That’s called “thinking outside the box” , of which this government isn’t capable of.

If they had then critics would be blasting on about them trying to confuse the electorate by dealing with too many amendments at once. An argument that has been made before.

Common sense is not at all as common as many would believe… While we are at it we should have one to reduce Bankers, politicians etc pay and pensions, seems as there appears to be a constitutional block on doing so…. That alone will get 100% turnout

Irish politicians believe we are not capable of multi-tasking, with basic questions. If they had ran more than one question in the referendum, then they would’ve had to put the Seanad in and they want to drag that one out till they decide to reform it!

Completely agree. Just look at the presidential elections in the States. Most states in the US vote on several issues at once.

Is this Labour Party founded by James Connolly?

I don’t mind what people do in their sex lives, as long as they don’t bother the kids, animals or unwilling partners. As for marriage, tried that, 1 T-shirt is plenty, ta(got a coupla sound brats out of the deal though, so no complaints).
And you can always draw up a private marriage contract and register it as a legal agreement. Me and my poodle are having the bans read at the Church of the Blasted EUcharismatics next week. Rev Troika is presiding.

Meantime, Eamo(we know your reading Eamo, don’t be shy)any chance you’d give us a considered opinion as to whether it is a human right to be allowed to earn a livlihood and live in the country of your birth?

For Connolly’s sake, answer Eamo…Eamo..Eamo…Mr Gaelmore…………Tarnishde…

Don’t let them get us!! :P

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6846855/gay-men-will-marry-your-girlfriends

Who cares “what you mind”.

Ta, Kevin..

Who minds what you care?

Agree with you, but a ref is need to change the constitution.

Gilmore is uber cynical on this issue. Until very recently he was awfully quiet on marriage equality. Now you can’t shut him up. Obama pulled the same stunt during the US election campaign. The message seems to be – Hey young people, even though we’re cutting your grants and forcing you out of the country in unprecedented numbers, we’re not FG, and if you vote for us in future we may do something progressive, at some stage.

To be fair, Petr, Gilmore was on Morning Ireland to talk about pensions and the budget. The question on gay marriage was an ambush, which he dealt with pretty well.

There, I’ve done it. I’ve publicly defended Gilmore. I’m going for a shower now.

Which part of the constitution needs to change to allow gay couples to marry? If there was something, it would surely be in Article 41. I can’t find it. http://constitution.ie

@King Olaf,

I fully accept your sentiment. But we need a referendum because your ancenstors decided you do deserve a say in how someone else lives their life or decides who to spend it with.

@ William Quill – Art 41.2.1 pledges the State to protect the institution of marriage upon which the Article 41 family is founded. It was a court decision (Murphy v AG) in which Costello J interpreted “marriage” as a permanent and indissoluble union of man and woman.

Would that description of marriage not discriminate against the infertile?
Because if it included adoption then legislation for gay marriage and adoption would make the unions completely equal.

Sorry, red thumbed by mistake.

Paul
YOU are the misguided one. I have no problem with gay marriage but I do object to Gilmore ignoring economic issues eg the 64 young people from my village already in Australia, and making pie in the sky speeches.

IF he sincerely supports gay marriage -which I doubt – why has he not taken steps to help it forward?

He has done nothing on abortion (is that not a civil right too?) which only needs Oireachtas action, and has done an about face on animal welfare in both the last and present Dails. He is using the difficulties of others to boost his standing.

Shouldn’t even need a referendum on what should already be a right IMO

You’ll have to wait..its best of 3 on Nice first up.

Wasn’t that the one starring Sweet Subsidiarity and Ethical Neutrality, where they elope and settle down in a disused Nato rendition hangar at Eirebase Shannon?

Nice ‘n’ promising sort of partnership..for peace. They didn’t say whose…the small print often gets blown away in the fine gaels off the west coast.
Reminds me of the year meself and CJH sank the Armada..

Who decides then? A dictator, a church or religion, mensa?

Unfortunately if they were to just put the law through it would be deemed invalid as marriage is defined as “a permanent and indissoluble union of man and woman”, if we want to ensure same sex couples have the right to marry and ensure that their union is recognized under Irish law we have to amend the constitution to contain a new definition of marriage, and the only way to legally change the constitution is for us to vote on it. Sadly citizens are left relying on others to vote to allow them their marital rights. And don’t get me started on the irony of the definition of marriage used especially since the fact that we legalised divorce pretty much makes “permanent and indissoluble” a moot point.

Well Dazza, ur definition was the high court interpreting the constitution, that definition is not in there. The reason they went for that interpretation is they at the time there was no legislation for it and the judges didn’t want to “legislate from the bench” (quite right too). It was left open for government to legislate. If they did and someone challenged, the Supreme Court would have to decide if it was constitutional. Given that there is no bar in the constitution (which doesn’t define marriage), the Supreme Court would very likely say it was grand. The government claim a referendum is needed because it suits them to have an excuse. Legislate for it now ya spineless saps! Have some balls!

I stand corrected, thanks for sharing that with me Sham

I for one welcome the catholic church coming out to attack this ammendment, the same catholic church who protected hetrosexual & homosexual child abusers.

Well said sir

Make it a non state function , let the different religions decide their own stance on who can and cant marry

If you made it a non state function how would that work in terms of taxes? I’m not criticising, I’m just asking. Would you remove tax breaks for married couples, joint assessment and so on?

You can remove it from the Constitution but you still need legislation for people to be able to marry.

Religion should have no function outside a place of worship or a family home. It should certainly not be deciding what citizens can and cannot do.

Get the State out of people’s relationships and how they define it – recognize only civil unions for legal/tax purposes and let people do as they wish

But then you need some sort of legal and universally agreed definition of what constitutes a “marriage” or “civil union” in those terms.

We can suggest that it should be two people living together in a permanent relationship, but if you’re going to do that you need that defined in legalese to allow people to distinctify between what does and doesn’t constitute such a status if you want to use it as a basis for legal and taxation decisions.

The law is an ass and requires things to be explained to it.

This gay marriage debate is soooo ph~#%¥ n Boooring
I personally don’t give a dam about it except that it is taking up far too much debate and time , there are far more important things to deal with.
Who cares about Gays ?
What exactly is it that they do to call themselves GAY anyway ?

John, look here: http://bit.ly/RA9vBr

Where’s your bible today John Coole? saving it till later for more homophobic rants?
Why don’t you piss off and let the adults have a grown up debate

If I have multiple wives and child can I get lots of benefits and tax breaks?

How is that ?

Mohammed. If you believe that all life is created by the will of a God (whichever God that may be) then you have to accept that God created some hetrosexual and some homosexual. If you cannot accept that how can you accept anything else that God may say?

Yes but the “Prophet” Muhammla raping 9 year old girls and screwing goats is “natural”.

See Ann’s comment above, obvious where she stands, smoke screen for the flaws in the church.

Possible question:

“Should legislation be enacted affording same gender couples the same rights, privileges and duties as mixed gender couples are currently afforded under the law?”

Damocles I think Ronan was trying to cover transsexuals rights in there too under the umbrella of equality in general and he’s got a great point. The constitution does already hold that we are supposed to be equal.. It just seems that some people seem to have got the notion that this is Animal Farm..

The more you try to pack into one question the less likely the success of the outcome … discuss.

Comments playing up again. Vanishing, reappearing, duplicating.

It’s called democracy that’s why a referendum.

That makes absolutely no sense Cian. In a democracy you elect a government to pursue legislation on your behalf. That’s every bit as democratic as a referendum. It’s also bizarre that a referendum is needed to give one group in society the same rights as the rest of us.

The constitution will need to be amended so a referendum will be required. Can only hope that it is passed if it does come to a vote.

referendum is needed whenever a new section needs adding to the constitution or changes made to the wording in parts of constitution.

As far as I’m aware the whole notion of a constitutional change is bull: There is no direct mention in the Irish constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman.
They only have to legislate, but the cowards are too scared!

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits same sex marriage nor does it confine or define marriage to opposite sex couples. Given the growing number of jurisdictions, including common law ones, that have legislated for this, and if the Oireachtas legislates for it here, I would be reasonably confident that the SC would not find it repugnant to the Constitution but would take a ‘living document’ approach to it.

My understanding is that the Supreme Court have previously defined marriages as the union between a man and a women.

This would have made it relatively easy for anyone to mount a challenge to full marriage equality – which you can be sure would have happened.

No Bob, they have not. The High Court has ruled on it previously but noted in the ruling that one of the reasons for rejecting it was the absence of legislation from the Oireachtas and the lack of such recognition in other common law states.

If the Oireachtas was to legislate then both of these objections would no longer be relevant, given legislation in other countries.

We need to just get on and legislate for it.

Thanks Alan – I still think we would probably be better off with a referendum.

I’m pretty sure it would be passed.

I don’t get it either.. Is same sex marriage illegal ? I don’t think it is,
but my knowledge of law is somewhat limited I admit..
Surely the state should just legislate for marriage equality between any two people regardless of their gender or sexuality.

As far as I can see that is exactly what is in the constitution already.

which on is the bride so?

Please check a dictionary. What you’re describing may well be a nice system, but it’s a system without governance. Democracy is a system of governance.

Point Taken John But! That kind of democracy allows 10 people to tell 9 others to live by their standards and that is by definition a proper democracy. That is why this should not be an issue. You cannot dictate just because you belong to a bigger gang. That is Mob rule wearing a democratic coat.

Technically democracy is not a form of government but a decision-making system. Representative democracy would be more accurate, but I’m nitpicking of course.

@ Joost Bos Thank you for that and nitpicking is allowed. Nothing is sacred on this page. 1 complimentary green thumb

Don’t need one as politicians and bankers pay isn’t part of the constitution.

If you wanted to you could try to get the referendum commission to add a non-constitutionally binding mass poll of the electorate on the same day as to whether public pay should have an upper bound and what that bound should be. But it’s not in their remit and probably not in their interest to do so.

Can you go one day without mentioning that? I thought the topic here was a referendum on same sex marriage.

I think Kerry has a fair point, Declan. We’ve had 31 goes at amending a constitution which is barely 75 years old. This would be no. 4 for the present government alone. When there are at least another 3 in the works, it’s reasonable to ask to vote on several changes together.

I wouldn’t have too much of an issue on voting on multiple issues. But in regard to the above comment, nearly every second or third article on the journal would fall under the category of finance, the economy, politics, bankers, etc.

Surely we spend enough time talking about that to shelf the issue for one thread. Especially one that we can’t realistically hold a referendum on. People opened this article to read about the issue of same sex marriage. Not how much the exec of a bank is being paid.

Ah yes, just like on Saturday when only children were allowed vote…

Thats some comment & as a parent of 4 children & heterosexual male its my business & in the interest of my children to allow gay people to marry. I may have a child of mine with a different sexual orientation. This is everyones vote. We live in a democracy.

No, the law is violating human rights – it just happens to be back a position religion agrees with up with the power of law. If religious folk don’t like gay marriage, nobody is planning to force them to have a gay marriage. All this recognizes is that there are those that do, and the State thinks that’s OK as well.

This should have happened years ago

everyone is entitled to the same human rights as any other person.. everyone is equal

People need to stop looking for invented “rights”. Good section about civil partnership in this:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0420/1224314969794.html

Marriage between a man and a woman is an ‘invented’ right, I don’t remember hearing about Adam and Eve getting married, possibly because of complications arising from the fact that they wouldn’t have had bridesmaids or groomsmen, or couldn’t find a suitable venue at such short notice

publicly at least.

LP policy has always been in favour of gay marriage, they’ve been one of the few major parties that have always had it on the agenda over the last 25 – 30 years. Now, you can argue that they have not been sufficiently forthright in pushing for it in the coalitions they have been part of – how much of that is their fault and how much of it is the fault of coalition partners is debatable, but the fact is that it has always been party policy. Credit where it’s due like

Eloquent

Thank You Tyrion! But it is the only language these Morons understand.

What about a referendum for free money for everyone whenever they want.

yes because only middle class people are gay or have gay family or friends

Oh Barry, you poor misguided person. I’m gay and, believe it or not, don’t live in Dublin at all. I’ve also met other gay people who live outside the capital. Fancy that?

And it’s not just middle class people who are concerned about marriage equality. Plenty of people from all backgrounds are too.

Gilmore lives in Ranelagh. Enough said.

gilmore lives in shankhill and since when is it only middle class dublin who care about this???

Put your bible away! Surprised this post didn’t come with a threatening picture of a crying woman or a foetus. And abortion and the history of racism are two completely different topics! Dragging racial conflict into your own agenda doesn’t give your belief any more weight.

Who mentioned religion and the bible? I’m not a religious person; merely a supporter of ALL human rights. If hatred of religion is your best counter-argument to not acknowledging human rights of unborn people, then good luck. The history of Apartheid and other forms of racism are not that different in terms of failing to acknowledge human rights, and the indignation of people like you when confronted with that as a possible truth is no different either. Just entertain that thought for a minute, if capable… If not, hide behind your ignorance of religion-bashing, if being dragged out of bed too early on Sunday mornings as a child caused you that much emotional pain. You might also wish to consider affording comparable human rights to those people who chose to practice religion, or is your defence of human rights merely those which you in your considered wisdom deem important? Think rather than be led.

How about respecting women’s rights eh? Seeing as how they’re already born and all..

Eh, Shanti, this is Ireland, also known as the safest place in the world to have be pregnant and have a baby. And don’t take my word for it. However, you may have heard of the World Health Organisation and the UN?

But if it’s the right for women to be pregnant and get rid of it versus the right to life of an unborn child, then kindly tell me when you would afford human rights to the unborn person. Is it after a certain number of weeks pregnancy Let’s discuss human rights for what it actually means! Interesting to note in tragedies such as Aoife Phelan that her pregnancy compounded the absolute tragedy that it was. What is noteworthy is that it appears that an unborn person is classified as a baby when someone wants it and not if they don’t. Life and death are a bit more absolute than that, and are not open to subjective opinion, in exactly the same way as you can’t be a little bit pregnant!

Check your facts.
Ireland is not the safest place to give birth, it’s on the list, but the safest places to give birth are actually countries who offer abortion.

But its a red herring, because it’s not about *having* babies, it’s about *not* having them. If a woman does not give consent to another person living off her for 9 months then she should not be forced to. Pregnancy can have a massive effect on the body, some temporary, some permanent, some merely uncomfortable, some life threatening. You, me and everyone else have no right force a woman to carry to term if she does not wish to be *pregnant*. If she didn’t mind being pregnant but didn’t want the baby it would be easier to go for adoption.

A foetus has a 50/50 chance of being spontaneously aborted during the first trimester (when 90% of abortions take place), it has the same odds of survival at 24 weeks – which is why miscarriages after this point are referred to as still births, and terminations at this point would be extremely rare – so rare that to focus upon them in the light of the debate would be a spotlight fallacy.

But you are dragging this thread completely off topic. This is about the rights of two consenting adults to have their relationship legally recognised in the way we have come to call marriage. Not namby pamby civil partnerships. This is about equality. There is nothing equal between a woman who is born and the potential life that requires her womb to exist!

Shanti, I am genuinely interested in this because I want to believe in a world where the consequences of being pregnant are as simple and as right as just getting an abortion, and that there is not a single breach of human rights in doing so. It would be great to think that that was the case, and maybe it is, but I am yet to be convinced.

To take the logic of your argument, you would therefore contend that it is immaterial when a woman has an abortion since if she doesn’t wish to carry, she shouldn’t be forced. The problem I have with that logic is that if you say she should only have an abortion up to say 24 weeks and not after, then it is to acknowledge that something is wrong with doing so after. If 24 is the magic number (and I’m not saying it is), then why not 23, 22, etc. It’s either right to allow abortion up to term, or its a questionable practice in general. Since I believe that to abort a baby just before birth is virtually the same as killing a live baby, then where is the line drawn, and more importantly, why is the line drawn. If there is any doubt, there is no doubt.

It is off-topic, but is a central issue on human rights. To try to not discuss it is to try to further diminish those human rights.

Well as a woman who has (thankfully) had a miscarriage following contraceptive failure (pregnancy will be ectopic for me. In this country I would be forced to wait until my Fallopian tube is about to rupture and then be cut open to save my life.. Whereas if abortion were available I would take a drug and induce a miscarriage) all it was was a very heavy period. I didn’t see any babies in there and had I given birth at this point there’s no way that “child” would have survived.
This is 90% of abortions.

The later term abortions are most frequently in the cases where there are medical reasons for doing so, and cannot be compared to earlier term abortions where the end result of the pregnancy was not wanted.

The earliest a foetus has ever been delivered and survived was 21.5weeks. Before this point a foetus cannot survive without a womb. It is not equal, how can you grant equality to something that is not capable of survival without being inside the person you seek to make it equal to?

Shanti, I’m not going to comment on your personal situation, but would like to discuss your substantive points.

A 2 week old foetus indeed does not look like a child. But a 2 year old child does not look like an 80 year old either. The one thing than happens continuously without fail from conception to death is change.

At what point do you determine that it is “wrong” to perform abortions? It’s either right up to term or not. Simply using viability is always questionable. It must be just as wrong to force a woman after a certain time to go to term, if it is wrong at all. If equality is determined by viability, surely it must be acknowledged that the line between right and wrong will move as viability changes, this undermining this as a justification.

Convince me otherwise!

Jaysus, we are all off topic here but Shanti is spot on when she points out that the vast majority of abortion occur within the first trimester. At that stage what is inside the womb is not a person, it is a collection of cells which is incapable for cognitive thought, survival outside the womb or even the perception of pain.

Get over it Mehoop, just because you believe a person sparks into existence at conception doesn’t make it true. To quote George Carlin “not every ejaculation deserves a name.”

As for gay marriage, go for it! The only issue is do gay guys/girls attend their future spouse’s stag/hen?

The limit is 24 weeks in pretty much every country that provides for abortion unless there are medical reasons.

You seem to have things very mixed up. As I already pointed out, abortion is about not wanting to be pregnant (and termination for medical reasons). So what makes you think anyone would stick out the 6 months and *then* decide to have an abortion? If they had an abortion that late in the proceedings it would be for good reason.
Do you think women make these sorts of decisions flippantly? You’re not one of these people who thinks that access to safe and legal abortions would result in them being “used as contraception” are you? Because they’re terrible modes of contraception.. They’re not pleasant you know.

An unborn human is not a ‘baby’, it is a foetus. An egg is not a chicken before it hatches. Life begins at birth, that’s why when people say how many years they’ve been alive they don’t count from the date of conception.

this is to do with legalising marriage, a wedding ceremony is just a party!

You’ve certainly gone mad, Ben. I think everyone else on the thread understands the issue.

He’s talking about gay marriage not gay weddings…

all weddings are kind of gay anyway. All the flowers and lovie dovie nonsense.

I can’t see why gay people need this because they already have civil contract and in the eyes of the state that is all anyone else has.
If that weren’t so then you would not need to sign the register at the back of the altar.
Gilmore knows this and he is just using the issue as a red herring he knows that it is an emotional issue for some. More distractions from the comedy duo Eric and Ernie.

Ooops’ that went in twice sorry about that.

“Will you amalgamate with me?”

Nah, that one needs more work.

Ann, do you not think gay people have as much right to be miserable as straight people??

Your backwardness is a joke, but to point such a thing out would be rude.

Why’s that?

Go back to bed Ann.

Ann, if you believe that then the simple answer for you would be not to marry a woman and let everyone else get back to minding their own business.

Good excuse to excommunicate the psuedo catholics who will come out to support such nonsense.

Ann. Have you read BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN, CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND –?
Article 40
1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.
Article 41, The Family, does not describe the family as being Man and Woman, in fact it does not describe the family at all.
Article 41, 3, 1, The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
Article 41, 3, 2, A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage..
Article 41 3, 3, No person whose marriage has been dissolved…
Therefore it can be argued that by not providing for marriage between same sex partners the state is discriminating against same sex partners who wish to marry.
You are allowed your obviously religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only, but this proposed referendum is about Human Rights not religious beliefs.

Why should a child in need of a loving and caring home be denied the opportunity of one because other parents have difficulty (are ignorant) in explaining the true definintion of a loving family to their kids

Evolution you muppet not 7 day magic, although by your comment looks like some need to evolve a bit more or to put it in way you understand god should have given it 10 days. For people to think for themselves and not follow the evil one sitting in the Vatican.

Whoa there horsey! The Church is entitled to its backward thinking on the matter – the problem is that the State is forcing everyone else to live by it. Nobody is going to run into the nearest chapel, handcuff the priest to one of the monks and marry the two of them against their will. Relax the ball!

Why is that? Because the constitution doesn’t stipulate.. It’s just the conditioning that we grew up with and have yet to recover from..
What are your reasons for opposing it?

ignorant

Shanti, Looks like Amy has only posted 4 times since August, 3 posts against rights for Gay people, so I don’t think you will be getting a reasonable response.

See, there’s this thing called a non-religious wedding…

Martin, same-sex marriage will have about as much impact on your life as what colour socks I decide to wear tomorrow, no one will force you to marry a man, you won’t have to attend any ceremonies, and I’m sticking my neck out here in saying that you probably won’t get any invites either, the church is obsessed with sex for an institution that things no one should be having any, I always find it bizarre that they are pro-life when we’re in the womb, but as soon as we’re born they want to suffocate us and control every aspect of our lives, and then when we die we’re probably all going to Hell anyway because of the apple and the talking snake and the rib and all that. You are absolutely entitled to your belief system, but it shouldn’t be used to attack other people who you don’t even know.

Really Martin, just because some of us choose to think for ourselves does not mean we are attacking your precious church. In fact you have it backwards, it is your Church and dogma that is attacking and excluding those who do not fit into your small minded perfect world.

Gaius it will impact all our lives. We will all lose our right to be described as fathers and mothers and be referred to as parents. This effects everyone and people need to resist this. A liberal minority pushing as far as they can and those against it need the push back.

To be honest bpdeasy, I couldn’t care less if I’m called Daddy-o, The Big Cheese or Minister for Taking Kids To Park, they’re only labels, kids aren’t going to ask ‘What time is parent coming home from work at?’. It’s not about a liberal agenda, it’s about treating the people you live next door to, work with, stand next to at the checkout in the supermarket with a bit of human decency instead of assuming their ‘rights’ are somehow deviant and going to lead to the sky falling on our heads. I base my opinion on this matter purely on fellowship with other people which I share this island with.

Martin Wake up and smell the Paedophilia..
It is quite obvious that the catholic church is very capable of undermining itself.
What rock have you been trapped under.

@bpdeasy – can you please explain how giving full marriage right to gay people will lose your right to be described as a father? what utter nonsense! giving full and equal rights to your fellow citizens does not reduce or remove the rights you already have and it’s time people like you admitted this.

Martin … That would never happen in the house of god , you say. well you are probably right the fact is, the raping of young boys and girls did happen in the so called “house of god”

amm have you heard of a civil service ???? the ignorance!!!!!

So you saying we should only look at issues like this in boom years?