I agree that the Constitution doesn't bar gay marriage, and that the Oireachtas should legislate and test through an Article 26 referral (if the President makes one).

But if it had to be amended, it shouldn't be about defining marriage in the Constitution. It should be limited to clarifying that legislation extending the rights and protection of marriage would not be considered an attack on marriage itself, so the wording might be:

"3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, and to protect it against attack. The Oireachtas shall, by law, make provision for the registration of marriage and the extension of that registration shall not be taken to constitute an attack within the meaning of this Article."

That way, you place the debate back with the Oireachtas and ensure that the precise definition of marriage is a legislative rather than a constitutional matter.

Originally Posted by livingstone

I agree that the Constitution doesn't bar gay marriage, and that the Oireachtas should legislate and test through an Article 26 referral (if the President makes one).

But if it had to be amended, it shouldn't be about defining marriage in the Constitution. It should be limited to clarifying that legislation extending the rights and protection of marriage would not be considered an attack on marriage itself, so the wording might be:

"3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, and to protect it against attack. The Oireachtas shall, by law, make provision for the registration of marriage and the extension of that registration shall not be taken to constitute an attack within the meaning of this Article."

That way, you place the debate back with the Oireachtas and ensure that the precise definition of marriage is a legislative rather than a constitutional matter.

Good wording. It allows for extension of marriage to same-sex couples, frees it from the restraints of the constitution and avoids a constitutional definition. But would voters vote for a provision under which incestuous, underage or polygamous marriages could be provided for?

The march for marriage equality is on tomorrow (sunday, the 12th)at 3pm at City Hall, I might ask a few of groups if they have any proposed wording for legislation (and if they are planning to have any for a referendum if it is deemed necessary).

Is there a published legal opinion which says that legislation repealing s.2(2)(e) would be unconstitutional? Does anyone have a link to it?

Now that the children's referendum has had a low turnout and relatively narrow win, should the government now press ahead with the legislation* route first rather than plow on with a controversial referendum.


*there is a possibility that the Supreme Court could say that such legislation is unconstitutional but shouldn't the government exhaust remedies first, despite that risk?

This is the next (and first weighty) topic for the convention - your thoughts?

It's being discussed now at the convention

I'm sure Bacik is talking down to everyone as we speak. Still cant believe such an obviously partizan professional political organiser person was allowed to be included in the convention.

I'm sure they'll want the legislative route - the Looper party have even a bill prepared.

A referendum is the last thing they want.

They'll have to revoke the marriage of lunatics act 1811 also.

Am in favour of civil partnership. Am completely against the idea of "gay marriage".

I'm afraid I can only see marriage as being in the context of having children. Even if it doesn't always work out that way, it's such a major and difficult undertaking in life I think it needs to be accorded the proper status. And the real meaning attached to the word.

I agree with you for once.

Unfortunately dissenting views are not wanted on this thread.