this law will confer the same rights.

iptba

nouggatti wrote: »

But this law appears to be mimicing the seperation/divorce laws in that the relevant partner can claim for maintenance on the basis of the relationship and their contribution.

I don’t know/can't remember/don’t understand why the contribution to raising children can’t be counted but if that contribution can’t be counted, maybe neither should other sorts of contributions (for the same reason)?

Stheno

iptba wrote: »

I don’t know/can't remember/don’t understand why the contribution to raising children can’t be counted but if that contribution can’t be counted, maybe neither should other sorts of contributions (for the same reason)?

Well you'd have contributions to mortgages, supporting a partner, differences in income and the adverse affect that will have on the divorced spouse if they are the lower earner?

So if you have one spouse earning 100k and the other earning 20k, then once the marriage breaks up the lower earning spouse can claim maintenance on the grounds that were they still married their income/access to income would be different etc.

iptba

nouggatti wrote: »

Well you'd have contributions to mortgages, supporting a partner, differences in income and the adverse affect that will have on the divorced spouse if they are the lower earner?

So if you have one spouse earning 100k and the other earning 20k, then once the marriage breaks up the lower earning spouse can claim maintenance on the grounds that were they still married their income/access to income would be different etc.

Ok

But they are saying that if they counted the contribution to raising children, that would be open to legal challenge as it is making it too much like marriage. Why would that be able to be legally challenged but being paid for other types of non-financial contributions wouldn’t be? (Where a financial contribution is a financial payment)

ETA: Ok, I decided to stop being lazy and look back. The reason they are saying is section 41 of the CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND – BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN:

The Family
Article 41
1.
1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.


2.

1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.


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.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that
i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,
ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.

nouggati wrote:

It's not, it's there regardless. Spousal support is completely seperate from child maintenace.

Just to be clear, I never said spousal support=a child maintenance payment.

CDfm

The legislative proposals are crap.

Its meant to be legislation about same sex legal partnerships and should have dealt with prenups and the like.

Instead we have a bit of social engineering going on here thats no help to anyone. A total mess.

I am pro gay civil partnership but against this legislation.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

It would be interesting to know the thought process. Was it designed to support parents? If so, why did couples who don’t have children together get dragged into it.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. To begin with, it is only a cynical suspicion on my part that this was a motivation. Secondly, while I do suspect it was a motivation, I do not think it was the sole purpose of this legislation. My own opinion (and it is only an opinion) is that it originated from the need to create a legal alternative to marriage for same-sex couples, that would not run foul of a constitutional challenge (which could well be defeated in a referendum). It then was designed to cover cohabitation couples in general and finally the automatic nature of the legislation may well have been at least partially put in place as a means of reducing social welfare costs.

So while I do think that it was a motivation behind the legislation, I doubt if it was the only one (also because the legislation is almost certainly the product of numerous committees).

Either way, I would not appreciate my parents forcing me into an arranged marriage, let alone the government.

nouggatti wrote: »

Actually spousal support/maintenance applies regardless of whether or not there are children.

I know and did actually imply this.

metrovelvet

If this passes it's a much better deal than marriage; no four year separation clause.

Does it change the tax penalties if a partner dies and the other is left with the house?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Does it change the tax penalties if a partner dies and the other is left with the house?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0408/1224267894843.html