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 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.
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.
Do you think that the only reason heterosexual people would want to get married is so they can have kids?