509LikesDo you think this ammendment goes further in principle than Hardiman's comments?Originally Posted by ppcoyle
Do you think this ammendment goes further in principle than Hardiman's comments?
This amendment is designed to break the link between biological parents because of the Baby Ann and McD v L Supreme Court case outcomes . That is going much much farther than Art. 42.5
How so?
What will the state be able to do after this ammendment is passed, if it is passed, that it cannot do at present?
In the Baby Ann case the child would not have been restored to her natural parents because of "as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected".
Catherine McGuinness was unrestrained in her view of the SC's decision which is why she is heading up the 'yes' campaign.
This attitude of hers can be seen in her comments on Wednesday last to the media complaining about the nuisance of a long campaign and how it would allow 'irrelevant issues' to be brought up. Catherine seems to have problems with democracy in her attempt to get her own wayIt would be disingenuous not to admit that I am one of the “quarters” who have voiced criticism of the position of the child in the Constitution. ..................................... With reluctance and some regret I would allow this appeal.
I'm not familiar with the Baby Ann case. Can you explain precisely why the child would not have been returned to her biological parents, were this ammendment in place? The ammendment suggests that the interests of the child must be paramount. Are you suggesting that the interests of the child would have been better served had it not been returned to its biological parents? If that is not what you are suggesting, then I don't understand why you say the outcome would have been different.In the Baby Ann case the child would not have been restored to her natural parents because of "as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected".
Catherine McGuinness was unrestrained in her view of the SC's decision which is why she is heading up the 'yes' campaign.
This attitude of hers can be seen in her comments on Wednesday last to the media complaining about the nuisance of a long campaign and how it would allow 'irrelevant issues' to be brought up. Catherine seems to have problems with democracy in her attempt to get her own way
N. & anor. -v- Health Service Executive & ors.
Thanks for the link. Are you going to answer the questions I asked?
On the other thread you said you supported the right of the State to take a young child away from the extended family. You then said that the Social Workers were in the right to remove access away from the biological grandparents. Because they were homophobic. That imho, is very extreme. The only reason I can see that gay people would want to get married is so they can adopt kids. Under those circumstances I would be oppossed to gay marraige. As I explained on another thread I'm oppossed to marraige full-stop. But I'm not an extremist. I wouldn't for example favour the State, or Social Workers having the power to remove my ex-partners children because she's bi-sexual. Get it?
I don't think the State or Social Workers should have the right, above the letter of the law, in deciding what's best for my child. In some peoples eyes that would make me hetrophobic. Call it what you may. Imo, and in my experience, the child, as I've already explained to you, should remain with its natural family, unless there is sexual abuse, or extreme physical abuse. I fear those who are supporting the yes side in this referendum, will have the power to define abuse in any which way they choose.
If the State amended Article 43 I don't think we'd be having this referendum.
Social Workers as agents of the State will have more power than the Law. That is dangerous. It's very dangerous. It could mean that in five or ten years time, hypothetically speaking, my biological grandchildren could be taken away and handed to someone like Cathal Ó Searcaigh, if he was married and wanted to adopt kids. Or worse, some other pervert like Erza Nawi. In short I'm against Classical Paedeatrists having any rights when it comes to children. I think each and every child should have their rights defended by a barrister/lawyer or a solicitor in family law courts. As I've already stated, several times, this is an entitlement, but not on obligation offered by the State.
I've already written an honest account of what family law courts were like for me in another thread. It was removed and judged to be libelous. We can't even tell the truth.
It's not extreme. Based on the facts as reported, the grandparents were not in a position to act as the primary carers of the child. That's not especially unusual when dealing with elderly people - this is why we don't generally allow elderly couples to adopt, for example. So, given that the child could not be placed with grandparents, the authorities had to find a suitable adoptive couple which happened to be a gay couple in this case.
Suppose instead that the couple happened to be a mixed race heterosexual couple and that the grandparents were racist. It would not be in the interests of the child to have their grandparents undermine their relationship with their adoptive parents due to their grandparent's racism. The same principle applies to homosexuality and homophobia. The interests of the child being of paramount concern, it is more important for the child to have a good relationship with its adoptive parents than with its natural grandparents.
Many gay couples who marry are too old to have children, adoptive or otherwise. Why do you think they get married?
Do you think that the only reason heterosexual people would want to get married is so they can have kids?
That's not really saying very much, since what is up for debate is precisely what the law should be.
The concern that the state may define what counts as abuse in overly broad terms is always a legitimate concern, but it applies regardless of this referendum. There will always be a threshold, beyond which the state can intervene, and it will always be up to the state to decide what that threshold is (and, if legislators go too far, it is up to us to vote them out and change the law).
I think you'll find that the decision was made in the interests of the two homosexuals and not the child.
State sanctioned experimental social engineering.
