LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksDoes anyone know if the submissions made to the Deparment of Justice on this issue are available for public consumption?
It would be interesting to get an idea where the consensus is on the issue from the actively campaigning public.
Does anyone know if the submissions made to the Deparment of Justice on this issue are available for public consumption?
It would be interesting to get an idea where the consensus is on the issue from the actively campaigning public.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think the difference here is that 'receiving a Nobel prize' is not regarded as a human right. Marriage, on the other hand, is.Originally Posted by St Disibod
"Nixon is PRO-WAR and PRO-FAMILY" - Nixion's head (Futurama)
The Supreme Court has not as yet specifically considered the issue of whether same-sex marriage is constitutional or not. Individual judges have referred to marriage being between a man and a woman in a small number of cases, but these are not binding comments.That is completely incorrect. If the Oireachtas had the power to overturn Supreme Court rulings as regards Constitutional Interpretation, constitutional provisions would have no meaning. We would be put back into the position we were in before the current consitution was enacted where the Legislature had fee reign.
Until such time as the Supreme Court rules on the issue, it is open to the Government to legislate for same-sex marriage. Such legislation would probably have to be referred to the Supreme Court (via Art 26) and then the issue would finally be settled. If the Supreme Court found the legislation unconstitutional, then and only then would there be a need for a constitutional referendum.
"Nixon is PRO-WAR and PRO-FAMILY" - Nixion's head (Futurama)
That is simply not true
The groups below in their positions to the All Party Oirecahtas Commitee on the Constitution supported what I have put in brackets
Gay Catholic Caucus (marriage)
GLEN – Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (marriage)
GLUE – Gay and Lesbian Unions Eire (civil partnership)
Johnny Gay Peer Action Charity Group (marriage)
Labour LGBT (marriage)
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender campaign – TCD (marriage)
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Campaign – USI (marriage)
L.inc (Lesbians in Cork) (marriage)
The NLGF (National Lesbian and Gay Federation) have advocated marraige in their submission to the Working Group on domestic Partnership
They wouldn't be confidential, although they mightn't be easily available. You could ring up and ask for copies, apply under the Freedom of Information Act (they'd definitely be covered, but it might cost you) or get a TD to ask for them (either in a rep or via a PQ).
Failed liberal traitors:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Senator Norris spoke at the debate at which I opped gay marriage and said that his bill was only meant as a stepping stone to marriage. I am in no way the type of person to favour something just because Michael McDowell isn't in favour of it. It's not so much the conclusion that he came to that gays don't want to get married, that would be fine if he actually thought that, it's the fact that he felt it right to consult with Roman Catholic bishops that most annoys me.
Speaking of the issue, anyone read Waghornes latest and rather strange piece in Magill where he bemoans the lack of a conservative party in this state, and lists among the issues that such a party might deal with 'gay marriage'.
Doesn't he belong to the - ahem - Freedom Institute.
Must have left the libertarianism at the door then.
"I like you. You're all right. Actually, I like you better meeting you than if somebody had just given me your record."
Joey Ramone
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
At least he's adopting a veil of ignorance :wink:
And in fairness, he is trying to guage conservatism, not necessarily the type of conservative liberalism he normally espouses. Though I might be wrong on this, since I've only read his blog - and that's more trying to guage orthodox conservatism rather than advocate it.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The FI support civil unions http://www.thefi.org/news/latest/fi_...il_unions.html, and as far as I know that would be Waghorne's own position. Having said that, his article in Magill seemed very conservative. I understand that he was simply analyzing conservative thought in the country and looking out for all those poor conservatives who don't have a party, but it's not something I would worry about myself, just as I wouldn't propose that all Marxists and Trotskyites in Labour should join forces with the SP and SWP to have a proper socialist alternative. Far from what Waghorne says, I would argue that there is too much conservatism in the country, that it is true liberals that we should look out for.At least he's adopting a veil of ignorance :wink:
And in fairness, he is trying to guage conservatism, not necessarily the type of conservative liberalism he normally espouses. Though I might be wrong on this, since I've only read his blog - and that's more trying to guage orthodox conservatism rather than advocate it.
[quote=Fnarr-Fnarr]I think the difference here is that 'receiving a Nobel prize' is not regarded as a human right. Marriage, on the other hand, is.[/quote:332rpbgp]
Touché. Another reason for me to begrudge the whole human rights set up. Daft stuff altogether.
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true.
Reply With Quote