The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[easytiger95]

If a person is truly bisexual should they be allowed to marry both a man and a woman?

Not at the same time as that is illegal. But if a man is married to woman and they get divorced, and he subsequently gets married to another man, then he is doing nothing at all wrong legally and I would fail to see what the problem is.

[AZOffaly]

easytiger, I don't think Marriage is directly defined in the constitution. It is mentioned 13 times in the Constitution, but is not actually defined as such. The Family is referred to as being based on Marriage, which is the key thing.

This is article 41.

ARTICLE 41

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –

i at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous five years,

ii there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,

iii such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and

iv any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.


The referendum is to add a new line, section 4, which will specifically say that
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex."

This then means that all the bits pertaining to 'Family' in law and will now pertain to gay couples and their children.

So while Armaghniac is technically correct, that really is semantics.

[J70]

If a person is truly bisexual should they be allowed to marry both a man and a woman?

Should a heterosexual man be allowed to marry two woman. A straight woman, two men?

There is a word for that.

[screenexile]

As opposed to the right to be in a civil partnership with the person you love? Is it really boiling down to that?

That's what it is for me anyway I think you should be able to marry the person you love and have that recognised by the constitution.

What if you love your sister?

Ah now there's no need to be bringing poor Tyrone people into this!!

As mentioned in the article I quoted:

There are prohibited degrees of relationships, as they are legally defined, in relation to close relatives. They apply to married persons. They apply at the moment to civil partners as well. Clearly, a same-sex married couple would be in precisely the same position as an opposite-sex married couple.

[easytiger95]

Sorry AZ and Armaghniac - you're correct - marriage is "defined" as being the foundation of the family, and the courts have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

[AZOffaly]

Yes. Actually another way of looking at this is that Marriage will be protected in the constitution for both hetero and gay couples!

[armaghniac]

So while Armaghniac is technically correct, that really is semantics.

Semantic indeed.

It is not stating the issue anyway. This is an attempt to conflate homosexual relationships with marriage, which as a fundamental building block of human society enjoys certain goodies. It is a form of free-loading where you latch on to something else rather than justify getting something in your own terms. 

Yes. Actually another way of looking at this is that Marriage will be protected in the constitution for both hetero and gay couples!

True, AZOffaly. But even I am not paranoid enough to believe that the ultimate objective is to prevent heterosexuals getting married, leaving only the same sex variant.

[AZOffaly]

So while Armaghniac is technically correct, that really is semantics.

Semantic indeed.

It is not stating the issue anyway. This is an attempt to conflate homosexual relationships with marriage, which as a fundamental building block of human society enjoys certain goodies. It is a form of free-loading where you latch on to something else rather than justify getting something in your own terms. 

Yes. Actually another way of looking at this is that Marriage will be protected in the constitution for both hetero and gay couples!

True, AZOffaly. But even I am not paranoid enough to believe that the ultimate objective is to prevent heterosexuals getting married, leaving only the same sex variant.

Which is your opposition in a nutshell, clearly stated..

It is not stating the issue anyway. This is an attempt to conflate homosexual relationships with marriage, which as a fundamental building block of human society enjoys certain goodies. It is a form of free-loading where you latch on to something else rather than justify getting something in your own terms. 

[foxcommander]

From RTE today. I'm hugely confused Ted. Who's going to be paying for this?


A group of three senior lawyers has said if the referendum is passed, a same-sex married couple will have the same constitutional right as a married heterosexual couple to procreate.

They say that the chairman of the Referendum Commission, Mr Justice Kevin Cross, has said it would be difficult to imagine the legislature privileging an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple where accessing surrogacy services is concerned.

The lawyers concerned about the effects of a Yes vote are William Binchy and two senior counsel, Patrick Treacy and Shane Murphy.

In a statement they say that a female homosexual couple can only procreate with donor sperm and a male homosexual couple would require a donor egg and a surrogate mother.

They say there is a strong argument that these practices will enjoy constitutional protection if this referendum proposal is passed.

They say the Government intends to enact a surrogacy bill which will provide for surrogacy in accordance with the new constitutional right of two married men to procreate.

The lawyers say Mr Justice Cross has said it would not be impossible, but it would be difficult to imagine the legislature privileging an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple where accessing surrogacy services is concerned.

[eddie d]

Could someone on here clear something up for me,

If a man and a woman had no intention of having children, would they still be allowed to get married in a church?

[Shamrock Shore]

Reminds me of the scene in The Life of Brian

[foxcommander]

Reminds me of the scene in The Life of Brian

LOL

A film called Life of Enda is required. That would be a comedy classic.

[easytiger95]

From RTE today. I'm hugely confused Ted. Who's going to be paying for this?


A group of three senior lawyers has said if the referendum is passed, a same-sex married couple will have the same constitutional right as a married heterosexual couple to procreate.

They say that the chairman of the Referendum Commission, Mr Justice Kevin Cross, has said it would be difficult to imagine the legislature privileging an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple where accessing surrogacy services is concerned.

The lawyers concerned about the effects of a Yes vote are William Binchy and two senior counsel, Patrick Treacy and Shane Murphy.

In a statement they say that a female homosexual couple can only procreate with donor sperm and a male homosexual couple would require a donor egg and a surrogate mother.

They say there is a strong argument that these practices will enjoy constitutional protection if this referendum proposal is passed.

They say the Government intends to enact a surrogacy bill which will provide for surrogacy in accordance with the new constitutional right of two married men to procreate.

The lawyers say Mr Justice Cross has said it would not be impossible, but it would be difficult to imagine the legislature privileging an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple where accessing surrogacy services is concerned.

I stopped reading when i saw who was concerned...

[armaghniac]

I stopped reading when i saw who was concerned...

ah yes, the ad hominem approach.
you would say that, wouldn't you.

[Zulu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jp1g2UIm4s