Bishops want free vote on civil partnership

DubArk

“The bishops say the Bill seeks to undermine the constitutional protection of the family.”

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0617/marriage.html


This Church seems to be suffering form amnesia again and think we’ve all forgotten the Ryan report!

http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/ExecSummary.php



So they gathered and decided, in the name of their imaginary friend, to be the guardians of the family unit here in Ireland!

Yeah like they’d know anything about the family unit….
They need to firmly take their heads out of their arses and get real!
This is a Republic and it’s about time this Church learned its place. :mad:

wonderfulname

Ugh why do people only listen to the extremists in this country..

Finding this bit mildly annoying;

the Minister anticipated a possible delay until the autumn in the measure becoming law

Which really translates to "Minister feels passing bills which may cause any form of controversy a threat to his job at the minute."

And yes the church really does need to learn its place but considering religious "freedoms" hold greater importance in the constitution then same sex couples I think they know very well where their place is and are using it to full advantage (And before someone posts about the necessity of religious freedom, freedom to follow your own religion is not the same as freedom to incite hatred or influence the lives of others, this is not the case in Ireland).

Wonder how bishops would feel about a true free vote i.e. a referendum..

EDIT: Addition of said bishops new fun flier, I must have been out of it as a kid I could have sworn I remember people telling me Jesus is all about love and understanding, this is horrifically well done BTW: http://www.catholicbishops.ie/images/stories/features/Marriage_Matters/why_marriage_matters_eng.pdf

Canard

Oh my god.
Not every child has a mother and father anyway.

If some of the world legalised it already, yes, Ireland allowing gay marriage will certainly do so much more damage to the poor children. In fact, why would the children care?

Blood boils, the cheek of them.

And divorce deprives children of the right to a mother and father too, in a way, and undermines marriage. That's legal?

wonderfulname

Patchy~ wrote: »

Not every child has a mother and father anyway.

This is very true, and all their anti gay parents statistics have been horrendously insulting to single parents, but considering adoption rights are conveniently missing from the bill the devouts have finally hushed up a little on the whole bad for the kids theme, although they did manage to squeeze in a lovely little reference to "the even greater evil which would be the adoption of children by same sex couples".

Once we get our foot in the door eh? I can't believe they copped our dastardly scheme!

Barna77

Reminds me of the leaglisation of same sex marriage in Spain back in 2004. Bishops, priests, nuns, and conservative political parties or groups marched on the streets of Madrid shouting and forecasting the end of the family "as it is". Meh...

baby and crumble

Oooh, how my blood boils!

Annasopra

Rumours that Coir are going to protest against CP Bill at Dublin Pride as well

http://www.mamanpoulet.com/demonstration-against-dublin-pride-parade-planned/

MicraBoy

John Gormley has called on the bishops to stay out of politics. Well that's progress I suppose. A few years ago a politician would never have said that.

Dr. Baltar

I cannot understand this bull about same sex marriage being the destroyer of the traditional family. How on Earth are the existence of alternative families going to remove traditional families from the country?

Furthermore, there are same-sex families in the country NOW. The people who are raising children have no right to continue being the child's "parent" if something happens to the biological parent.
What argument can possibly be used to say that giving these kids and indeed the people who raised them some rights is a bad thing?

Nevyn

By changing the defination of what is a family they threathen the traditional defination of what is a family by diluting and corrupting it. The defination of the family needs to up up dated and family law acordingly and the rights of children.

How Strange

I wonder do they regard clerical sex abuse as a danger to the family as well?

Honestly, my blood boils at the sheer audacity and hypocrisy of that institution trying to interfere with a much needed even if still inadequate piece of legislation for modern Irish society. They have probably collectively caused the most damage to Irish society and Irish families over the last 80 years.

PeterIanStaker

I think the LGBT community (and I'm a straight guy, I've a lot of gay friends) should turn their backs on the RCC.

The RCC is corrupt beyond any redemption. It has no right to dictate to any man or woman what they should or should not do in the bedroom. It has had its skeletal fingers around this country's throat for centuries and fails to realise its power is over.

Would it be fair to say that the older generation believes homosexuality is wrong simply because the RCC has told them so?

The Coir shower can f**k off for themselves too.

my 2 cents.

moceri

TO CHRISTY JONES:

In what respect does CP pose a threat to Marriage (as defined in the constitution)? People have a right to live outside the oppressive shadow of Religion and to enjoy all the rights of citizenship irrespective of belief and faith.

Why should REGISTRARS receive an exemption from performing CP's?
If they haven't got the Stomach for such an 'abomination' then they should change career.

People who fall outside "Conventional Marriage" pay taxes and have a right to democracy. I am sick of having other Religions' Moral Values force-fed to me.

If Christy Jones wants to establish A PAPAL state, he should buy a remote island somehere and take his like minded cohorts with him.

If you believe marriage is so vital, why don't you allow priests marry?

anotherlostie

If Coir do protest at Pride, I hope it doesn't result in ugly scenes with inebriated marchers attacking them, physically or verbally, because that is EXACTLY what they want to achieve and see in the media the next day instead of people enjoying themselves. Ignore them or make out in their face for a few minutes!

CSaber

I was amused listening to the Bishop on Morning Ireland this morning where he compared this bill to that of the divorce referendum, which was responsible for more marriages breaking up and more people living together.

So a bill designed for people who want to spend the rest of their lives together in a formal way is going to lead to less marriages, and more non-married people living together?!

Surely civil partnerships reinforce the idea of a family unit, even if it is not the Catholic ideal?

Chuchoter

That could be really good! I we got the whole country to vote on CP, they might say no! And then we could get back to what we were doing about marriage. I simply do not understand how the RCC are able to have any impact on anything. Like why do the government give a toss what they think?

wonderfulname

moceri wrote: »

Why should REGISTRARS receive an exemption from performing CP's?

You cant force acceptance, it only creates a backlash. And saying people should quit their jobs because they disagree with a change they had no hand in making is ridiculous. I do agree exemption is a bad idea, registry offices should just put the registrars who have no problem with it on those shifts instead of asking people to sign up to a blacklist, after all I wouldn't like such an important day to be presided over by someone who obviously had a problem with it, would you?

Or I could just be nuts.

moceri wrote: »

In what respect does CP pose a threat to Marriage (as defined in the constitution)?

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

Is this the drivel your referring to? You'll find it in the same article as this;

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.

And quite a substantial bit on from this;

The President shall hold office for seven years from the date upon which he enters upon his office

From which we can argue Mary McAleese' holding of the office of President is unconstitutional.

I think we can safely say a constitutional overhaul is in order then..

Luckily it does actually do its job with regards to "People hav[ing] a right to live outside the oppressive shadow of Religion and to enjoy all the rights of citizenship irrespective of belief and faith."

Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

This is of course as

The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

Except it doesn't

The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

moceri wrote: »

If you believe marriage is so vital, why don't you allow priests marry?

Priests and bishops had political power and vast amounts of land. When they died, the land might go to church or the man's children/wife, naturally the church being the church wanted the land so along came mandatory celibacy in 1139, money is wayy more important than beliefs, hey, who wants to go in on a bribe?

Apologies I was just really drawn to those questions!

Annasopra

crayolastereo wrote: »

That could be really good! I we got the whole country to vote on CP, they might say no! And then we could get back to what we were doing about marriage.

That's not a good idea - Our opponents would claim that a referendum had been won because of them and then the campaign for marriage would be strongly damaged. You should also be aware that the campaigns for marriage in this country began long after campaigns for partnership rights

Annasopra

wonderfulname wrote: »

You cant force acceptance, it only creates a backlash. And saying people should quit their jobs because they disagree with a change they had no hand in making is ridiculous.

The state is paying them to do a job and no registrar has ever claimed conscience problems in marrying divorcees or muslims so yes I think the state should say they have to do it

wonderfulname

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The state is paying them to do a job and no registrar has ever claimed conscience problems in marrying divorcees or muslims so yes I think the state should say they have to do it

Does nobody else see the concept of restraining the rights of others not just to extend you own, but to extend them in a manner you see fit slightly flawed?
Once the legislation is in place thats everyone off on the right road, like divorce or indeed simply the legalization of homosexuality, time removes much of the stigma and most of the naysayers, or at least the loud ones.
Forcing people into a situation in which they feel their own personal liberties have been trampled on by a group is a dangerous situation, listen to the racist rhetoric that has grown stronger since the beginning of the recession, or the wonderful new face of sexism that has emerged to counteract neo-feminism.
It does not even have to directly affect those in this counterculture, the fact that it may have been them is enough, e.g. people working who have developed racist tendencies.
I think its very narrow minded to think that this is simply a matter of state employees, or to point out that they didn't have a problem with another group, does anyone else see the bigger picture? Who cares if one or two people stick to some ridged viewpoint they probably never considered before now? Its a lot better than those people influencing others with their sob stories about how those evil gays made them quit their job.


On a lighter note glad to see the reactions to the Bishops statement in todays papers, only that David Quinn ejit appears to have their back and my granny wouldn't even listen to him.

spurious

The UN definition of family needs to be put in the Constitution.

"Any combination of two or more persons who are bound together by ties of mutual consent, birth and / or adoption or placement and who, together, assume responsibility for, inter alia, the care and maintenance of group members, the addition of new members through procreation or adoption, the socialisation of children and the social control of members."

All the religious mumbo jumbo needs to be removed and Section 37 of the Employment 'Equality' Act needs to be shafted too.

Annasopra

spurious wrote: »

The UN definition of family needs to be put in the Constitution.

"Any combination of two or more persons who are bound together by ties of mutual consent, birth and / or adoption or placement and who, together, assume responsibility for, inter alia, the care and maintenance of group members, the addition of new members through procreation or adoption, the socialisation of children and the social control of members."

Agreed BUT in 2005 and 2006 many groups argued that and it was rejected http://www.constitution.ie/reports/10th-Report-Family.pdf

- The pace of political change in this country is painfully slow that I think that might happen in about 20 years

Coeurdepirate

Perfectly logical. After all, gay marriage affects children in ways that not even brutal rape does.

Annasopra

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

Perfectly logical. After all, gay marriage affects children in ways that not even brutal rape does.

what?

Iwasfrozen

The Catholic church has as much right to voice their opinions as any other interest group in the country. Including dare I say the increasingly powerful LGBT interest group. Without which we wouldn't be seeing any civil partnership bill.

For a people who were and sometimes still are regularly oppressed you certainly know how to lay the smack down.

DubArk

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Catholic church has as much right to voice their opinions as any other interest group in the country. Including dare I say the increasingly powerful LGBT interest group. Without which we wouldn't be seeing any civil partnership bill.

For a people who were and sometimes still are regularly oppressed you certainly know how to lay the smack down.

For a people........?? What are we a tribe? LOL


Stop talking out of your arse! The catholic church did and they were told to keep the feck out, so where’s the problem with that?

This is a Republic so what has the catholic church got to do with Civil law in this country. If you’re a signed up member to their imaginary friends church, then they get a say as far as there rules in there club but NOT the states legalities.

I’m not the slightest bit interested in what the catholic church thinks about anything to do with Civil laws.

CSaber

I do believe the Catholic Church has the right to say what they want but within reason. They are an organisation which can have it's own rules and regulations. People can freely join that organization and choose to live by its rules.

But this is not a religious matter. It is a societal matter. As such, the nation decides what is and what is not allowed for everybody in legislative matters. The nation can choose to adopt civil partnerships and they must then be recognized by the organs of the state. The Catholic church does not have to recognize if it so chooses, but that only applies to Church institutions.

Put it another way. Dell and Intel make up the largest percentage of our economy. How would we feel if they dictated to the state what laws could and could not be enacted, and how we were defined as a society?

Myself, I was baptised a Catholic but now I consider myself an atheist. I accept the Catholic Church can say and do what it likes within the limits of its own organization but I choose to disregard it. That is my choice and would not like for them to dictate to me, through the state, how to live my life.

Yes LGBT groups were outspoken and vocal to get this bill drawn up but in no way does this bill discriminate against anyone. If it did, I would object to the LGBT groups then.

Iwasfrozen

DubArk wrote: »

For a people........?? What are we a tribe? LOL


Stop talking out of your arse! The catholic church did and they were told to keep the feck out, so where’s the problem with that?

This is a Republic so what has the catholic church got to do with Civil law in this country. If you’re a signed up member to their imaginary friends church, then they get a say as far as there rules in there club but NOT the states legalities.

I’m not the slightest bit interested in what the catholic church thinks about anything to do with Civil laws.

The church is an interest group just like every other interest group in the country. As representatives of the church, Bishops have a right to lobby the government. To deny them that is a breach of freedom of speech.

wonderfulname

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The church is an interest group just like every other interest group in the country. As representatives of the church, Bishops have a right to lobby the government. To deny them that is a breach of freedom of speech.

This is very true, but they also have constitutional backing in the form of the extracts I quoted above, of course I have yet to see the Muslims, Hindus or indeed the majority of the many Protestant sectors of Christianity play the constitution in this manner, but freedom of religion is something which gives the church the ability to punch far above the weight of most lobby groups, and they really shouldn't be allowed play it in such a manner.
The Catholic church also use the census figures to back up their arguments, claiming they are speaking for the vast majority of the country, of course we know this to be untrue as people from a catholic upbringing do not necessarily hold extremist catholic views.

These two facts, along with our country's wonderful catholic heritage make the church's power far greater than that of any lobby group, and far greater than it should be.

Rev Hellfire

I must say I find this all very interesting. On one hand people are saying that of course groups have a right to lobby, but on the other hand they say the church should stay out of it. Which is it?

I'm curious as to what objections people would have against a free vote, other than the risk (remote I believe) that it would go against it.

wonderfulname

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm curious as to what objections people would have against a free vote, other than the risk (remote I believe) that it would go against it.

I don't think theres an objection here to a free vote, nor do I think a free vote would make much of a difference. It seems the Bishops main aim was to attempt to use peoples ignorance of the specifics as to how legislation is passed through the Dail to create a bit of a stir, fortunately they underestimated people and failed.

The objection here is simply to the bishops sticking their oar in