Civil Partnership Bill and Children

[HeadHippie]

My thoughts on how the Civil Partnership Bill will impact on children of same-sex couples if left in its current form:

Well, firstly the child does not have any legal right to an automatic claim from the estate of the non-biological parent in the case of her/ his death. Secondly, and equally as importantly, even if the child is provided for in a will, the child does not appear to be considered to be a relative of the person, and as such is subject to the same inheritance tax levels as a stranger. To articulate this properly, according to the Irish Revenue Commissioners’ website a non-biological son or daughter of a same-sex partner would be able to inherit tax-free up to €23,908, compared with a biological son or daughter’s threshold of €478,155.

Any thoughts on how to rectify this legal limbo that a growing group of Irish Citizens are finding themselves in?

[Aggressor]

The matters you talk about relate to parents and families. Children have no rights to the estate of a parent's homosexual lover. The Civil Partnership Bill seeks to give certain rights to homosexual couples but the government makes it very clear that the intention is not to elevate such relationships to the status of marriage. Giving homosexual lovers the status of a parent would effectively give the relationship recognition as a real family/marriage. The government say do not want that, it is likely that the majority of Irish people would not want it either.

[corelli]

The matters you talk about relate to parents and families. Children have no rights to the estate of a parent's homosexual lover. The Civil Partnership Bill seeks to give certain rights to homosexual couples but the government makes it very clear that the intention is not to elevate such relationships to the status of marriage. Giving homosexual lovers the status of a parent would effectively give the relationship recognition as a real family/marriage. The government say do not want that, it is likely that the majority of Irish people would not want it either.

I think your argument might be better put if you indicated that giving such rights to same sex couples, ie sucession rights for non biological children, may well have been considered un-constitutional. I imagine, legally, that might be so. The Government, to be precise, said its advice was to that effect.

[aef1]

The matters you talk about relate to parents and families. Children have no rights to the estate of a parent's homosexual lover. The Civil Partnership Bill seeks to give certain rights to homosexual couples but the government makes it very clear that the intention is not to elevate such relationships to the status of marriage. Giving homosexual lovers the status of a parent would effectively give the relationship recognition as a real family/marriage. The government say do not want that, it is likely that the majority of Irish people would not want it either.

The majority of the Irish people would not want it???

The fact of the matter is that there are children out there, Irish citizens, who are being denied basic rights. Their are families living in fear that if the biological parent dies that the children will have to be taken into care as they have no legal link what so ever to the person who raised them from birth. This would be devastating for a family.

The fact of the matter is that a child created as a result of a one night stand has more rights than a child of a long term committed relationship.
The fact of the matter is a niece or a nephew has more rights than a child of a long term committed relationship.

This is not an abstract argument. There are children of same sex couples living in Ireland and believe me they will not accept being treated as second class citizens because of some ignorant peoples preconcieved notions. Their rights are being denied and these families are living in fear that something will happen and their families and they will be torn apart.

Aggressor get your head out of your arse. Go out meet some of these families and tell these children to their faces that they dont deserve these rights. Bet your integrity of marriage argument would go down a real treat

And yes I feel that it may be un constitutional as according to the constitution everyone is equal before the law.

[FutureChiefJustice]

The majority of the Irish people would not want it???

Aggressor get your head out of your arse. Go out meet some of these families and tell these children to their faces that they dont deserve these rights. Bet your integrity of marriage argument would go down a real treat

And yes I feel that it may be un constitutional as according to the constitution everyone is equal before the law.

Its not aggressor that need to get his head out of his arse. Its the majority of the population. I don't think you appreciate the limits of the Irish electorates' tolerance for homosexuals. It is, of course, wrong, but thats democracy.

Yes, everyone is equal before the law according to the constitution. But Article 41.3.1 also states that

"The state pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage on which the family is founded and protect it against attack"

This has ensured the survival of the status quo as it comes down to what defines marriage, which the Irish Courts have consistently found to be between a man and a woman.

And despite the hardship that is suffered by homosexual couples, I think in a referendum the people would reject elevating their situations to the level of marriage, which is what it would take if the government were to take any further steps in this direction.

[aef1]

The majority of the Irish people would not want it???

Aggressor get your head out of your arse. Go out meet some of these families and tell these children to their faces that they dont deserve these rights. Bet your integrity of marriage argument would go down a real treat

And yes I feel that it may be un constitutional as according to the constitution everyone is equal before the law.

Its not aggressor that need to get his head out of his arse. Its the majority of the population. I don't think you appreciate the limits of the Irish electorates' tolerance for homosexuals. It is, of course, wrong, but thats democracy.

Yes, everyone is equal before the law according to the constitution. But Article 41.3.1 also states that

"The state pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage on which the family is founded and protect it against attack"

This has ensured the survival of the status quo as it comes down to what defines marriage, which the Irish Courts have consistently found to be between a man and a woman.

And despite the hardship that is suffered by homosexual couples, I think in a referendum the people would reject elevating their situations to the level of marriage, which is what it would take if the government were to take any further steps in this direction.

I dont think it would be rejected. People are realising that there is a growing and pressing need to provide for these children. Also it has become more and more acceptable for people to be in same sex relationships. More and more people have people in same sex relationships in their lives and I very much doubt if they will be as willing to deny people they know personally their rights. I think their is a growing realisation that this is needed. There will always be the vocal conservative few and unfortunately it will be left up to the children of these relationships to counter these arguments, which are being more irrational as they are being proved to be rubbish.

For a short term solution what about the idea of a 3rd parent like in Canada? It would give children security until we can reach a consensus on constitutional status.

[FutureChiefJustice]

For a short term solution what about the idea of a 3rd parent like in Canada? It would give children security until we can reach a consensus on constitutional status.

But you'll notice that it was the Courts, not the legislature, that made the move. I think this would also be considered an attack on the institution of marriage and the family, as the primary social unit of the state, by anyone opposed to such a move, therefore preventing the Oireachtas from doing anything. Times have changed, but the constitution has not, unfortunately.

The point was made in one of the articles I saw on the subject that if they allow this 3rd parent, why not a fourth and so on? I put this to you as an objective observation, as opposed to a reflection of my opinion, which it is not.

The group was part of the Alliance for Marriage and the Family, a coalition of religious and conservative groups that had intervenor status in the case. Ross said they have not ruled out appealing the decision.

"Can one or two step-parents now apply for legal status as a parent and ultimately lead to four or even six parents being recognized by the courts as having say over the child's upbringing?" she said to the Post, dubbing such a scenario "parenting by committee."

[aef1]

For a short term solution what about the idea of a 3rd parent like in Canada? It would give children security until we can reach a consensus on constitutional status.

But you'll notice that it was the Courts, not the legislature, that made the move. I think this would also be considered an attack on the institution of marriage and the family, as the primary social unit of the state, by anyone opposed to such a move, therefore preventing the Oireachtas from doing anything. Times have changed, but the constitution has not, unfortunately.

The point was made in one of the articles I saw on the subject that if they allow this 3rd parent, why not a fourth and so on? I put this to you as an objective observation, as opposed to a reflection of my opinion, which it is not.

The group was part of the Alliance for Marriage and the Family, a coalition of religious and conservative groups that had intervenor status in the case. Ross said they have not ruled out appealing the decision.

"Can one or two step-parents now apply for legal status as a parent and ultimately lead to four or even six parents being recognized by the courts as having say over the child's upbringing?" she said to the Post, dubbing such a scenario "parenting by committee."

I know it was the courts and not the legislature that decided this. But the courts are bound by legislation so the ultimate responsibility falls on the legislature.

The constitution has not changed but it need to do so. It is not just children of same sex couples that are affected by its out dated clause. It is also single parent families, children raised by grandparents as so on. Lets not forget that there are a few articles of our constitution that need to be up dated.

The only family unit being attacked by this debate is the same sex family. The so called traditional family is not going to be affected by giving rights so children of same sex families. The question of this thread is how are we going to guarantee the rights of children in this situation and if the constitution will not be change how else can we do it?

And as for the 3rd parent concept I do not think in the long term it is ideal but it is an option for the short tetm. And as for 4th parent etc its very simple, dont permit it in the order, 3rd parent and thats it. Then the person who has raised the child as the 3rd parent will have the same rights and obligations with inheritance, consent, maintenance etc.

The fact of the matter is that there are people stuck in this situation right now and what can we do to give them security and stop them from being treated like 2nd class citizens due to a consequence of birth?

[Aggressor]

The fact of the matter is a niece or a nephew has more rights than a child of a long term committed relationship.

This is not an abstract argument. There are children of same sex couples living in Ireland and believe me they will not accept being treated as second class citizens because of some ignorant peoples preconcieved notions. Their rights are being denied and these families are living in fear that something will happen and their families and they will be torn apart.

Talk of the "the child's rights" doesn't include the right of the child to have contact with both parents. This is something which is being denied by prior agreements by many of the parents who bring these children into the world. The same-sex lover of a parent should have no more special rights over the child than an opposite-sex lover or a brother or sister of the parent who happens to live in the home the child lives in.

[aef1]

The fact of the matter is a niece or a nephew has more rights than a child of a long term committed relationship.

This is not an abstract argument. There are children of same sex couples living in Ireland and believe me they will not accept being treated as second class citizens because of some ignorant peoples preconcieved notions. Their rights are being denied and these families are living in fear that something will happen and their families and they will be torn apart.

Talk of the "the child's rights" doesn't include the right of the child to have contact with both parents. This is something which is being denied by prior agreements by many of the parents who bring these children into the world. The same-sex lover of a parent should have no more special rights over the child than an opposite-sex lover or a brother or sister of the parent who happens to live in the home the child lives in.

Actually aggressor it does. If these children were left the family home in a will they would very likely have to sell the home as they are taxed the same as a complete stranger.

If their non biological parent is ill they have no right to see them, or to make any medical decisions.

If they need a permission slip to go on a school trip the non biological parent cannot give it to them.

If the biological parent dies the children may have to be taken into care.here are not special right

These are not special rights they are basic rights. These children have been brought up by these people since birth and they are their parents. They have shared equally in care and financing these children who they decided as a couple to bring into the world. Why should they then be treated in law as a complete stranger to their child?

If a non biological parent in a hetrosexual relationship wants these rights for the child it is easy for them to achieve this. They can adopt, marry etc. But people in homosexual relationships are prevented from doing so. So what option do they have to ensure that their children are provided for?

And the child of a homosexual couple is counted as being class C in inheritance tax when it comes to their non biological parents. Nieces and nephews are in class B so they actually have more benefits.

I suggest you go and meet a family in this situation. Then hopefully you will see there is more to it than just being the "lover" of a child's parent. These children are very much loved and wanted and they want to be legally recognised as a family. Really how is it going to affect you if they are allowed to do this?