Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Rights in Ireland
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 1 of 30 (281678)
01-26-2006 6:50 AM


from: GCN Gay Ireland News & Entertainment
quote:
IRISH TDs OPPOSE OIREACHTAS REPORT ON GAY MARRIAGE
25 January 2006 Isabel Ní Chuireáin
TDs from Labour, Sinn Féin and the Green Party opposed the majority decision of the all-party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution not to recommend a referendum to give same sex couples and non-marital families the same status as marriage.
Jan O'Sullivan of Labour said "the contribution that the traditional family makes should be acknowledged. However, we also believe that other family forms should be given constitutional protection too."
"The Constitution should be amended so that it expressly stipulates the right of the State to recognise families not based on marriage and the right of the Oireachtas to legislate for the protection and benefit of members of such families."she added.
Ciarán Cuffe of the Green Party said "it is wholly unacceptable that the committee should discriminate against same-sex couples" . He urged the government to proceed with the main recommendations of the report and called for a referendum to recognise the rights of children.
"One third of all births in the state are outside of marriage. New forms of family life, not based on marriage, deserve respect and recognition in our Constitution." he continued.
Arthur Morgan of Sinn Féin agreed: "Given the diversity of family formations which exist in the State today.. almost everyone knows somebody in a relationship other than traditional marriage. The State must move to recognise the status of these relationships."
I'm hoping they get this referendum going, because I'll sure as hell be voting - this would be a really important step for Ireland because currently the Constitution only recognises heterosexual marraiges as proper families, to be protected under the law.
I'm very proud of the TDs (from three separate parties that normally don't agree on much) who were prepared to speak out in favour of equal rights. I'm really hoping that more will follow suit and we can move towards something resembling gay marraiges here - or at least equal treatment of gay partnerships and other non-standard families.
The Rock Hound

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Funkaloyd, posted 01-26-2006 7:10 AM IrishRockhound has replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 2 of 30 (281680)
01-26-2006 7:01 AM


Em.
I just realised that you wouldn't understand Irish government names, seeing as they're in Irish.
A TD is a Teachtaí Dáil, equivalent to a British MP. The Oireachtas is the Parliament, consisting of Dáil Eireann (House of Representatives) and Seanad Eireann (the Senate).
Sinn Féin is a nationalist party, mostly concerned with Northern Ireland - though they're getting more popular in the south as well these days. The Green Party and Labour are similar enough to the British parties of the same name as far as I know.

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 30 (281681)
01-26-2006 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
01-26-2006 6:50 AM


Which way do you think a referendum would go? Think maybe that a tyranny of the majority will make it harder to get the amendment through?
Our Civil Union Act got passed in parliament; I'm not sure that I would have trusted the voters to make the same decision. But then, since this is a constitutional amendment, I guess it has to be decided by the people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-26-2006 6:50 AM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-26-2006 7:45 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 4 of 30 (281685)
01-26-2006 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Funkaloyd
01-26-2006 7:10 AM


To be honest, I'm not sure. I'd say it's entirely possible that the amendment would go through, there are enough people who care about it.
I mean, the divorce referendum went through, and I didn't think that had a hope in hell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Funkaloyd, posted 01-26-2006 7:10 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 01-26-2006 10:23 AM IrishRockhound has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 5 of 30 (281724)
01-26-2006 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by IrishRockhound
01-26-2006 7:45 AM


Human Rights a matter of Opinion?
The one question I have on issues like this is whether or not human rights should be determined by public opinion. Is a referendum the best way to make decisions on core issues?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-26-2006 7:45 AM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 01-26-2006 10:29 AM jar has replied
 Message 7 by berberry, posted 01-26-2006 10:43 AM jar has not replied
 Message 11 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-26-2006 11:26 AM jar has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 30 (281727)
01-26-2006 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
01-26-2006 10:23 AM


Re: Human Rights a matter of Opinion?
quote:
The one question I have on issues like this is whether or not human rights should be determined by public opinion.
How else are human rights determined? And once they are determined, how does one enact them into legislation?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 01-26-2006 10:23 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 01-26-2006 10:57 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 30 (281730)
01-26-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
01-26-2006 10:23 AM


Re: Human Rights a matter of Opinion?
Good question, jar, and my answer would be no. I think that issues of civil rights are best decided by the courts. The 9th and 14th amendments pretty much cover all the bases that aren't covered in the rest of the Bill of Rights, I think. The only question is whether the courts recognize that. That's why SCOTUS appointments are so important.
A new law can be changed easily. America's founding fathers tried to make it such that we couldn't tamper with basic civil rights by merely changing laws.
This message has been edited by berberry, 01-26-2006 09:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 01-26-2006 10:23 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tal, posted 01-26-2006 11:11 AM berberry has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 8 of 30 (281735)
01-26-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Chiroptera
01-26-2006 10:29 AM


Re: Human Rights a matter of Opinion?
Historically, they have been decided by a smaller group of individuals and often against general public opinion. Look, as an example, at the Civil Rights Act history in the US. It began in the 1950s with a few people that felt that black voting rights were being trampled upon.
Here is a link to the Alabama voter registration procedure from the period. There were three parts, the initial application found here which by lawhad to be completed alone and without help. In addition you had to acomplete two sections dealing with literacy (as it relates to both reading, comprehension and knowledge of US politics and Alabama State Law) which can be seen here.
If the Voting Rights Act of 1957 had depended on a general referendum, it would never have passed at all. Likewise, the amendments that were enacted in 1964 would never have had a chance of passage.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 01-26-2006 10:29 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Chiroptera, posted 01-26-2006 1:24 PM jar has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5676 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 9 of 30 (281737)
01-26-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by berberry
01-26-2006 10:43 AM


Re: Human Rights a matter of Opinion?
quote:
I think that issues of civil rights are best decided by the courts
But isn't the courts' job simply to interpret the law passed by the legislature?

"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by berberry, posted 01-26-2006 10:43 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-26-2006 11:16 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 14 by berberry, posted 01-26-2006 11:38 AM Tal has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 10 of 30 (281738)
01-26-2006 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tal
01-26-2006 11:11 AM


Re: Human Rights a matter of Opinion?
as compared to the constitution. remember, the US has a written doccument listing what rights citizens are guaranteed. if the laws interfere with such, then they are invalid. the cases the supreme court hears which enact change are those that stand against established law but are supported by the constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tal, posted 01-26-2006 11:11 AM Tal has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 11 of 30 (281742)
01-26-2006 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
01-26-2006 10:23 AM


Re: Human Rights a matter of Opinion?
Normally it isn't a question of public opinion, but the thing is whenever there is any kind of change to the Irish constitution, it has to go to a referendum.
Now, I personally dislike the constitution. It's full of quite a lot of unnecessary religious crap, but hey, it's not entirely surprising considering Ireland is a pillar of Catholicism and all. That aside, there's room for improvement in a few areas. The bit in question that would have to be changed in this case is as follows:
quote:
The Family
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 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.
See? The bit in bold would have to be changed because by definition it excludes any form of family other than the usual man, woman, kids version - because the State is only recognising and protecting families based on marraige.
If they changed "marraige" to "marraige or civil union", and changed the stuff about the woman to "parent who chooses to stay at home", then gay marraiges and single parents are included.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 01-26-2006 10:23 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-26-2006 11:33 AM IrishRockhound has not replied
 Message 13 by jar, posted 01-26-2006 11:36 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 12 of 30 (281745)
01-26-2006 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by IrishRockhound
01-26-2006 11:26 AM


Re: Human Rights a matter of Opinion?
Oh, almost forgot - they'd have to ditch that bit about "marraige being the basis of the family" or change it to something like "marraige being the basis of many, but not all, families".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-26-2006 11:26 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Heathen, posted 01-26-2006 7:48 PM IrishRockhound has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 30 (281746)
01-26-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by IrishRockhound
01-26-2006 11:26 AM


Re: Human Rights a matter of Opinion?
In a matter of changing the US Constitution, we too have to go through a referendum. However, we do have somewhat more flexibility as the requirement here is for ratification by the States, thus the voting can be done at the State Legislature level as opposed to the individual level.
Steps for amending the US Constitution

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-26-2006 11:26 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 30 (281747)
01-26-2006 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tal
01-26-2006 11:11 AM


Re: Human Rights a matter of Opinion?
Tal asks:
quote:
But isn't the courts' job simply to interpret the law passed by the legislature?
That depends on the case. In a typical criminal case you're right, the court is merely there to interpret law and render judgement. But when an issue of constitutionality comes up the court must decide whether the law in question violates any provision of the constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tal, posted 01-26-2006 11:11 AM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 01-27-2006 8:08 AM berberry has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 30 (281756)
01-26-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
01-26-2006 10:57 AM


Re: Human Rights a matter of Opinion?
So, are you saying that what is and is not a human right should be decided by legislative fiat by whoever happens to control the legislature at the time?
I think that a particular minority in the US is right now very concerned about the rights of fetuses, and is trying to do that very thing right now. You don't have any problems with this? Or is there some subtleties that I am missing here?
Let me ask the questions again, since this is also related to some other recent threads.
What are human rights? How are human rights determined? And by what methods should human rights be protected?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 01-26-2006 10:57 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 01-26-2006 1:27 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024