“Can’t understand why anyone rational could object to this” to answer your question…. the remnants of religious non-sense,

According to the 3 thumbs down you received it seems not everyone is for same sex marriage! Which is a shame since you are born with the right to marry whomever you want, that is of course until you want to marry someone who is the same sex as you, then you become unequal and not entitled to the same rights as your fellow countrymen and women!

In these kinds of cases, the solicitors and barristers normally don’t charge up front, but hope that even if they lose, they will get their costs due to the public interest in having taken the test case.

I heard a talk given by Zappone and Gilligan, and their main anxiety is that if they lose, they won’t get their costs and will lose their home in Kerry.

Given that this is a unique and original challenge, I think the Supreme Court will be fair and will not award costs against them.

I’d be surprised if they’ve not gotten a section 68 letter from their legal team already Cian, listing what they’ll have to pay even if they win and costs are awarded.
In Ireland, even if you win, court ain’t free.

Yes Mark. When I saw them speak, they were noting their main asset that they own outright, a home in Kerry as I remember, as being of concern to them.

I hope so. For once I’d love us to be at the forefront of something worthwhile and not just doing it because the uk did it or the EU are forcing us to.

Ireland has come along way in the last 15 years. I give it 2 years and you will have same sex marriage in the country.

I hope you are correct Bobby. But I wouldn’t hold much hope for the Courts making the bold move alone. Lydia Foy had to rely solely on the European Court of Human Rights, as did David Norris before her. The Irish Courts have never broke new ground in relation to LGBT rights on their own.

“If you subscribe to the notion of democracy, then you must accept, rightly or wrongly, the decision of the electorate.”

I would say that this is a very poor way to look at rights of a minority – they shouldn’t have to secure majority support in order to secure equality.

or a burning desire for equality.

I think that’s plain to see. I’m all for equality but like their previous attempts I fear this court case will lead to nothing. They got married in Canada maybe they should have stayed there knowing how things are in Ireland.

@Simon McGrath

So, what you’re telling them is ‘to f . . k off back to Canada, we don’t want any of that sort of thing here’! Are you also telling people, that once you try for equality in life, if one is told no …. do you walk away? I don’t think so, if that was the case Mr. McGrath, women would not have the vote, homosexuality would be still against the law and innocent people would be in jail because of their sexuality. You have a very foolish, childish, closed mind.

“Must have money to burn”

Their costs will hopefully be covered even if they fail as Constitutional test cases should not only be within the gift of the wealthy. This is public law, not private law.

But Simon – if they had stayed in Canada the Senator wouldnt have been elected and gotten a nice fat pension to retire on, probably in Canada!!
However, I do wish them well in their court case and hope they win, although I wont be holding my breath.

Oh Ann put a sock in it. She became a senator to highlight her cause as being a member of a minority fighting for equal right to do what everybody else takes for granted. I for one think she well deserves her pension, which I cannot say for everyone in politics.

No one said anything about incest.

Interesting point. I think there should be more discussion on this.

The comparison with incest is bogus.

There are no rational reasons to exclude same sex couples from the secular institution of marriage. Threats to “traditional marriage”, risks to children, and the procreation argument have no merit whatsoever.

However, there may be some good reasons to exclude incestuous relationships from marriage.

Actually, SaintRuth is making an important point here.

Marriage, as a secular institution supported by the law, is not fundamentally about love or romance. It is about providing the best institution for raising children and creating a family. This is why marriage has traditionally been protected and enshrined in law.

Redefining marriage to allow homosexual couples to marry fundamentally changes the nature of marriage. It is no longer about children. Rather, it becomes fundamentally about sex and about the rights of adults and not about children.

Why should the State be interested in providing legal protection for sexual relationships that, by their very nature, cannot produce children???

If marriage is redefined, then we will create a new set of discriminations against those who wish to form a non-sexual commitment with each other. In fact, we have already created this new form of discrimination in the civil partnership legislation.

For this reason, I would favour the widening out of civil partnership to include any mutually committed couple even if they are in a non-sexual relationship eg 2 brothers, 2 sisters, a brother and sister, or even just friends. If these couples have developed a caring and mutually dependent relationship with each other, why should they be denied the benefits of civil partnership (and even marriage?) If we have now redefined marriage as adult-based and not primarily about children, then this further discrimination against platonic partnerships should also be removed.

I said “I am not inferring incest here”.

“Wife’s brother’s daughter” is not incest anyway.

I am saying that if as Mathew above says “you are born with the right to marry whomever you want”, then why should not a sister marry (platonically – NO INCEST!!) her sister. This is not a spurious example. IF they live togther and one dies, then inheritance rights are extremely relevant.

That list of people you can’ t marry only exists because at one time it was custom to marry them to avoid paying inheritance tax after they died; marry your grandmother on her deathbed and when she dies you get the farm, not the farm minus the inheritance tax (because you took ownership when you married her, not when she died).

Ironically, the reason for this legal challenge is very similar; it’s not about love or sex or anything so romantic; it’s about the nuts and bolts of married life – ie. tax status, property rights, parental rights, and things like being the next of kin so that in extremis, your spouse makes the medical decisions and not your parents.

As far as I know, people from that ‘list’ can enter a civil partnership for inheritance etc purposes. Nothing to do with the issue of ‘marriage’ equality for same-sex couples.

@ AlMar “Why should the State be interested in providing legal protection for sexual relationships that, by their very nature, cannot produce children???”

Good question. Surely, then, couples planning to marry should undertake fertility tests or, better yet, enter a form of “provisional marriage” and only get an upgrade when they finally produce a child. Not sure what might happen to infertile couples, elderly/post-menopausal couples, those whose reproductive abilities have been negated by illness/surgery. As for those cheeky buggers who want to marry but don’t want children: the bleedin’ nerve of them.

While your definition of marriage might be technically correct , society tends to take a more holistic and even spiritual (as opposed to religious) view of the institition. For instance, my marriage was founded on love and children were an amazing but unguaranteed bonus. The connection between my wife and me goes far deeper than our reproductive achievements: it is emotional, intellectual, spiritual, platonic, sexual… you name it. Over the years I have seen a similarly important and fulfilling bond develop between my son and his partner. They entered a civil partnership, a title that I believe denies the entirety of that connection. From what I can see, it is the equal of my marriage and I am offended on their behalf – no, make that OUTRAGED – that they are still denied access to civil marriage.

I wish the Senator and her wife every success in this quest. I am behind them all the way.

But Chris, where is your “OUTRAGE” about those in platonic relationships?

As you say, the institution of Marriage does not insist on fertility tests. If Marriage is to have nothing to do with children, then why must it have anything to do with seex?

Why is discrimination against those in a platonic relationships acceptable?
Why are 2 sisters who live together platonically for 50 years no have the protection available to those who live together seexually?

Or as you might put it, should couples who marry undertake tests” to see if they are having a seexual relationship?

You want to marry your friend/flatmate/neighbour/drinking buddy, you can (as long as that friend is of the opposite sex). If they’re of the same sex, you can enter a civil partnership. While not every marriage produces children, consummation is required. Would you propose that cohabiting siblings consummate *their* union?

Yes, if you want to marry your drinking buddy you can.
But if you want to marry anyone from the above list, you can’t.

Why is consumation required?
You say that discrimination on a requirement that a union _MAY_ produce children is wrong (fine), then why is discrimination on the grounds of seexual acts?

I.e. Why does the government care what you do in the bedroom? Why is it okay discriminate on that grounds?

Well, given that marriage can be annulled on the grounds of non-consummation, I’m guessing that you’d have to take that question up with the authorities and/or the Church(es).