Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

There’s suspiciously no polling data I’ve seen on this? The cynic in me tells me it’s likely then not good for the Yes left wing establishment side? There was endless polling in previous referenda.

Im absolutely voting No to this. Voted yes in previous social referenda. No more

Tbh, I don't think it is your, mine or any other curtain twitchers business why they didn't get married over that 20 year period. Neither is it the states. They proved they are a family by the longevity of the relationship.

My issue would be when a relationship starts to become durable, I really don't know if 2 years, which has been suggested as the accepted term, is really long enough.

But as explained to you, the referendum doesn't really have an effect on that case. The children's right referendum basically decided the above case, and I've no problem with the logic applied

It’s €220 to get married in Ireland. If your relationship isn’t worth that, it isn’t much of a relationship

Doesnt really make sense. The referendum was in 2015. You just told us you are 22. Unless you are seriously claiming you were campaigning as a 13 year old? Very doubtful.

Polyamorous relationship I think you mean - I don't think Cahill was married to both sisters as in polygamy, which is banned here.

But yes, no reason at all why a group of men and women living & sleeping together in some 'durable relationship' couldn't be equated to a couple co habitating.

Imagine the sh*tstorm if this passed and people realise that polyamory has the green light from the state! The bishops crozier will be felt yet!

One of the perils of sidelining marriage and equating it to other arrangements.

Nah man, I’m delighted for the family in that particular case, but the referendum would still be necessary in order as Conor O’ Mahony alludes to there, that it would mean that people in those particular circumstances would be regarded as a family by the Courts, as opposed to their children having to rely on the equality clause… in those particular circumstances.

The referendum still needs to pass though in order for that to happen, because as it stands, the ink was hardly dry before Government spokespersons were declaring that Government would review that particular piece of legislation. They couldn’t really say much more in fairness as they could only comment on the law as it currently stands. The passing of the referendum would allow legislators to consider a much broader scope than just the limited circumstances where an unmarried couple have children. It would also allow them to consider unmarried couples without children.

That is of course only if they were of such a mind to do so, without being forced to do so by the decisions of the Courts each time similar cases were brought before them challenging particular pieces of legislation.

Frankly though, I don’t have much faith that Government isn’t deliberately trying to couch conservative policies in liberal language. It doesn’t suit them and makes them untrustworthy. I don’t approve of the wording of the proposed amendments, which leaves me with a question of whether I vote in favour of the proposed amendments, knowing that it would only be beneficial in limited circumstances, or do I vote against the proposed amendments and hope that Government goes back to the drawing board, while at the same time knowing they are unlikely to offer any new wording for another amendment within the next 20 years, and knowing that the current wording will remain in place which will mean that the issues they cause will continue to exist?

It’s a tough one tbh, because I really don’t want to indicate my approval of what I regard as a botch job. I’m fortunate to be in a position where I’m not reliant on the referendum passing, but at the same time I’m disappointed that if it passes, it’s still inadequate. I’m not desperate, but unfortunately I know too many people who are, and will vote in favour of the amendment on that basis. It’s a really shìtty position to be in, and I don’t envy them.

Michael McDowell addresses this in the Irish Times today

McDowell is taking out his arse, again. It doesn’t follow that if the Oireachtas were to define the criteria that would constitute a durable relationship, that such legislation if challenged, would be struck down by the Courts.

The idea of the parties to a polygamous relationship having the opportunity to challenge how durable relationships are defined is no different than them having the opportunity to challenge how marriage is defined. It doesn’t provide any justification which suggests that a particular piece of legislation would be struck down by the Courts.

He does however outline a more practical example. Where money is involved, there's really no limit to how people will exploit unexpected scenarios arising out of vaguely specified law.

He doesn’t outline a more practical example. He does pose all sorts of loaded and leading questions as though the Courts don’t deal with these matters regularly. This is what it means to outline a practical example, and how the Courts dealt with it:

Recently there was a case in the court of appeal where a separated farmer who had his farm valued at €1.1m had to pay his estranged wife €1,600 per month in spousal maintenance.

This matter was appealed from the High Court to the Circuit Court and the High Court had originally ordered that the farmer had to pay a lump sum payment of €120,000 and €1,200 monthly maintenance for the children until the dependency ceased which it had at the time of the appeal.

He also had to pay their educational costs including third-level costs and their private health insurance.

The woman had completed her leaving certificate and was employed prior to the marriage but during the marriage had carried out farm work and was a full-time homemaker and did sporadic work.

The couple separated in 2014 and the mother and children remained in the family home while the husband lived nearby.

…

The Court of Appeal ruled that the High Court had erred in the provisions for the wife in excess of the 30% of the net assets and that this was a fair and equitable distribution of the assets, and that they also erred in overestimating the future likely earning capacity of the wife given her age, employment history and lack of qualifications of earning an income and being self employed and self sufficient within four years of the date of judgement.

The legal position in respect of providing for the parties in marital breakdown is that proper provision has to be made.

Section 16 of the Judicial Separation Family Law Reform Act and Section 20 of the Family Law Divorce Act 1996 state the court shall ensure such provision as the courts consider proper having regard to the circumstances that exist will be made for the spouse and any dependent member of the family concerned.

There are a number of factors which they will consider including income earning capacity, financial needs of the parties, standard of living of the parties prior to the proceedings being instituted, and any conduct and accommodation needs of the spouses.

…

The court under Family Law Legislation has powers to make a number of orders including a Property Adjustment Order, a Pension Adjustment Order, an order for payment of a lump sum and orders for spousal and maintenance of the children.

Typically, before such orders are made, the courts consider all the circumstances including the financial circumstances of the parties.

There is no legal position that a spouse is entitled to a certain percentage of assets or income and it entirely depends on the facts of each case.

Typically, if one spouse has acted to their detriment that he or she has contributed considerably to the other party's income, the court will factor this.

A Property Adjustment Order is an order where the court can order that an asset of one of the parties is sold or transferred to the other party.

Typically, courts will be reluctant to remove the party that has primary custody of the children from the family home.

The typical order would be that the family home would either be transferred to the spouse who has custody or that it would remain in joint names while the children remain dependent which is either 18, or 23 years if they remain in full time education, and that the property would then be sold and the proceeds would be split 50/50.

…

In respect of a farm, a court is usually reluctant to make an order that a farm is to be sold if it is the livelihood for one of the parties but the court will have to make a provision for the other party.

The typical way that this could be done is that a lump sum payment might need to be made to one of the parties and maintenance payments in respect of spousal or maintenance for the children.

https://archive.ph/914lw

For copyright reasons I didn’t post the full article, but it finishes by suggesting that in the circumstances outlined, one should seek the advice of a solicitor. The other takeaway is that any outcome would be dependent upon numerous factors in each and every case, based upon the particular circumstances in each case.

Apologies. I read your post wrong.

We decided not to waste our time voting on this drivel at all. I think we wont be alone.

Polygamy isn’t an extension of bigamy? Bigamy is the crime, and polygamous marriages simply aren’t recognised by the Constitution, clarified by the Supreme Court in 2017 -

https://archive.ph/Bd0Ef

You’re engaging in the same sort of “who knows?” stuff as McDowell in that article, when there are numerous examples can be cited as practical examples of how the law is applied by the Courts, without having to speculate about circumstances which are irrelevant to the amendments in question.

The point was that it’s ridiculous to be arguing about hypothetical cases when the Courts will do what they’ve always done and examine each case on its own merits. Personally I think Government would have been far better off to leave the ‘and other durable relationships’ bit out of the amendment, I think it’s an unnecessary distraction, and it’s proving to be an unnecessary distraction.

There’s no reason to include it though? The Government hasn’t demonstrated any interest in doing so, in fact they’ve been explicit in stating that it’s irrelevant.

There isn’t an offence of polygamy because polygamous marriages aren’t legally recognised in Ireland, quite distinct from the offence of bigamy. He couldn’t have been charged with bigamy because the second marriage simply wasn’t recognised by the State.

The status of such relationships won’t change, because they’re irrelevant. There’s nothing to tease out - they’re just not relevant. It’s the same sort of nonsense that ‘had to be teased out’ in relation to marriage equality. It really doesn’t, because it’s not relevant.

"Personally I think Government would have been far better off to leave the ‘and other durable relationships’ bit out of the amendment, I think it’s an unnecessary distraction, and it’s proving to be an unnecessary distraction"

You are spot on there. It is a distraction because what this referendum is actually doing is removing any obligation the state currently has to support mothers, fathers, carers etc in the home. That obligation is now being passed on to society and the state will strive to support that!