Gay Marriage

ajmurphy62

rsynnott wrote:

The Unitarians do this as well, and one of the Jewish sects.

But religion should obviously play no part in public policy, and church marriage has nothing in particular to do with state marriage.

Yes but the state has been so heavily influenced by the church in the past. I do realise not as much recently but it used to have an influence and if it backed something this big im sure the government would quickly follow suit

rsynnott

Realistically, it'll be done by the state or European courts, with the churches kicking and screaming.

ixoy

Interestingly when is civil war about to erupt in Belgium? I assume it's shortly given that the opponents of gay marriage often proclaim it will destroy the social fabric..

shay_562

David Norris is gay ?

The Pope is a Catholic? Bears crap in the woods? What's going on here?

Interesting but, nonetheless, the bigots have constantly said we can't get married due to it being prohibited by the constitution even if none of us can find this section.

This is the same constitution that says that women should stay at home and cook, yes? I think it might need updating.

But religion should obviously play no part in public policy, and church marriage has nothing in particular to do with state marriage.

Word. The church's view of marraige is man-woman, that's fine, but they shouldn't have the power to control civil unions authorised by the government that have absolutely nothing to do with them.

falteringstar

Same sex marriage is not prohibited by the constitution in any way shape or form! The constitution promises to protect the institution of marriage from attack, however, as i see it is, the constitution does not itself supply a definition of either marriage or what would constitute an attack on marriage; so how exactly can it promise to protect something without defining it and how it would protect it?

To look for a definition look to statute law, specifically marriage law and the Civil Registration Act 2004, these prohibit same sex marriage, changes to these laws, these definitions of who is eligible to get married, DO NOT require a constitutional amendment.

However the Dail may feel that its such a big issue and call an ordinary (not constitutional) referendum, which in the entire history of the state has never happened before.

In my honest opinion, it is most likely that it will be a repeat of 1993-4, then the goverenment were debating whether or not to decriminalise homosexuality and decided not to. David Norris and Mary Robinson took the case to the EU Courts who overturned the Irish government's decision. In other words the Irish Government never willing legalised homosexuality...

Which is a major pity, as it would be again, i think Ireland really needs to show we're no longer the Church's bitch and set an example, wake up and enter the 21st century.




By the way i want to be the 1st gay toiseach, Im realistic about it though Im 21 now and Im giving myself until im 45.........

rsynnott

shay_562 wrote:

Word. The church's view of marraige is man-woman, that's fine, but they shouldn't have the power to control civil unions authorised by the government that have absolutely nothing to do with them.

Or even marraige authorised by the government. For what it's worth, the catholic Archbishop of Dublin actually spoke in favour of civil unions. Marraige might be a sticking point, though.

shay_562

For what it's worth, the catholic Archbishop of Dublin actually spoke in favour of civil unions. Marraige might be a sticking point, though.

Is there really that much of a difference?

rsynnott

shay_562 wrote:

Is there really that much of a difference?

No. Mostly symbolic. A few countries have gone through civil unions on the way to marraige, and I'd say that's what'll happen here too. Still, we shouldn't settle for a permanent second-class marriage.

Annasopra

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

just amused at the idea he might be the only LGBT politician

He's not, there's a councillor in Cork, I'm sure there are several not out - (I do know of one recent candidate) All the parties in this country have loads of gay members as well

Yes but the state has been so heavily influenced by the church in the past. I do realise not as much recently but it used to have an influence and if it backed something this big im sure the government would quickly follow suit

Thankfully we have moved from the days of Ireland being a Theocracry

To look for a definition look to statute law, specifically marriage law and the Civil Registration Act 2004, these prohibit same sex marriage, changes to these laws, these definitions of who is eligible to get married, DO NOT require a constitutional amendment.

The constitutional definition of marriage has also been defined by case law as "between one man and one woman"

By the way i want to be the 1st gay toiseach, Im realistic about it though Im 21 now and Im giving myself until im 45.........

As I've said before the political parties have loads of gay members

Enigma365

The EU will prob be the people to make it legal in ireland

The EU has no power in this area, or in any other social issues. The European Court of Human Rights(not an EU institution) does to some degree and was indeed responsible for decriminalizing homosexuality in Ireland. However, I believe the ECHR can only act in relation to the European Convention for Human Rights and this convention is quite specific with regards to marriage(see below).

"Article 12 – Right to marry:
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to
found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of
this right."

I don't believe therefore that same-sex marriage could be forced on Ireland, by the EU or the ECHR, in their current form. I do think however that as more EU countries legalise gay marriage, which I think they will, then Ireland will follow suit.

When it comes to issues like this, the world leads and Ireland follows(usually about 20 years later).

I am virtually certain that gay marriage, or a close equivalent with a different name, will be legal in Ireland within 5-10 years.

Stark

enigma365 wrote:

When it comes to issues like this, the world leads and Ireland follows(usually about 20 years later).

Ireland has been breaking away from its backwards stereotype in the last few years. Adopting the Euro showed that Ireland could make decisions without simplying copying Great Britain. We didn't need Britian/Europe to lead the way for us when introducing the smoking ban. There's no need to put a halt to the momentum now. Ireland's image as a forward-thinking state is vital for its economic survival in the coming years when the markets open up. That's something we need to stress to our representatives anytime they feel tempted to sit back and see what other countries come up with.

Annasopra

Stark wrote:

Ireland has been breaking away from its backwards stereotype in the last few years. Adopting the Euro showed that Ireland could make decisions without simplying copying Great Britain. We didn't need Britian/Europe to lead the way for us when introducing the smoking ban. There's no need to put a halt to the momentum now. Ireland's image as a forward-thinking state is vital for its economic survival in the coming years when the markets open up. That's something we need to stress to our representatives anytime they feel tempted to sit back and see what other countries come up with.

And of course Stark the equality legislation we bought in in the late 90s, early 00s was actually ahead of it's time for some countries

Stark

I knew there was some hugely important example I was forgetting, thanks Johnnymcg

There is a large body of people out there who feel that if something hasn't been tried and tested by other countries, that it's doomed to failure. They fail to realise the uniqueness of Ireland and the Irish people, and that quite often we can lead the way and succeed. That needs to be our attitude when it comes to legalising gay marriage.

Even though it has already been tried and tested in many countries

rsynnott

Johnnymcg wrote:

And of course Stark the equality legislation we bought in in the late 90s, early 00s was actually ahead of it's time for some countries

Yes, it was. Then we started diluting it and making exceptions almost immediately. Then there was ms. "Ireland's not ready for gay marriage". One step forward, two backwards, sometimes.

Stark

rsynnott wrote:

Yes, it was. Then we started diluting it and making exceptions almost immediately.

True. Sorry for the off-topic post here. In the original legislation, pubs/clubs that had age restrictions other than "over-18s" were made illegal. I thought that was extremely brave and progressive of Ireland and a real step against age discrimination, one of the last forms of "acceptable" prejudice. But then they gave in to pressure and severely diluted that aspect of the law. Bastards.

Annasopra

Stark wrote:

True. Sorry for the off-topic post here. In the original legislation, pubs/clubs that had age restrictions other than "over-18s" were made illegal. I thought that was extremely brave and progressive of Ireland and a real step against age discrimination, one of the last forms of "acceptable" prejudice. But then they gave in to pressure and severely diluted that aspect of the law. Bastards.

Those exceptions also meant that discrimination cases had to be taken through the courts instead of the equality tribunal - a clear pander to publicans and slap down to travellers