Right on James! Again this should be passed through legislation, some things should not be put to a vote, why should a majority vote on a minority issue. How many of the convention are gay themselves?

James, I hope you and your fella get to marry at home soon.
Theres no need to put this issue to a vote. No country that has legalised same sex marriage has imploded. Time to get it sorted Ireland.

Derrick Knowles, ”why should a majority vote on a minority issue.” I feel the same about the abortion issue.

Don’t thinks a moral issue. Its just the legal reality that the Supreme Court has interpreted ‘marriage’ in the ‘traditional’ way. So any legislation that was brought forward would most likely be found unconstitutional, though there is always room for a bit of judicial activism.

A referendum is the most straight-forward way though, considering the political will is there for the most part.

So do I Tommy!

“Its just the legal reality that the Supreme Court has interpreted ‘marriage’ in the ‘traditional’ way”

That’s true Sam, but the law can change. Homosexuality was only legalized in 1993. Before that it would have been illegal as marriage for same sex couples. Was there a referendum to legalize homosexuality? No.

This government will drag this out for as long as possible.

One human shouldn’t decide the happiness of another human, get this passed and no more debate. Who’s debating it any way? Some semi articulate bigots?

no , justin , it is the constitutional convention, rightly or wrongly , that is asking. At least.
,read the bloody article before you open your stupid mouth.

Who’s an aggressive boy, eh Rory??

Justin’s point is spot on irrelevant of ‘The Constitution’ or whatever else.
Get on with this once and for all – About time!

Intelligent input Rory

Rory your there is a button on your keyboard for using capital letters, they go at the start of sentences and peoples names and places. Your use of punctuation is excessive too, but I wouldn’t call a stranger on the Internet stupid because I didn’t agree with their point of view.

That is sincerely, decently and persuasively expressed. It hits the core of the issue.

@ Katy, well said. One marriage for all.

That is true but the courts have interpreted marriage in the constitution as being between a man and a woman (see for example Murray J’s decision in DT v CT in 2003). Any legislation which does not conform to that definition is likely to be struck down, especially considering the fact that the current Supreme Court is not known for engaging in judicial ‘activism.’

redthumbs explain yourselves

Ah come on red thumbers, if you agree then homosexual people can get married and be sad just like you!

The Constitution doesn’t define marriage. Yet we need a Constitution Convention to change it?

The state doesn’t define marriage. It gives legal standing to marriage. Without state intervention in marriage couple’s would have to sign off on probably hundreds of legal contracts, including, but not limited to, inheritance, tax, children, next-of-kin, property, social welfare, access to children in the case of divorce or separation, etc. It’s not as simple as you make it out to be. It would also necessitate far more legal intervention in the form of solicitors, and as a result, make marriage prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of people.

OK but it still doesn’t define marriage as between a man and woman. Why do we need a convention to change the definition of marriage in the constitution when it’s not defined there in the first place.

I think the convention is to establish whether we need a referendum, personally I don’t think we do!

I don’t think we do either. However a referendum would protect it from endless legal challenges. It should be brought in the same way the England and France are doing it.

The idea that religious organisations should be forced to perform same-sex marriages is absolutely outrageous. Religious freedom is an essential part of any liberal democracy. To force religions to do something which they consider gravely immoral and sinful is not secularism, it is anti-secular and anti-democratic. It would violate the state’s obligations under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. In it’s erosion of freedom of conscience, it would be redolent of Nazi Germany or North Korea. However, religions that do support marriage equality (the Unitarian faith for instance) should be permitted to carry out same-sex marriages.

Then they should not be allowed to perform their bigoted homophobic sexist traditions here. …. just because these churchs perform under the cloak of some invisible make believe diety does not make it on for them to discriminate

Marc, religious organisations already have the right to pick and choose who they marry, so I think that should continue when same sex marriage rights are introduced. It would be a different story if religious organisations were the only providers of civil marriage, but they’re not, so I don’t see a benefit in forcing them to marry anyone they don’t wish to marry.

No, I’m pretty sure if (Sorry, WHEN!) we include same-sex couples under the umbrella of marriage, they are automatically afforded the right of divorce the same as any heterosexual couple.

Why would there be a debate about that? Surely they wouldn’t need a whole new legislation for divorce if same sex marriage is made legal?

The Constitution already allows married couples to divorce. So once a same sex couple gets married, they can access the same divorce rights as any other couple in the unfortunate event that it’s required.

It’s worth pointing out that, ideally, when marriage equality is introduced, same sex couples will access marriage rights in exactly the same manner as heterosexual couples now. It shouldn’t be a separate process. New legislation will be needed to facilitate that, but that’s all that’s needed. When a couple gets married, they’ll be married. They won’t get a same sex marriage certificate, they’ll just get a marriage certificate.

The computer wasn’t asked

Did you get down on one knee when you proposed? Someone computers can be old fashioned like that.

I personally would like the opportunity to elect Graham Norton the next Pope. Now that is democracy.

Actually no Paddy, it wouldn’t. Marriage is not defined in the constitution so in theory any legislation for same-sex marriage would not require a referendum.

I still think there will be a referendum though, even though it’s unnecessary, and those supporting marriage equality would win comfortably according to the polls.

Is graham norton a catholic?

@ John Everyman
I take it John you are in favour of democracy. All I suggested is put the issue to the people with real choices. In my experience when these issues are discussed the liberal side of the discussion always think they have a majority. The effects of changing the status quo have not yet been scrutinised. The liberal press may persuade the population temporarily, but real consideration of all the associated issues will cause widespread reconsideration.
A quarter of the gay community are against the change, and we are going to redefine marriage for 0.4% of the population? Doesn’t make much sense!

Graham is a protestant and we can’t elect a Pope. We have to leave that to the men in frocks.

John, the effects of changing the status quo are simple: gay couples can get married. Same sex unions have been around in some form or fashion for nearly 25 years, so if they were detrimental to society, I’m sure the conservative media would reminding us at every opportunity.

The notion that the majority get to vote on the rights of a minority goes against the ethos of democracy. Living in a democracy doesn’t just mean majority rules, it means there are certain assumptions of equality and fairness applicable to ALL citizens. Gay men and women are equal citizens in Irish society and should have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to marry. If you’re against that, it’s up to you to come up with valid reasons why it shouldn’t happen. That’s how things work in a truly democratic society.

Last comment was to Paddy, not John.

Paddy no disrespect but if anyone half like te I’d say you were quick about slipping the ring on their finger n offering half your farm before they sobered up.