That’s the best assessment of the whole conundrum I have heard in ages Goldie. Brilliant !

Labour are a lost party forgetting their roots .

This comment & many below are predicated on a pretty strange premise: that supporting same sex marriage is a vote winner in East Meath. I would suggest a). It’s not in a conservative constituency like that and b). That very presumption demonstrates perfectly the bias through which people on here view practically everything this Government does.

No i believe their’re keeping a promise,which surprises me considering they broke all their other promise’s.

Labour are a political party, so of course they are only long for votes. Only the party faithful, or the naive, would believe they are tying to better society by pushing this change through. They are trying to fend off near certain political collapse by deflecting media attention away from their broken promises and piss poor political leadership.
I support same sex marriage, but Labour can go and f*ck themselves

See Brian Houlihan’s comment above.

That was for Rónán.

Labour might just be trying to get same sex mariage through – has anyone thought of that?

They can still go fckuk themselves fro everything else they are doing though

Civil Rights equality issues shouldn’t be decided by referendum.

In fairness the Labour Party has always being for equal marriage, so they aren’t jumping on any bandwagon, and they did bring this draft legislation before the Seanad before the writ was moved minus Holmes cos he’s only a councillor

Has it?

(Honest question – I couldn’t find any Irish jurisprudence on it when I was putting this piece together.)

No, but the Supreme Court did rule that a lesbian couple (pre civil partnership) were not a “family” within the meaning of the Constitution. McD v. L (2009)

Zappone & Gilligan v Revenue Commissioners. Judge Dunne said that marriage, as envisaged by the framers of the Constitution, didn’t extend to same-sex couples. Her argument was absolutely riddled with holes though.

@Patrick – That’s not the same thing as saying that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The Zappone judgment only says that it is not protected by the Constitution, not that the legislature could not provide for same-sex marriage if it wanted to.

The High Court ruling in the Zappone/Gilligan case is pretty shaky. It’s certainly not an unassailable barrier to introducing this legislation.

In Zappone 2006, Dunne said that there is no constitutional provision that would mean marriage between a same-sex couple should be recognised, and said that it was a matter for legislation. She reference the fact that Dáil had added the prohibition into law in the Civil Registration Act 2004. As far as I know, she did not say that the constitution prohibited it, and no court has ruled on this specific question.

This is an everyday life matter for thousands of gay couples who wish to be afforded the same marital and legal dignity as heterosexual couples. Rectifying the civil rights inadequacies in a state seems fairly urgent and pressing to me.

Not if your cold or hungry and your home is to be repossessed,Its a luxury item for straight, gay or Bi.

Our government isn’t doing a whole pile about that (people needing help that is) last I checked. In the meantime, there are other things worth debating that is not related to the economy / banks / repossessions etc. Don’t you think?

How can someone be over-educated?

Equal rights is a luxury item….oh dear.

Two quick points
@ Connor Buggy 1- Over educated individuals usually ask that question.
@ Justin Donoghue 2- equal rights are a luxury you have to fight to get the they are not given to you.
If you don’t like my opinion don’t read them.

How can I determine I don’t like your opinion if I don’t read it in the first place.

And stupid people think you can be overeducated ‘genius’

Well genius judging by your “opinions” I can surmise you must be under educated. I do not even need to use my over educated brain to deduce that. Can’t even spell a name correctly from the previous post……

Why do you insist on ignoring the polls M? The vast majority of Irish people are in favour of Marriage Equality. Also (and I tire of asking this question and never getting a reply from you) how can you oppose marriage equality and then call yourself a libertarian?

Ah my little ankle biting troll friend.

You have to understand I am no absolutist Libertarian but a traditional conservative as well.

The fact is we have to deal with the state being involved in marriage policy – it is the reality – the absolute libertarian position if of course to have no state involvement in marriage( this would in effect mean no gay marriage either as there would be no recognition from state or church).

From many posters I have read, there is little wish for a referendum on the subject of “gay marriage” or what you call in orwellian newspeak “Marriage Equality” – they seek to just impose it as they are afraid of a rejection. If a referendum came Catholics would be ordered in mass to oppose it and Kenny would be no doubt excommunicated if it was let pass.

I’m far too busy to be a troll.

As for your status as a libertarian, I am just referring to what it says on your twitter page. Perhaps you should edit it to read “libertarian (except where marriage is concerned)”.

Until you make your position on the matter clear you’ll excuse us for just taking you at your word and assuming you are a libertarian in the true sense of the word. Such libertarians, to quote from their platform, believe that “sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption.”

Now as for whether or not a referendum on this issue is required, I would state that because marriage is not defined in our constitution a referendum would not be required. I do still feel a referendum on the matter will occur and, judging from the polls, the side who support equality will easily win.

Also out of respect for each other, let’s not call each other nasty names. I don’t do it and I don’t think you should either.

Just a matter of timing M. The longer we wait, the more likely it is to pass.
I reckon you put far to much hope in the catholic community objecting to this just because they are told to do so.
They haven’t exactly embraced the ban on contraception now have they?
I think (and hope) it would pass at the minute, but as I said, the longer we wait, the more likely it is to pass.

John, FG or FF voters are not going to suddenly vote for Labour because of this.

While most might say they’re in favour of it, how many people will base their vote on this issue?
Sod all.
Well, except for the people who’d vote Labour anyway.
Don’t you think most people have other things to be worrying about?

James I don’t think they would switch to Labour because of this, far from it in fact.

However this is an issue that has cross party support. In any referendum on the matter the motion would be supported by voters from all parties.

Vote grabbing attempt though this may be from Labour, I’ll still support it if it brings Marriage Equality. It does not mean I am bound to vote fro Labour in the next election.

Well, then, we’re agreed: It is (or probably is) a vote grabbing and it won’t work e.g. you wouldn’t base your vote on it.

Well, there we are then. That was a short argument. Cheerio…

Everyman, Theres no need to build a strawman based on a false premise and burn it down. My profile page does not simply say “libertarian” – there are more words there to qualify what I am all about.

Manonthestreet – it may well come to pass that the state may make the status of gays living together the same as a traditional family, I think it would devalue civil marriage a lot, the status of church marriage would be improved – so you would end up with marriage ‘A’ and then marriage ‘B’ and the howling would continue at the lack of “Marriage Equality”. Ye will never win, lol.

M. There is no such thing as church marriage, marriage is entirely a civil institution. What the church does is officiate a wedding, and they aren’t the only group allowed to do so. People are married when they sign the marriage registry and not when the priest declares them husband and wife.

There’s no difference in law or in social standing between civil marriage and church marriage at the moment, since church marriage must include civil as well to be legal. Several of my friends had civil marriages either by choice or because they were remarrying. These marriages are all equal.
People in civil partnerships often refer to their partners as “my wife” or “my husband” and this is repeated by others, including older relatives, sometimes unsure of the etiquette involved but mainly without prejudice.
Marriages are already all equal in law and civil partnership is reaching parity in society. There is no evidence to suggest there would be any different social or legal standing between marriage A and B, or “gay married” which might get called marriage C in your scenario. It hasn’t been happening so far and I haven’t seen any evidence it’s about to.

Regarding straw man accusations, it’s not strawman to point out what you claim to be, and to define that, with the aim of showing the inconsistency in your purported libertarianism.

Ye are all giving me a great laugh with your marriage is nothing without the state line.

I’m sure ye will have many happy years of delusion ahead of ye.

As long as they are happy years M.
Law as it stands stops a section of our society from enjoying the happiness marriage brings.
Well, its mostly happiness…. ;)

From the point of view of an agnostic, M O Sé, a church marriage without the state endowed rights would have as much meaning to me as having a clown perform the ritual while riding a unicycle and juggling swords (the clown I mean, not myself). It’d make a nice show, but it’s effectively meaningless window dressing designed to crowbar god and religion into what is otherwise a meaningful and solemn act of commitment between two people who love each other.

Well, if ‘tradition’ is all about denying basic rights to people on the basis of their sexuality, call me a tradition-hater.

The reason you don’t go around making ‘a big gay song and dance about it,’ as you so eloquently put it is because your right to marry as a straight man, has never been questioned. Your right to marry has not been under constant scrutiny to the very day

Tom stop internalising your homophobia.

Tom, the word is just marriage. But if you want to go around telling people you’re heteromarried, then go for it. Just be prepared for some odd looks ;)

Couldn’t possibly imagine a marriage without children. So true.

What’s the point in getting married to the opposite sex if you can’t reproduce?