Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 14 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 139

Thread: Did you know that the Oireachtas banned gay marriage in 2004?

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Did you know that the Oireachtas banned gay marriage in 2004?

    While civil partnership legislation has tended to grab media headlines, little attention is paid to the fact that the last government took the deliberate decision to bar gay men and lesbians from accessing the institution of marriage.

    Civil Registration Bill 2003: Report and Final Stages. (Dáil Debates, Volume 579, 10th February 2004)

    Civil Registration Bill 2003: Second Stage (Resumed). (Seanad Debates, Volume 175, 11th February 2004)

    The Civil Registration Act, 2004 provided for the upgrading of the records system for the registration of births, marriages and deaths, and the widening of authorised venues for marriage ceremonies conducted beyond the church or registry office. Section 2.2(e) of this legislation states that there is an impediment to marriage if both parties are of the same sex.

    Our legislators never debated the ban in either the Dáil or the Seanad at the time that the Bill went through both Houses of the Oireachtas. Ten opposition deputies did try to remove Section 2.2(e) at the Report and Final Stages of the Bill. However, they did not get the opportunity to debate the ban. They were immediately outvoted by Minister Mary Coughlan’s counter-amendment to keep the ban intact. Her government colleagues supported her in that regard. Fine Gael and Labour deputies did not take part in this particular vote.

    The sheer absence of debate about this highly discriminatory measure prompted me to contact lawmakers who voted on the legislation. I asked deputies to provide me with their rationale for keeping the ban intact. I asked senators if they were aware of the clause in the proposals. I provided them with the relevant background information in order to facilitate their response. The vast majority of these public representatives have ignored my repeated correspondence over the last year. The following is a sample of the responses that I did receive:

    Deputy Mary O'Rourke: “I was not aware of this proposed ban prior to voting on this Bill.”

    Deputy Noel Ahern: “Don't recall. I presumed it was the agreed decision at the time.”

    Deputy Brian Hayes: “My understanding from the 2003 Bill was that same sex marriage was never part of the Bill...from the debate, to the best of my knowledge, at the time the issue was about getting rights for same sex couples without full marriage.”

    Assistant to Senator Joe O’Toole: “Joe… didn’t speak on this Act and doesn’t remember it as being a Bill that related to any kind of gay rights issue.”

    Senator Geraldine Feeney: “I am sure you will agree that this Bill goes some way towards rectifying the discrimination present in society against members of the gay community.”

    Senator Michael McCarthy: “From memory I cannot recollect to answer your query. I have contacted a colleague that assists with legislation and will revert to you in due course.”

    These responses highlight an unacceptable level of ignorance within our national parliament about an important dynamic to a piece of legisation that they voted on. Is this ignorance acceptable to you? Do you think that it is indicative of a wider malaise within our political system as to the role and responsibility of the legislature?
    Last edited by straightalk; 16th June 2010 at 12:28 PM.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member ne0ica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    8,380
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by straightalk View Post
    While civil partnership legislation has tended to grab media headlines, little attention is paid to the fact that the last government took the deliberate decision to bar gay men and lesbians from accessing the institution of marriage.

    Civil Registration Bill 2003: Report and Final Stages.

    Civil Registration Bill 2003: Second Stage (Resumed).

    The Civil Registration Act, 2004 provided for the upgrading of the records system for the registration of births, marriages and deaths, and the widening of authorised venues for marriage ceremonies conducted beyond the church or registry office. Section 2.2(e) of this legislation states that there is an impediment to marriage if both parties are of the same sex.

    Our legislators never debated the ban in either the Dáil or the Seanad at the time that the Bill went through both Houses of the Oireachtas. Ten opposition deputies did try to remove Section 2.2(e) at the Report and Final Stages of the Bill. However, they did not get the opportunity to debate the ban. They were immediately outvoted by Minister Mary Coughlan’s counter-amendment to keep the ban intact. Her government colleagues supported her in that regard. Fine Gael and Labour deputies did not take part in this particular vote.

    The sheer absence of debate about this highly discriminatory measure prompted me to contact lawmakers who voted on the legislation. I asked deputies to provide me with their rationale for keeping the ban intact. I asked senators if they were aware of the clause in the proposals. I provided them with the relevant background information in order to facilitate their response. The vast majority of these public representatives have ignored my repeated correspondence over the last year. The following is a sample of the responses that I did receive:

    Deputy Mary O'Rourke: “I was not aware of this proposed ban prior to voting on this Bill.”

    Deputy Noel Ahern: “Don't recall. I presumed it was the agreed decision at the time.”

    Deputy Brian Hayes: “My understanding from the 2003 Bill was that same sex marriage was never part of the Bill...from the debate, to the best of my knowledge, at the time the issue was about getting rights for same sex couples without full marriage.”

    Assistant to Senator Joe O’Toole: “Joe… didn’t speak on this Act and doesn’t remember it as being a Bill that related to any kind of gay rights issue.”

    Senator Geraldine Feeney: “I am sure you will agree that this Bill goes some way towards rectifying the discrimination present in society against members of the gay community.”

    Senator Michael McCarthy: “From memory I cannot recollect to answer your query. I have contacted a colleague that assists with legislation and will revert to you in due course.”
    These responses highlight an unacceptable level of ignorance within our national parliament about an important dynamic to a piece of legisation that they voted on. Is this ignorance acceptable to you? Do you think that it is indicative of a wider malaise within our political system as to the role and responsibility of the legislature?
    Whats new. This only goes to show you that our legislators are a lazy bunch and don't bother reading bills they vote on. They simply follow the party whip.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bandit Country
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Representative democracy isn't really that representative, is it?
    If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.

    Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member ne0ica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    8,380
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seenitallb4 View Post
    Representative democracy isn't really that representative, is it?
    It is. We elected those who we voted for. There is no overhelming support in society for gay marriage. Why would they bother sticking their necks out when they don't have to.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member Asparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,879
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ne0ica View Post
    Whats new. This only goes to show you that our legislators are a lazy bunch and don't bother reading bills they vote on. They simply follow the party whip.
    I think that it is impossible to read every bill - some of them are long, in irish or very complex language. I am not sure how things are done however each party should nominate some bill readers and they should meet to agree a bullet point summary of each bill.
    If a significant bullet point is missed then the bill would be automatically suspended until it has been properly ratified.
    ANGER IS A POLICY, GET OFF YOUR KNEES

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bandit Country
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ne0ica View Post
    Why would they bother sticking their necks out when they don't have to.
    I don't know, but I would assume that they would bother knowing the content of the bills they vote for.
    If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.

    Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7

    Default

    It would seem to me that this section was seen as relatively unimportant at the time, most probably because anyone who did notice it assumed that gay marriage was already illegal and the bill wasn't changing anything. I certainly don't recall hearing about any gay couple getting married in the decade previous to the bill.
    It is very easy to be a Socialist when one is poor.
    That said, it is even easier to be a Socialist when one is rich.

    Economic Left/Right: -7.50
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56

  8. #8

    Default

    There is no support for gay marriage beyond a lunatic fringe within the gay community and their politically motivated cheerleaders. Thankfully our public representatives have had the sense to put the common interest first.
    Thank you for the six thousand likes.

  9. #9

    Default

    But yes, it was a cynical action by the minister/government td involved.

    sorry for the dp!
    It is very easy to be a Socialist when one is poor.
    That said, it is even easier to be a Socialist when one is rich.

    Economic Left/Right: -7.50
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bandit Country
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith-M View Post
    There is no support for gay marriage beyond a lunatic fringe within the gay community and their politically motivated cheerleaders. Thankfully our public representatives have had the sense to put the common interest first.
    I support anyone's right to marry anyone else if there is consent, up to and including polygamy. Actually, it's not so much that I view these things as rights but more like private matters that ought not to need much in the way of public consent. I say this as a happily married and monogamous person.
    If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.

    Thomas Jefferson

Page 1 of 14 1234511 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •