Pride Debate - civil marriage vs. civil partnerships

[Libero]

What is a civil marriage and what is a civil partnership? Is the difference just in the name (as it is here in the UK) or something else?

I look forward to the debate's conclusions telling me what it is I want .

It depends on the jurisdiction, and it remains to be seen what divil partnerships will amount to in Ireland.

We're not attempting to speak for everyone, but to start a genuine discussion within the community about what people do want.

In Ireland the only diffrences seem to be:

(or will be)

1. The title
2. Adoption

And...

3. The fact that civil partnership will undermine the institution of marriage, whereas same-sex marriage will not.

[Universal_001]

What is a civil marriage and what is a civil partnership? Is the difference just in the name (as it is here in the UK) or something else?

I look forward to the debate's conclusions telling me what it is I want .

It depends on the jurisdiction, and it remains to be seen what divil partnerships will amount to in Ireland.

We're not attempting to speak for everyone, but to start a genuine discussion within the community about what people do want.

1) The gay commuity exists only in the minds of those who want to make money/get government funding, to establish a power base (eg LGBTQ Labour/Labour Youth) or use it as a term of abuse.

2) It doesn't really matter whether the "gay community" would prefer civil marriage to civil partnership, the political establishment (and a High Court judge in the oly releveant decision) have decided that civil marriage will require a referendum, which will not happen in the foreseeable future. So civil partnership it is - which would appear to be provide substantial rights, benefits, obligations and duties which come from State recognition.

True, and neither is it a Human Right under international law. It drives me bananas when people who wish for "marriage" use human rights as an argument for its availability here. I support the idea that it should be available for those who wish it but using proper arguments rather than inventing them.

The Zappone supreme court judgement should be interesting. I bet money they will indicate that "marriage" as constiutionally known, is between a man and a woman, as the high court found. I also would lay money that they will find that affording the same rights to same sex couples as married couples, whatever you call it, is an attack on the constitutional marriage and therefore to be avoided. In circumstances where we would need a constitutional referendum to allow it what is the point of these debates?

Polls show it would actually pass, tho I'm very very uncomfortable with the idea of putting minority rights up for majority vote.
The constructionist argument does not wash with me, the vision of the constutition for the role of women would have made removing the marraige bar illegal

[corelli]

[quote=Universal_001]

What is a civil marriage and what is a civil partnership? Is the difference just in the name (as it is here in the UK) or something else?

I look forward to the debate's conclusions telling me what it is I want .

It depends on the jurisdiction, and it remains to be seen what divil partnerships will amount to in Ireland.

We're not attempting to speak for everyone, but to start a genuine discussion within the community about what people do want.

1) The gay commuity exists only in the minds of those who want to make money/get government funding, to establish a power base (eg LGBTQ Labour/Labour Youth) or use it as a term of abuse.

2) It doesn't really matter whether the "gay community" would prefer civil marriage to civil partnership, the political establishment (and a High Court judge in the oly releveant decision) have decided that civil marriage will require a referendum, which will not happen in the foreseeable future. So civil partnership it is - which would appear to be provide substantial rights, benefits, obligations and duties which come from State recognition.

True, and neither is it a Human Right under international law. It drives me bananas when people who wish for "marriage" use human rights as an argument for its availability here. I support the idea that it should be available for those who wish it but using proper arguments rather than inventing them.

The Zappone supreme court judgement should be interesting. I bet money they will indicate that "marriage" as constiutionally known, is between a man and a woman, as the high court found. I also would lay money that they will find that affording the same rights to same sex couples as married couples, whatever you call it, is an attack on the constitutional marriage and therefore to be avoided. In circumstances where we would need a constitutional referendum to allow it what is the point of these debates?

Polls show it would actually pass, tho I'm very very uncomfortable with the idea of putting minority rights up for majority vote.
The constructionist argument does not wash with me, the vision of the constutition for the role of women would have made removing the marraige bar illegal [/quote:23thn3w7]

It's not my argument! Do you doubt, though, that the Supreme Court will like it?

[Universal_001]

[quote=corelli]

What is a civil marriage and what is a civil partnership? Is the difference just in the name (as it is here in the UK) or something else?

I look forward to the debate's conclusions telling me what it is I want .

It depends on the jurisdiction, and it remains to be seen what divil partnerships will amount to in Ireland.

We're not attempting to speak for everyone, but to start a genuine discussion within the community about what people do want.

1) The gay commuity exists only in the minds of those who want to make money/get government funding, to establish a power base (eg LGBTQ Labour/Labour Youth) or use it as a term of abuse.

2) It doesn't really matter whether the "gay community" would prefer civil marriage to civil partnership, the political establishment (and a High Court judge in the oly releveant decision) have decided that civil marriage will require a referendum, which will not happen in the foreseeable future. So civil partnership it is - which would appear to be provide substantial rights, benefits, obligations and duties which come from State recognition.

True, and neither is it a Human Right under international law. It drives me bananas when people who wish for "marriage" use human rights as an argument for its availability here. I support the idea that it should be available for those who wish it but using proper arguments rather than inventing them.

The Zappone supreme court judgement should be interesting. I bet money they will indicate that "marriage" as constiutionally known, is between a man and a woman, as the high court found. I also would lay money that they will find that affording the same rights to same sex couples as married couples, whatever you call it, is an attack on the constitutional marriage and therefore to be avoided. In circumstances where we would need a constitutional referendum to allow it what is the point of these debates?

Polls show it would actually pass, tho I'm very very uncomfortable with the idea of putting minority rights up for majority vote.
The constructionist argument does not wash with me, the vision of the constutition for the role of women would have made removing the marraige bar illegal

It's not my argument! Do you doubt, though, that the Supreme Court will like it?[/quote:31d7soyx]

They are not very smart people, they seem to confuse what THEY want with actual laws, rights, etc
Read the NorrisVAg judgement
I know it's diffrent judges now but their recent judements have hardly ventured far from this

[corelli]

True, to an extent. The only members of the Supreme Court in any way likely to take an alternative view would be Dehnam and Fennelly, but I would not hold out too much hope of that either. The rest of the court may well take a somwhat historical view (like done in Synott) and indicate that the framers of the constitution would not have forseen such a thing in any way whatsoever. I can't see them doing the whole "christian nature" of the constitution approach like they did in Norris.

[Universal_001]

True, to an extent. The only members of the Supreme Court in any way likely to take an alternative view would be Dehnam and Fennelly, but I would not hold out too much hope of that either. The rest of the court may well take a somwhat historical view (like done in Synott) and indicate that the framers of the constitution would not have forseen such a thing in any way whatsoever. I can't see them doing the whole "christian nature" of the constitution approach like they did in Norris.

Thing is "framers intentions" is just another way of saying "christian nature of the state"

[returning officer]

to paraphrase:

Polls show it (amending the constitution to provide for same-sex civil marriage) would pass

...hmm

Polls also showed that the Lisbon treaty would pass and by wider margins than any poll I have seen on the question on "gay marrirage" - as with any poll it is irrelevent. The key moment is polling day itself - what is the question and who turns up to answer it.

No opinion poll I have seen to date actaully asks a sizable number of voters, whetherthey were in favour of amending the Constitution to provide for same-sex marriage. They were variants of dubious veracity ie do you favour allowing gays to marry? Should same-sex relationships be recognised by the state? (ie civil partnership) or there was one for which there was a majority in favour of "gay marriage" but also majority against such a couple being allowed to adopt (which again is the wrong question since the proper one is whether a same-sex couple should be allowed make a joint application).

McDowell and Lenihan's political view is that such a referendum would not pass. I agree. And have seen no evidence to convince me otherwise (and I am re-enforced by the Coir element re-emerging and generally bolsie nature of the Irish electorate).

It was also the AG's view that they could not legislate for non-gender definition of marriage before the Zappone decision (see Civil Registration act 2004, amendment which only SF opposed). It is certainly not possible after it (and there is next to no chance of the Supreme Court overturning Zappone on any substantial ground).

The preference of gay couples for one over the over is therefore a moot point.

[Universal_001]

to paraphrase:

Polls show it (amending the constitution to provide for same-sex civil marriage) would pass

...hmm

Polls also showed that the Lisbon treaty would pass and by wider margins than any poll I have seen on the question on "gay marrirage" - as with any poll it is irrelevent. The key moment is polling day itself - what is the question and who turns up to answer it.

No opinion poll I have seen to date actaully asks a sizable number of voters, whetherthey were in favour of amending the Constitution to provide for same-sex marriage. They were variants of dubious veracity ie do you favour allowing gays to marry? Should same-sex relationships be recognised by the state? (ie civil partnership) or there was one for which there was a majority in favour of "gay marriage" but also majority against such a couple being allowed to adopt (which again is the wrong question since the proper one is whether a same-sex couple should be allowed make a joint application).

McDowell and Lenihan's political view is that such a referendum would not pass. I agree. And have seen no evidence to convince me otherwise (and I am re-enforced by the Coir element re-emerging and generally bolsie nature of the Irish electorate).

It was also the AG's view that they could not legislate for non-gender definition of marriage before the Zappone decision (see Civil Registration act 2004, amendment which only SF opposed). It is certainly not possible after it (and there is next to no chance of the Supreme Court overturning Zappone on any substantial ground).

The preference of gay couples for one over the over is therefore a moot point.

Unless you just dont call it marraige

[stringjack]

The Zappone supreme court judgement should be interesting. I bet money they will indicate that "marriage" as constiutionally known, is between a man and a woman, as the high court found. I also would lay money that they will find that affording the same rights to same sex couples as married couples, whatever you call it, is an attack on the constitutional marriage and therefore to be avoided. In circumstances where we would need a constitutional referendum to allow it what is the point of these debates?

The High Court decision suggested that no constitutional referendum would be required. Also, Goodwin.

[returning officer]

The Zappone supreme court judgement should be interesting. I bet money they will indicate that "marriage" as constiutionally known, is between a man and a woman, as the high court found. I also would lay money that they will find that affording the same rights to same sex couples as married couples, whatever you call it, is an attack on the constitutional marriage and therefore to be avoided. In circumstances where we would need a constitutional referendum to allow it what is the point of these debates?

The High Court decision suggested that no constitutional referendum would be required. Also, Goodwin.

You may have pointed this out to me before, but where in Dunne J's judgment does it suggest/imply that a referendum would not be required?
(Also interesting that Hedigan J, who sat on Goodwin is now in the High Court decided the lesbians v gay father, case)