March on Sunday will be quite big – it’s been very well promoted and there is a real anger among huge segments of the gay population who are angry that they are being told that because they are gay they are not allowed access to the civil conyract of marriage.
GLEN which has negotiated these CP’s on behalf of the gay population represent only their own members. They claim to support equality and claim to support civil marriage but judging by their craven and embarrassing welcome of the Civil Partnership discrimination as a campaigning group they have consigned themselves to history.
They cannot even bring themselves to highlight the inadequacies of the CP when it comes to family rights.
They refuse to tell the community they pretend to represent how they will campaign for equality once the CP’s are brought in.
GLEN are representing those people who are willing to settle for 2nd best. Which is fine. But considering the government will only speak to them they should at least presend to represent people dissatisfied with inequality.
1 more point – there is no need for a constitutional referendum to allow gay marriage. The government claim their legal advisers have told them this.
Enjoy the march. Wish I could be there.
Simon, you’re beginning to sound like one of these religious bigots we have on this site all too often. If people prefer CP, over marriage, that’s their choice and their entitlement under a free democracy. They are not “people who are willing to settle for 2nd best”. What a arrogant and small minded attitude. Sounds like you could do with a dose of open mindedness. Fight for your “equality” as you wish, and more power to you, but do not insult others to make yourself feel that one bit more like a crusader for the entire community…. we have enough so called “christians” to do that for us.
“If people prefer CP, over marriage, that’s their choice and their entitlement under a free democracy. ”
But Will why are you mentioning choice? There is no choice.
CP’s are the only thing on offer and in my view they are not good enough.
It is my right under a free democracy to oppose discriminatory legislation and to question the authority and integrity of a groups who accepts discriminatory legislation on my behalf without consulting me.
I am not a crusader for anyone but myself. And as GLEN do not represent me or my partner or my friends despite pretending to the government that they do then I feel perfectly entitled to question their agenda and their claims that they support equality. They claimed to represent the LGB community in their discussions with government when in fact only represent 1 segment of the community.
If you support GLEN and CP’s then good for you. But don’t be so arrogant to expect others to keep quiet about their disgust for CP’s just to give yourself an easy life.
I said “if people prefer CP, over marriage, that’s their choice”. Some people, had as it might be for you to accept or believe, do not want marriage, even if it is/is not available.
As I said, fight way for your “equality”, but don’t insult others who don’t want marriage. I sincerely hope you get your marriage, as you seem to need it so badly. Personally, once the rights are made equal, call it what you will. But don’t patronise me with your “2nd best” crap.
I can see where Will is coming from on this although he’s expressing it an a rather aggressive tone.
It seems to me that from the government’s point of view, I don’t see a need to perpetuate a discriminatory system where the union between 2 people changes its name according to who these people are. I’m using the term “discriminatory” not in a polemic way but to underline an undeniable choice to discriminate, i.e. differentiate, between two categories of people.
As a gay man, I don’t feel entitled to criticise those who don’t feel the need for their union to be called a marriage as long as it entails the same legal rights as a marriage. It doesn’t say anywhere that we all have to be called the same way, as long as we have the same rights. I think our societies are going in different directions while tackling the issue of offering gay families legal recognition and I don’t pretend to hold the absolute truth about what the right way is. Yet :)
Personally, I favour civil marriage for all, for simplicity and because I think that words matter and I personally like what “civil marriage for all” says. About this institution.
I can also see a reason to argue against this position, if a new institution is being created why not use a different name? Why chose to ape another institution just to make us feel that we’re all the same when we could instead choose to value our differences.
I think both these arguments are valid and although I have a personal favourite, it’s pointless to insult each other’s choices. Ultimately I do believe that equal rights and equal recognition by the law are the main thing.
What strikes me though about the Irish CPs is that they don’t seem to offer equal rights to gay couples (from what I read, I don’t know the ins and outs of this legislation) and when you compound that with the deliberate choice to call the institution something else, it seems to me that they are not the best choice in the interest of equality in this particular case.
Valerio, I agree with you. My tone isn’t meant to be aggressive, but I loath people like Simon using loaded language like “2nd Best” when it comes to peoples self determination, and his attune is beneath contempt and offensive. Hence the tone. He also lambasted one other poor chap, Sean or John I can’t remember his name, in a similar thread for the same reason. I do not see the Irish CP as legally equal, but in time, this will be changed by an alternative and less catholic focused government. Patience is a virtue, as they say. There are people who need this legislation (again I refer to the financial circumstances outlined by this same guy on a similar thread) to protect themselves and their inheritance, and to deny them that on the basis of those who want to “wait” for marriage, is arrogant and selfish.
They will in time come to see that gay marriage is not the panacea for the problems facing gay people. We have a long way to go yet.
Will- you can believe in whatever you want to. But I don’t agree with you, and I can use whatever language I feel like using. I don’t want to settle for what I see as second best and I don’t see why I need to make allowances for people who are willing to accept CP’s. I’ll do what I think is right and you can do the same.
Jeezus, bleeding freaks choking up da streets. What happenned to the days you could give em a twelve year sentence.
“What happenned [sic] to the days you could give em a twelve year sentence.”
Well northsider, the went with the days when you cvould burn your neughbour for his witchcraft souring your milk.
Now, why not run along and drink a bottle of meths by the canal with the under-age skank you knocked up behind Macarai’s last night? There’s a good scumbag.
And Simon, I’m not asking you to agree with me, I’m asking you for more understanding to those couples who need CP to fix what could be a devastating financial mess if one of them dies. In essence, I agree that the legislation is not good enough…. but its the best we can get, for now at least. The fight isn’t over yet.
Its sad that so many of us don’t see the bigger picture and the implications of marriage. Unlike marriage, there is and never will be a universal acceptance or standard for civil partnerships or any other same sex union anywhere on this planet. They will NEVER be the norm, at least not outside the UK. I’m all for gay people having whatever legal unions on offer but marriage IS the universal gold standard. We should be fighting for that right too, all of us, no matter if some of us don’t want to marry. A gay civil partnered couple upon leaving the UK to take up residence and jobs in a country where there are no civil partnerships or civil unions would be hard pressed to get recognition of their partnerships. Seven countries now offer full marriage to gay couples, I can’t name seven countries who have identical civil partnerships or unions of any other kind. If I could legally marry in the UK, all seven countries would recognize my marriage for what it is. Both the Irish and British models are not identical either. I’m afraid Ireland is going the way of Stonewall UK, accepting some rights or getting nothing while giving up the pursuit of full marriage equality. I bet if straight couples were allowed to form civil partnerships, you’d see few takers. That alone would prove the inequality of civil partnerships, no matter how well intentioned and acceptable they are for some who want them. The arrogance in all this is not supporting and fighting for the right of those of us who want to marry instead of the other option. There should be choice, not prohibition.
This thread just shows the divide that exists in the gay commununity over this proposed legislation. Will you are fully entitled to disgree with Simon, and vica versa. My opinion is that the Civil Partnership Bill is one that treats me as a second class citizen. As much as that phrase may annoy you Will, it is how I feel about it. Civil Partnership might be enough to please you but it is not for me, and a great many of my friends. While yes it does provide an awful lot it does not go far enough, especially when it comes to the issue of children and guardianship. The truth be told is that I have no interest in ever wanting to get married and have children. For that reason the Civil Partnership as it is proposed is enough for me. But that is not the point. We should have the right to a full civil marriage. Friends who want to have children should have protection. Why should we accept this discrimination. I for one will not. Will, you also state that we should be happy for the time being with what we have gotten. But why? Why should we? The pressure should be kept up so that this and any future government knows that this inequality is not acceptable. For that reason I shall be at City Hall at 1.30pm tomorrow
“The arrogance in all this is not supporting and fighting for the right of those of us who want to marry instead of the other option.”
No, Robert ex-pat, it’s infact arrogant to assume everyone should be thinking the same as you and fighting for YOUR version of whats equal. I would so so far as to say arrogantce were none is desereved, going by your self-serving and santimionious comment.
The gay scene is slightly bigger than just you, and people are entitled to their own determination. If you don’t like it, then fuckoff, last time I checked Ireland was a democracy.
And Nigel, I agree with you, but this attitude that those who use CP’s are selling the side short is beyond the pale. If Will accepts CP’s as adequate for HIS needs, they its YOUR job to fight on for the extra rights, not his. I find it demeaning, offensive, and typically self-serving of someone who’s view of the world ends at the end ofg their own garden. Like Robert here.
As someone who has sunk a fortune eg close to $100k US into the gay marriage / equal rights battle here in the states, I totally sympathize with those who want civil marriage, which should explicitly include protection for churches, their property, and their employees who do not want to be involved in gay marriage ceremonies.
But having lived through the USA battle to end segregation of Blacks and make them equal partners in our nation, that history shows the problem of trying to take giant steps in getting rid of social discrimination, especially when it is based on religious beliefs, however outmoded they may be.
You will get a lot more support from the “good people in the middle” re the legal recognition of gay families if you avoid the word “marriage”, which comes with a terribly long history of meaning that children begin to absorb even in their infancy. Which in those poisoned by the church to some degree or more, results in a gut level, nothing gets through NO NO NO mentality among too many people. Better to soften them up with civil unions. I know so many people here in the states, who do NOT have anything against gay people, and want them to have the same legal rights, but just can’t stomach “gay marriage”/ Civil unions softem them up. It is just part of how you change minds, one small step at a time, vs struggling with a stonewall almoost irrational resistance.
So, you will get more, sooner, IMHO, having been involved in many political battles, via CUs. And over time – prob 10 years, as people discover that gays are good people, they will begin to accept legal marriage and it will happen.
But if you go for the whole biz at once, it is going to be a big problem. Old expression – you kinda win the battle to get marriage almost there, but in the end lose, and harden evem more minds. Kind of like the Israeli – Palestinian situation.
I wish it wasn’t this way, but it is. Politics, as we say on our side of the pond, is the art of the possible.
The whole problem roots back to how religous marriage also became civil marriage. Two different things – one a religious blessing and valuable only to the believer, and separately a govt run program that gives legal contractual, and financial benefits to those people who choose to commit themselves to living and supporting one another. Unfortunately Marriage is bhth the religous and the legal term. Perhaps ultimately, all legal marriages will be called civil unions, and the relgious group will own the word marraige, but their ceremonies will not confer any legal benefits. But that is a long way off
We are truly captives of our history in so many many ways. The gay community will get more and faster if it starts with civil unions/
Which will show the people that the world won’t collapse, gay people are good people. And in the end they will have full equality. And as a benefit, the churches that can’t bring themselves to change will preach to the dust in the pews, and the dust of the departed.