Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

I wonder if he was around now if he would be able to claim for both of them on the social welfare ?

So he might have got 10p a week instead of 5p

Very very unlikely

A) the government can legislate

B) the courts when interpreting the constitution would look at various things including the intention of the legislature at the time.

No the government couldn't do what this referendum is doing solely through legislation. That's why amending the constitution is necessary.

Yes the legislature in its discussions has been clear in its intentions that this is nothing to do with polygamy, throuples etc. The court would have to look at discussions in the oireachtas as part of its deliberations so all the scaremongering is unneccesary.

We have seen it all before; Divorce was going to ruin all family farms, "hello divorce, goodbye daddy", if men can marry men what about horses.

Even an expert on the Irish Constitution says that's unlikely

Why would you even come up with these mad ideas?

All these crazy 'what ifs ' are so similar to the anti marriage referendum people!

Just checking is thread used for the care referendum or will a separate thread have to be created? As in my mind the two referendums are interlinked.

I note that Oran himself won't be bothered to vote.. but what are this "standard principles of legal interpretation" business he speaketh of?

The courts will be bound by the wording in the end, they can try and divine what the Oireachtas meant but ultimately the wording, in Irish is what will count - that's what the public will vote on.

Put yourself in the shoes of that well publicised 'durable relationship' of yore between Martin Cahill and the two Lawless sisters. He was married to one and had several children with both. If this were to pass, how on earth could the courts deny the rights flowing to all three and their children from a 'durable relationship'. It would be absurd and unjust if they tried to deny them as a durable relationship.

Please explain this and stop dodging the question by dismissing it as quackery.

Supreme court judges are well able and well respected in their view on the constitution. They won't suddenly turn into aliens, with crazy ideas!

Deleted

Such a childish response but I really shouldn't be surprised.

What a weak response - you have no idea how our Supreme Court judges might judge what is a durable relationship. But you are prepared to take a chance on it?

The Yes vote is in real trouble on this and related issues, because it can't give any certainty, just vague aspirations and sure, it'll be fine.

Fortunately, others are looking at this and asking themselves just what are the consequences.

They are educated but sensible dose not come into the equation. Any judge make his judgement based on the words used in any legislation and the arguments put forward by the barristers and solicitors before them.

Wishy washy wording of legislation or in this case in Constitutional amendments will and can lead to various interpretations. We have only to look at the USA and the interpretation of the "right to bear arms".

The state provides access to a durable relationship its called marriage, its a legal state couple enter into to prove they are in a durable relationship. There a legal requirement called divorce to exit such a relationship.

People opt into the durable relationship called marriage. The state recognises other what may be durable relationship’s two year in the case a couple have a child or 5 years where a couple live together. However people can opt out of these relationship’s without any legal obstacle not like marriage which as a durable relationship you required to give undertaking's to exit it completely.

Individuals have the option to show the state that they are in a durable relationship which the state can and has to recognise, it called marriage. If people choose not to accept that option why should the state feel it has to legislate for there unwillingness to accept the present options the state has given them.

If you join the Army they give you a pair of boot to wear. If you do not join the army you do not get the boots.

The state should not cater to the whims of an individual, it should put rules in place you make your choices, no point in whingeing afterwards.

Hard cases make bad law

Do you.

Why do you think those two kids should miss out on inheritance because mammy (who was a widow who inherited from her deceased husband) died and the live-in boyfriend of a couple of years who she specifically chose not to marry wants to claim a durable relationship?