Wait until the roman cult starts to agitate. Good for Ireland, marriage equality is coming whether they like it or not now that the UK, France, and Australia are making noise.
The Church has lost all credibility in Ireland, which is why the government has withdrawn it’s ambassador to the Vatican.
Indeed. The Irish have now fully woken up to just how abusive the Vatican “parent” has been to them over the centuries, and are now turning their backs in droves. Reading through the various testimonies and hearing the weak justifications the Catholic hierarchy attempt to use in their excuses it’s no wonder.
Good luck ladies. I hope the Irish courts look favourably on your application.
Ireland has had a dramatic change in national attitude over the last few years. It is clearly now a post-Catholic country.
It has clearly told the RC church that it will not tolerate the insidious and vile behaviour and corruption that many have perpetrated in the churches name.
The state have said that the church will not have special protections.
Its time to make sure that equality laws are fair and honest – including in marriage, and this means that the church have no influence on how the law is framed.
Should be interesting to see how the Supreme Court deals with this…. it will rule once and for all if the Constitution needs to be changed for marriage equality as stated by High Court Ms. Justice Dunne in that “the Irish constitution had always meant for marriage to be between a man and a woman”.
What was meant and what the Constitution says are two vastly different things. So if the Constitution does not say between a man and a woman the Constitution will not need a referendum….
“So if the Constitution does not say between a man and a woman the Constitution will not need a referendum….”
Unfortunately that wrong. The Constitution is interpreted for , and the High Court has interpreted the spirit of Article 41 to “always meant for marriage to be between a man and a woman”. The Attorney General agrees with this stance, whether it be right or wrong. Unless the Supreme Court disagrees, it will need a Referendum.
…having said that, its in the current programme for government, Referendum or no, which is good news – but my guess is there will be a referendum to prevent any challenges should the Supreme Court agree with the High Court over their interpretation of Article 41.
How can they possibly prove what was “meant” If it doesn’t specify then they are on shaky ground and just because the Attorney General is a homophobic prig proves nothing and a challenge would have interesting consequences. The coming Constitutional Convention will clarify things in any case…
A referendum on a minority’s civil rights is an abhorrent idea – completely disgusting and unnecessary.
It’s up to the Supreme Court.
The Attorney General is not the person who is in charge of deciding on constitutional matters – that is the Supreme Court’s job.
The Attorney General (of the last government) gave his OPINION that a referendum would be required (seeing that was ALL the last government was willing to introduce).
Other legal experts believe that no referendum is required.
It;s quite simple – it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide if marriage equality legislation is constitutional.
It is the government’s responsibility to legislate for equality.
“How can they possibly prove what was “meant””
If you do not understand how the Supreme Courts system words with regards to the Institution, then please go and learn:-
Constitutional jurisdiction:- Under Article 34.4.4 of the Constitution the Supreme Court functions as a constitutional court as it is the final arbiter in interpreting the Constitution of Ireland. This is a role of particular importance in Ireland, since the Constitution expressly permits the courts to review any law, whether passed before or after enactment of the Constitution, in order to ascertain whether it is in conformity with the Constitution. While such cases must be brought in the first instance in the High Court, there is an appeal from every such decision to the Supreme Court.
Its not that complicated really….
Ace you beat me to an explanation. The histrionics on this site gets tedious sometimes, why people just can’t read this stuff for themselves on line is beyond me, but instead they go for the “I do think so, therefore it isn’t true” approach.
I have never bought the idea that a referendum was required to allow marriage equality.
That was the response of the last government (after consulting with the Attorney Geneeral) to avoid legislating for full equality. Other legal experts claim there is no reason why full equality cannot be achieved through simply legislation.
My opinion has ALWAYS been that the government should legislate for marriage equality and then let the opponents of equality argue against it in the Supreme Court. By the time the court decides then it is highly unlikely that the court would allow thousands of same sex marriages to be disqualified.
The Irish constitution refers to the Irish President as ‘he’ throughout. However there was no referendum required to allow Mary Robinson run for the Irish presidency in 1990. The references to ‘he’ were understood to mean both men and women. Likewise where the constitution refers to spouses as ‘he and she’ this should not mean that a referendum is required.
As you will well know, even when I agree with you, there is usually something that doesn’t fit quite comfortably with me – whether that be the manner you present it, a side issue that you mention or whatever … I am sure the feeling is reciprocated by yourself with some of my comments.
However, I entirely and unreservedly agree with you – there is never a justification for a referendum to be held on the grant of civil rights to a minority group.
Essentially a referendum would be inviting the public to vote to deprive a small minority of the population of rights the majority takes for granted and sees as fundamental.
Allowing the majority to subjugate a minority is immoral and a referendum should never be used to harm others. It would never be used to debate issues of racial equality, disability rights etc – it should not be used as a tool of homophobia.
“I have never bought the idea that a referendum was required to allow marriage equality.”
Its actually irrelevant what you think, the fact you do not understand why does not prejudice the reality in any way. When you the Irish AG, you can of course disagree.
I’ve explained above the relevance of Article 34. It also applies to the current case being taken. Read and learn, sweetie, read and learn.
When Ireland decriminalized homosexuality in 1992 the Catholic Church was already reeling from a child abuse scandal and decided to kept their views to themselves for fear of being branded hypocrites. No doubt with another, bigger scandal, this time affecting the church across the world, the priests and bishops will keep shtumm when the Dáil legalises marriage equality.
During my recent visits to Ireland I have seen a country transformed by it’s EU membership since I first visited in 1987. Unfortunately the Irish economy has suffered another collapse due to it’s Euro membership and I fear that Ireland will not recover until they ditch the Euro and return to the Punt. When they do things should improve again but even in the meantime Ireland with it’s rich culture, music, laid back way of life and scenary is a great place to visit, gay or straight!
Both gay and straight people say that the long string of losses we’ve faced in US polls around marriage equality are really our own fault; our community pushed too hard and too fast. They have said that we have failed to “educate” the public about who we really are and get beyond the stereotypes of leather people, butch dykes, cropped tops and drag queens – and that it is now our obligation to reintroduce ourselves to society. They say that that it’s up to us to reframe the terms of the debate away from “moral values” to simpler concepts, such as fairness, which polls indicate resonate most with the public.
I disagree. This is nothing more than the blame-the-victim mentality afflicting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) movement.
Rather than reframing the debate away from moral values, we must embrace them. Or more precisely, the utter immorality of the escalating attacks against LGBT people. And, equally, the utter immorality in the failure of so many people of
good will to stand with us. It is time for us to seize the moral high ground and state unambiguously that anti-gay discrimination in any form is immoral.
Discrimination is defined as “unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice.” By any measure, LGBT people are targets of discrimination in many forms in many nations. In the USA statistics show that more people are being murdered because of their sexual orientation than for any other bias reason. Young LGBT people are still routinely bullied in schools. The examples of injustices in the area of partner and family recognition are too many to list. No thinking or feeling person can deny these realities.
Mainstream media and churches are largely silent to our opponents’ lies. Most progressive organizations and political campaigns, meanwhile, steer clear. There have been sterling exceptions, but they have been few and far between.
Many people who see themselves as supporters of equal rights for all tolerate this
This story is not about the USA so your response is not relevant to this story.
because they believe prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation is profoundly different than that based on race or religion – that it comes from an understandable disapproval of our behavior – not on some “immutable characteristic.” Homosexual behavior, they feel, is “unnatural” (doesn’t the Bible say so?). Pundits say there is an “ick” factor – that the thought of gay sex revolts non-gay people, and that this seemingly innate reaction is proof there is something wrong with homosexuality.
This rationale is hardly unique to gay people. Scholars point to comparable “ick” sentiments about Irish immigrants in the 1880s, and describe how in preceding generations sexual ideology was used to strengthen control over slaves and to justify the taking of Native American or Aboriginal lands, and that for centuries Jews were associated with disease and urban degeneration.
Fact is, there is no justification for anti-gay prejudice; the “justifications” for it are as unfounded as those used to
What relevance does this reply have to this story which is about Ireland (not the USA)?
support the second-class treatment of other minorities in past generations.
So, what needs to be done?
First, everyone must realize that when straight people say gay people should not have the freedom to marry, they are saying we are not as good or deserving as they are. It’s that simple, no matter how one attempts to sugarcoat it.
This is unacceptable – and it is immoral.
Second, while we should talk to straight people honestly about our lives, we must flatly reject the notion that we are somehow to blame for all of this because we have not effectively communicated our “stories” to others. Fundamentally, it is not our job to prove to others that we can be good neighbours, good parents, and that we’re actually people too.
Third, equality will remain elusive if we keep relying on intellectualized arguments.
The other side goes for the gut; it’s now our turn.
In this vein, we must put others on the spot to stand up and fight for us. As the cascade of lies pours forth from the
Relevance to the story being discussed????
the Anti-Gay Industry, morality demands that non-gay people speak out with the same vehemence as they would if it was another minority under attack. Ministers and rabbis must be challenged with the question, “Where is your voice?” Elected officials who meet with and attend events of the Anti-Gay Industry, must be met with the challenge, “How can you do that!? How is that public service?”
The orchestrated campaign to deny us equality, fairness, recognition of our families, access to services etc. is immoral. Silently bearing witness to this discrimination is immoral.
We are in the midst of another ugly chapter in its struggle with the forces of bigotry. People of good will can either rise up to speak for lesbian, gay bisexual and transgendered people, or look back upon themselves 20 years from now with deserved shame.
…You are aware that this thread is in relation to a story about Marriage Equality in Ireland? You have posted 5 pages of cut and paste drivel without ever mentioning the current thread 1 What gives?
However in relation to your post, the USA will never truly be free until, like Ireland, it dumps the religious fantasy who are destroying the country and democracy…. It is to the amazement of the entire world that the GOP candidate for president believes that a deity created the universe 6000 years ago and that man lived alongside Dinosaurs……Time to join the twenty first century, America!
Perhaps Richard was trying for “most comments of the day” through posting this long, disjointed first draft.
And as its focus was predicated from “US polls,” he seems either clueless or rather like “the visiting American barging into a pub,” making it a little hell of self-focus, good intentions, and irrelevant advice.
Has Carrie changed her name to Richard? He posted this drivel on several other threads too…I wondered what had happened to Carrie?
Let’s hope for a swift resolution to this injustice.
1) I am Irish and tried of hearing about outsider opinions about MY country.
2) To quote my father when he had a few too many “It’s not right ! They [gay people] should have the right to be as miserable & unhappy as the rest of us”.
Context was a joke among friends at a party. I would like to state that my parents are happily married 25 years. :-)