Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
VOTERS ARE BEING asked to take to the polls on 22 May to make their opinion known in the Marriage Equality referendum.
However, marriage is not the only thing being brought up in the debate in the run-up to the vote.
Other matters such as the family, procreation and surrogacy have all been raised in the debate.
Ireland has long kept an arms-length approach to the issue of surrogacy.
So, where do we stand now in terms of the law.
Well, the short answer is there are no surrogacy laws.
It was expected that this would all change with the Child and Family Relationships Bill.
This piece of legislation had been a long time coming and deals with issues relating to children’s rights, the family, guardianship and adoption.
Up until the last minute, it also included surrogacy, but this was omitted in the final draft.
Surrogacy in Ireland does happen, it just isn’t governed by law.
This became apparent under the Supreme Court case brought by the genetic mother of twins whose sister gave birth to them as a surrogate.
She sought to be named as mother on the children’s birth certs but the State has insisted that only the woman who gives birth to a child can be recognised.
The court ruled that only the birth mother can appear as the legal mother of a child.
The court also criticised the lack of legislation around surrogacy.
Speaking to TheJournal.ie, Kathy Irwin of Beauchamps Solicitors said that surrogacy laws are still the same as they were before, that there are none.
“Unless parents can bear a child, they have limited options,” she said, adding that while there are no laws governing surrogacy, couples still seek out informal arrangements.
“For example, if two males were to marry, the only possibility open to them would be surrogacy or adoption,” she said.
Currently there is no legal structure for surrogacy in Ireland and that will not be changed by the referendum. The issue of surrogacy will have to be dealt with by legislation in the future.
There are no hard figures as to who or what type of couples are availing of surrogacy in Ireland.
As it stands, if a couple were to use a surrogate abroad, which many do, then there are still issues with bringing that child back in to Ireland, with the couple having to apply for guardianship of the child.
What are the No campaign saying?
The poster from the Mothers and Father Matter No campaign group shows a photo of a toddler along with the banner “Surrogacy? She needs her mother for life, not just for nine months—vote No”.
They argue that the government have been deliberately evasive on what a passed referendum will mean for the right to procreate.
They state the right to procreate is derived from Article 41 of the Constitution and argue that if the referendum passes same-sex married couples will likewise have a constitutional right to procreate.
What does the Referendum Commissioner say about all this?
The head of the Referendum Commission, Justice Kevin Cross said the passing of the referendum will not give a same-sex married couple or any married couple a constitutional right to procreate.
Speaking on Newstalk Breakfast this week, he said voting yes in the referendum does not give a couple – be they gay or straight – the automatic right to children.
The courts have held that a family have the right to procreate – this was said in relation to a married couple, one of whom was in prison couldn’t exercise that right, but it was never said that access by artificial means of having children…
There is no automatic right to surrogacy in relation to this referendum, he said.
There is no right to surrogacy – at the present moment surrogacy is not regulated.There is no right of access in law and there is no right to prohibit surrogacy.
He said the government has announced plans to regulate surrogacy.
“I don’t know how they are going to be regulated but it is going to be regulated independent of the outcome of this referendum.”
The outcome of the referendum also does not impact on gay couples adopting children, as this has already been set out in law by the Oireachtas.
“There is no right for anyone to adopt. People have a right to apply for adoption. Adoptions are always carried out in the best interests of the child and this is now a constitutional requirement since enactment of Children’s referendum.”
Who can apply for adoption is already set out in legislation. For a long time a couple and a single person of either sexual orientation could apply for adoption. Recently, irrespective of this referendum, the Oireachtas has passed a law which provides that same-sex couples can apply for adoption, just as hetrosexual couples can.
Okay, so the government plans to deal with the whole surrogacy issue later on?
Correct. The government has agreed to prepare new laws to regulate surrogacy and the broader area of assisted human reproduction and associated research, and bring to an end the legal uncertainty in which it all currently operates.
“The priority throughout will be to safeguard the welfare, safety and best interests of children and to uphold the principles of consent and equality,” Minister for Health Leo Varadkar said.
Under the proposed new laws, commercial surrogacy will be banned and the news laws won’t “discriminate against people on the basis of their relationship status or their gender or their sexual orientation,” he said.
Why did government not include it in the Children and Family Relationships Bill?
The Minister for Justice France Fitzgerald said it was omitted from the final draft of the Children and Family Relationships Bill because further policy analysis was needed in light of the Supreme Court ruling.
She defended leaving it out stating there has not yet been enough public consultation on some of the practical issues involved.
However, her predecessor, Alan Shatter, who originally placed surrogacy in to the Bill from the very beginning, criticised the government’s decision.
In an interview with The Irish Times Shatter said he was not surprised surrogacy was being brought into the debate on marriage equality.
Shatter said that as the issue of surrogacy had not been dealth with in the Children and Family Relationships Bill it was “inevitable” the issue would be misused by No campaigners in the equality referendum.
“I think that attempt would have been completely undermined if the issue had already been comprehensively dealt with.”
He said the issue of surrogacy is irrelevant to the referendum debate and said it is being misused by the opposition to create confusion.
He said children are being dishonestly used as a weapon in this referendum by individuals.
While the government have committed to legislate for surrogacy, Shatter said he has concerns it will not be in the lifetime of this government and the issue is being “kicked down the road”.
Tell me again, what is the referendum vote about?
In this referendum, you may vote Yes or No to the proposal to include a new clause about marriage in the Constitution.
This new clause provides that two people may marry each other regardless of their sex.
The proposed amendment to the Constitution is contained in the Thirty-Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015.
It is proposed to add the following to Article 41 of the Constitution:
‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex’.
The constitutional amendment will involve the insertion of this extra section into Article 41 of the Constitution.
The section will be Article 41.4 and will come at the end of the provisions on marriage of that Article. No change is proposed to the existing constitutional provisions on marriage.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
A nice bit of clarity but unfortunately it will be lost on many no supporters who simply ignore any facts that don’t support their agenda.
The reasons given for omitting surrogacy from the C&FR Act are far from clear. It’s as though it was dropped to give the illusion that it was not going to be a factor in how people would decide in a referendum on SSM.
Did you even read the article or do you simply discount all the independent expert advice on this subject? It has NOTHING as in ZERO to do with the referendum. The attempts to drag children and parenting into this is sickening. The referendum is about access to civil marriage for same sex couples.
Ricky,
I read the article, disbelieved it and filed it under “more sh!t that people don’t want me to think about while they try to sell me a bridge”.
At least your keeping an open mind Paul
Paul you really do make me laugh, you still believe that surrogacy has something to do with the referendum! Have you read/heard any statements from the referendums commission? They very clearly confirmed and ensured that surrogacy does not relate to this referendum nor will it ever, also the referendums commission are legally obliged to state the truth and the facts of the referendum.
Just to play the part of the devil’s advocate…
By not legislating for surrogacy in the children’s bill, where it really should have been dealt with, it hilights the limbo situation for surrogacy. Sure, the changes to the constitution proposed by this referendum don’t themselves specifically mention surrogacy. However, as someone commented above, if SSM were to be legal when legislation is drafted for surrogacy, and a marriage used in part to convey parental rights, the different legal circumstances in that situation to those which exist now, if surrogacy were addressed in legislation now, COULD impact on children in that different possibilities would exist for their parentage and up bringing.
Sure, the changes proposed by this referendum don’t technically alter anything in relation to surrogacy but they would create a different legal environment for future legislation on the matter. So, the Referendum Commission are correct. The changes proposed don’t technically affect surrogacy. But as C follows B, and B follows A, everything we do has an effect on everything that follows after and there could be a valid chain of thought to the argument that if surrogacy is legislated for after SSM is legal, it could mean different outcomes for children’s rights than if surrogacy legislation were to be dealt with before SSM.
Whether that is right or wrong is for people to decide for themselves. I’d say Alan Shatter may see a connection due to his alleged comment.
Seeing as marriage is not a factor when adoption is being decided on, why would it factor in surrogacy? I do not think commercial surrogacy will be legalised in this country but to assume that marriage would would come into any decision making is whataboutery at best.
Why surrogacy has nothing to do with SSM
-
-
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-surrogacy-has-nothing-to-do-with-same-sex-marriage-1.2189717
Why surrogacy has nothing to do with Marriage Equality
-
-
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-surrogacy-has-nothing-to-do-with-same-sex-marriage-1.2189717
Why surrogacy has nothing to do with Marriage Equality
-
-
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-surrogacy-has-nothing-to-do-with-same-sex-marriage-1.2189717
Senior Lawyers urge No vote in marriage referendum
The systematic cutting of biological ties between children and their natural parents
The Marriage Referendum is the next major step in a programme of social engineering which not just obscuress our understanding of the human person as male and female (the new ‘gender theory’) but which endorses the severing of the natural ties between a child and his or her biological parents. This radical programme has already begun with the enactment into law of the Children and Family Relationships Act, 2015 on April 6th, 2015. While Germany, Italy, Austria and Switzerland ban donated sperm or egg use, so as to preserve the genetic link between parents and off-spring, the Government has legislated to make this practice normal in Ireland. If the Marriage Referendum is passed, a same-sex couple, as a married couple, will have the same constitutional status as a married heterosexual couple. This includes a constitutional right to procreate. A lesbian couple can only procreate with donor sperm.
A male homosexual couple can only procreate with a donor egg and a surrogate mother. There is a strong argument that these practices will enjoy constitutional protection if this referendum proposal is passed. This will serve to copper-fasten in law the programme to cut the natural ties between a child and his or her biological parents which was commenced with the enactment of the Children and Family Relationships Act, 2015. The Government’s programme is then intended to find its fulfillment, after the anticipated passing of the referendum proposal, in the enactment of a Surrogacy Bill in due course which will provide for surrogacy in accordance with the new constitutional right of two married men to procreate.
In regulating surrogacy, if the referendum proposal is passed, whether it would be open to the legislature to privilege an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple, would be, according to the Referendum Commission “Not impossible, but difficult to imagine”. (Mr. Justice Kevin Cross, The Irish Times, May 15th, 2015)
http://ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3938
Sort out surrogacy before the constitutional change, would be my opinion.
For once I actually agree with shatter, something I find uncomfortable.
However I would agree that trying to pass the referendum before sorting out surrogacy is a strategy. Not an accident.
To state that changing marriage in advance will have no effect is without meaning.
As we do not know what the regulations will be yet, it is possible it might be tightly regulated to be available only to married couples, or hopefully banned in every form.
Stating it is irrelevant can be said in a narrow technical sense, while the issue remains in limbo.
But as Colm points out, it’s true relevance cannot be known until the legislation is in place.
The the right time to hold the referendum is after the laws are in place, so we can see the true relevance.
So, hellogoogletracking, you think we should hold off on marriage rights to a section of our society based on surrogacy laws that haven’t.even been written. I really don’t think commercial surrogacy would be legalised but even if it was, it would be more than a little strange that deciding factors woukd be based on whether people are married or not given that it does not feature with regard to adoption.
@Dell,
Your prediction and prophesy of the future has as much validity as mine, close to zero.
I personally believe that surrogacy is a real issue an important issue for society in general, and has a particular significance to SSC’s, especially gay male couples. The demand from Male SSC’s for surrogacy with be higher proportionally than any other group, and with the right to procreate within marriage could lead to problems.
For that reason I think it is reasonable argument that in the absence of that legislation, it is premature to vote in gay marriage.
Do i believe the sky will fall in and civilisation and the family will explode into a ball of chaos and fire……No of course not.
But before making irrevocable changes to the constitution, lets do it right? For once in this country.
Before you say it, the issue also applies to straight couples, and should surrogacy even exist is valid question, perhaps joining both groups together and then banning it for both is also a reasonable position.
My problem is I have not heard the gay position on surrogacy.
Personally and I may not be popular for saying this, I think the world could do without commercial surrogacy. I really do feel for childless couples but I think that there is too much potential to use impoverished women as human incubators and given the health risks with pregnancy especially in poorer countries I just don’t agree with it. I still however feel that a yes vote in the referendum will not make surrogacy more or less available to those who chose to do it and I also think at this stage a no vote could do damage to the lgbt community, most especially teenagers who are already being sent the wrong message through the no campaigns posters and claims. I do a lot of work with teenagers and the lgbt kids have it harder than most at the best of times, some work parttime jobs and overhear conversations about how people think the posters are right etc. I think the no sides campaign has been sending them pretty damning messages and I just can’t wait until this is over.
Two children were born to Irish heterosexual couples via surrogacy in India in 2014. No surrogacies were commissioned by homosexual couples!
-
- See link below. Go to Ireland, click on link.
-
Same Sex Parents are nor permitted to engage is surrogacy activities in India (and many other territories).
The present Indian Law does not recognise Same Sex Parents and is an offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Based on this, Surrogacy services are banned for all Same Sex Couples.
-
http://www.surrogacyindia.com/Statistics.html
I don’t have a problem with surrogacy. Once there are laws in place (in my opinion, the woman who will bring up the child should have her name on the birth certificate), it will help people to make decisions on whether they want to be a surrogate or not, as they will know exactly where they stand. There will be no parents “left out”, as people have been saying, as they will not enter into the surrogacy agreement if they really want to be known as the child’s parent, once it’s born.
Anything that can help couples who can’t have children naturally but really want to be parents can only be a good thing, in my eyes.
I have a problem with any law that removes a fathers rights.
Who pays the maintenance in surrogacy world?
If the father in the situation is married to the mother, then he would have as much right to the child as a marriage certificate can give a father. That’s not in question. However, that does bring back the importance of allowing same-sex marriages, as it would then give both parents the rights they deserve regarding a child they either adopt or access through surrogacy. With the appropriate laws in place, no one would be left out.
That would indicate that you see the issue of surrogacy as having relevance to the referendum.
Simply because it’s being forced on the referendum as a debate by the no side; so yes, when it’s brought up, I’m going to argue the point. And they are my opinions on it. This is an article about surrogacy, so I commented on surrogacy if and when it’s voted on.
If you want to revert back to the marriage equality referendum, I’ll repeat what has been said time and time again: voting for marriage equality will not change the current laws regarding adoption, or the lack thereof regarding surrogacy. Unfortunately, the no side’s rebuttal to that seems to just be “I don’t believe you.” How are you supposed to argue with a childish sentiment like that?
The legal parents would be responsible for maintenance of the child. If, for example, a straight married couple who were both infertile and used a surrogate and sperm donor to have a child (and the laws were put in place to support surrogacy) then the couple (not the surrogate or sperm donor) would be legally obliged to provide for that child.
Replace straight couple with gay couple and it the same would be true.
In your example there Niamh, as there is none of the infertiles couples DNA in the child would that not just be seen as adoption as opposed to surrogacy?
Paul even David Quinn and Iona agree with surrogacy.
Ok paul. At the moment who pays the maintenance is up is up to the courts. But I would assume its the genetic biological parents that the child lives with. The surrogate mother assuming she was not a family volunteer has done their part. Even though the courts have decided that the birth mother should go on the birth cert. In stead of the Genetic mother.
This is why surrogacy need to be legislated for. Then regulation put in place.
The marriage equality referendum will make no difference to this as laws inacted with reguard to surrogacy are purely a legislative matter. As there is nothing about surrogacy in the constitution.
@pat. As the law currently stands, the woman who gives birth is the mother and I imagine that the couple who commissioned the surrogacy would have to apply to adopt that baby.
Anna the Genitic mother has to apply to adopt the child. The Genitic Father remains the legal father. He will be already on the birthcert.
@Thomas – isn’t the father a donor as well? Actually, who’s named on a birth cert in that case? As I presume sperm donors are anonymous.
So the Yes side keep saying this has nothing to do with children yet at every turn they always are left talking about children and now even defending assisted human reproduction on demand, basically defending converyor belt human to order reproduction.
Only because the no side keep trying to use children to deny people rights journalstasi
Saying that the surrogacy issue should have been dealt with before the Referendum so people wouldn’t be worried about it is a nonsense. The No campaign are the most deceitful group in living memory, issues that HAVE been dealt with under the Children & Family Bill such as adoption, are STILL being used by the No side as part of their dirty tricks campaign to smear our fellow citizens who just so happen to have been born gay.
When you see the old catholic guard rattling on about ‘designer babies’ the subtext is that the idea of gay people (specifically men for some odd reason) getting married in fact disgusts them, because they are homophobic and do not like gay people. We’ve all had to prance around the No campaign, softly softly (not No voters) and some commenters for long enough, we’ve tried to debate the issues and they refuse to listen to logic and reason. They deny all of the evidence of the Adoption Authority, The Law Society, The Referendum Commission. They think there is a massive conspiracy by the ‘gay agenda’ or ‘social Marxism’ or some other such sinister movement to undermine THEIR right to be bigots and discriminate, all the while the ‘groupthink’ has been on their side of the fence, promulgating the teachings of their church leaders and hiding their bigotry under a sloppy paper maché of ‘concern for children’.
A small number of well-prepped homophobes have created red herring mantras and issued links to stories from Evangelical Christian websites in America and elsewhere and spread misinformation, but of course, none of them are religious and it has nothing to do with religion. It’s time to call these people and their lies what they are, enough is enough.
Richard i wish i could give you more than one thumbs up.
Well then clear your cookies man! ;)
Adoption is irrelevant, obviously, and any argument using it is rubbish.
Stating that surrogacy being sorted in advance is nonsense though does not make sense.
People have concerns, and if the regulations were in place, then people could see in advance if this redefinition of marriage would have any effect or not.
That could only help….are you saying in advance of the surrogacy leglislation, that extending marriage to SSC will make no difference to access to surrogacy, before the regulations have even been written.
The answer is no, you cannot
Nor can you say it will and given that marriage is not a prerequisite for adoption why would it be a deciding factor with regard to the surrogacy laws that have not been written?
@Dell,
I agree that is fair to say.
Your contrast with adoption is nonsense, they are not comparable in any sense.
My point is it is premature before the laws are written, and any referendum can always be repeated.
I also believe it is not by accident that the laws don’t exist yet, it seems to my mind (and I accept the inherent limitation :))…that to have the surrogacy debate in advance may harder opinion unfairly against SSC’s seeking surrogacy (as they will be the strongest advocates). This is a reasonable prediction based on biology and the lack of adoptable children in ireland.
Make sense?
I understand what you are saying but you are presuming that they will be legislating pro surrogacy laws, which I feel they won’t. Also I think it’s easy to say they can run another referendum, referendums cost money but above all else this referendum has made all sorts of hate filled thoughts and ideas come to the surface and I know people probably think I’m being dramatic but it’s taking its toll on young lgbt people. I shouldn’t be explaining to 16 year olds why people are saying they don’t agree with gay parenting. look at the comments on here and know that they overhear this all the time lately, seriously can’t wait until this is over.
I agree 100% and understand those points.
I think that that element of the debate has been enhanced by the pro side, raising the stakes, and trying to make it a vote of acceptance and solidarity with the lgbt community.
That is not the purpose of the vote.
People should t be pressured into it by that argument.
Am I against gay marriage? No not necessarily, but done right and not hurries or pressured into existence.
No other country has used constitution, it should not be done lightly. Why not have gay marriage and also straight marriage, after all they are different??
How are the marriages different hellogoogletracking? I know you don’t think this is a rights issue but the only real difference between hetrosexuals and lgbt people is who they are attracted to, denying their relationships the same status and protection that we have is basically sending a message that they are not equal due to their sexuality.,,
I’m not saying anything about “marriage equality” with my vote, but I’m making a statement about children’s just expectations. A daddy and a stepfather, cannot be a mommy to a child.
SSM, will increase the number of designer children from about ten annually to about one hundred annually. That’s ninety children without a mother or a father by design. Circumstance leaves many children without a parent, but it’s an altogether different situation to set out to create a child without the love of a mother, and put the weight of the people of Ireland, and their constitution behind that.
If you’re not saying anything about marriage equality with your vote in the marriage equality referendum, then you shouldn’t be voting at all.
Paddy how will same sex marriage increase the numbers for surrogacy? Gay couples can already avail of surrogacy if they wish and will continue to do so if there is a no vote. Your scaremongering is transparent and juvenile. Tell why you are really voting no!
It’s like you didn’t even read the facts and just rolled out your usual spiel. and where are you getting those figures from that you are trying to pass off as fact?
There are eighty surrogates expecting children for Israeli gay men in Nepal, where surrogacy is accepted. Applying a pro rata by population that means, when we vote yes and give our constitutional approval to such practices, we can expect fifty children annually, as opposed to the five currently , by this means in Ireland. Add to that the increase in children to lesbian couples.
I consider this a reasonable calculation, based on actual reported figures. The one thing the YES side will never do is attempt to quantify, of consider the facts from other countries. That is all together too revealing, and embarrassing. Oh let’s role out another celebrity, smoke and mirrors, who cares about the facts.
But Paddy we are not voting to legalise surrogacy we are voting on same sex marriage. If people are going to Nepal or anywhere else for surrogacy they will continue to go even if there is a no vote.
Paddy as there are no laws surrounding surrogacy lgbt people could already have been doing that if they wanted. Marriage would not make it more accessible so you are yet again putting two unrelated things together to try to deny people rights.
Paddy, you’re nothing but a hypocrite. You say the yes side use smoke and mirrors yet you don’t acknowledge the many red herrings and downright lies that the no side put forward.
I’m unaware of surrogacy laws in Nepal, but we currently have NONE. Why has your feared ‘designer baby’ fad not happened already???
Paddy with every respect there are Dads who have to step up and be the sole carer I know 2 men my uncle and my Aunty’s former partner, my uncle had to singlehandedly bring up 7 kids because his wife was pretty much not fit for the purpose, where as my aunty had several health problems and her former partner had to look after their 3 kids and there are other guys who had to do it.
My gran as much as I loved her to bits shouldn’t have been allowed to have kids she hadn’t a motherly bone in her body and she wasn’t the only mother like that plenty of women had kids but they were not emotionally connected to that child.
Its like this Paddy anyone can become a mother/father but it takes a hell of a job to become a Mammy/Daddy and gender doesn’t matter
This is definitely saturation Sunday, on SSM. But keep up the articles, because the more we converse and look at the issues, the more people change to the NO side.
Why surrogacy has nothing to do with SSM
-
-
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-surrogacy-has-nothing-to-do-with-same-sex-marriage-1.2189717
-
-
John the marriage referendum is not saying anything about marriage “equality” it’s all about it’s effects on children, thus Paddy Scully is actually voting on the correct issue.
Nope he is voting what way his church tells him, which he is entitled to do, but it’s a pity his church doesn’t believe in equal rights
Surrogacy should be banned for the gay community in fact it’s not a good thing for Society in general
That’s all good and well but voting no in the marriage referendum will not have any effect on surrogacy.
As much as I hold the opinion that we are all entitled to our opinion.. who are you or I for that matter to tell someone how to have children? If anything a child born of surrogacy could be more wanted than a child born of a drunken night out!! If the child is being loved and cared for it does not matter, gay, straight, single parent.
Why do you think surrogacy is not good for society? How does it harm society exactly?
Niamh, asking that not make you wonder if in the future a DNA kit will be needed in order siblings don’t get married by accident?
This issue should have been dealt with first and then the referendum run. Anybody who will admit to me that they are voting no say that they are unsure around the whole surrogacy issue but have no problem with SSM. In other words if they knew exactly where the law stood in relation to all issues regarding the family then there could be no distortion of the facts.
The fact is that the Yes side say that surrogacy is not the issue which we are voting on which is true but how can they say that surrogacy will not be a problem if the law isn’t there yet? Likewise the No side say that if SSM goes ahead then surrogacy issues will arise but again how do they know this? No voters I think will take the attitude that it is better to look before they leap.
Brian all independent expert advice on this subject have drawn a clear distinction between surrogacy and same sex marriage. Any of the people you met that are voting no because they are unsure of surrogacy would likely find another reason to vote no even if surrogacy didn’t exist.
Some people are genuinely looking for a socially acceptable reason to vote no. They are choosing to believe the surrogacy lie because it is a cop out and allows them to vote no with a “clear conscience” but again if surrogacy didn’t exist they would find some other reason to vote no.
Ricky, how can you say what way people are thinking if you don’t even know them? You just make assumptions that people need an excuse to vote No rather than treat them people who have given thought to this whole area and at the moment are not happy with voting blindly based on legislation that isn’t there. This is the attitude that could well lead to a No vote seeing as the Yes side seem intent on harassing undecided voters into voting Yes or dismissing their genuine concerns (rightly or wrongly) in an extremely patronising and derogatory way.
Hold on a second Brian! You said in your original post that you met people and they are voting No and the reason THEY gave was surrogacy. Now it has been independently confirmed that surrogacy does not relate to the referendum.
Therefore if people are continuing to use it as an excuse to vote no it is because they are choosing to believe the lie that voting no will somehow stop surrogacy.
And if we want to talk patronising I find it very patronising that people think they can fool us by saying they are voting no because they have concerns about surrogacy those concerns have been debated and clarified. I would politely suggest that maybe they have other reasons to vote no.
This should have been cleared up last month when those posters were put up. I think the government have been doing an appalling job of delivering facts and dealing with the misinformation that was deliberately put out there by the no campaign.
So the ‘No’ side are using scaremongering tactics by using that poster ..
Do yes voters ever stop to think how equal a child will feel as they go through there whole life with no mother, not even a picture of a mother that may have died young. Would they have sacrificed there own mother to be brought up by two men, I don’t think so.
Stephen your comment has nothing to do with the referendum might I suggest you visit http://www.refcom.ie for some impartial advice on the subject.
Do no voters ever stop to think that adoption is already legislated for and same sex marriage will have no effect on it so effectively they are trying to use children to deny people rights?
@Dell,
Yes adoption is clearly irrelevant, and any No side argument saying different is bullshit.
But to draw the conclusion from that, that children therefore are irrelevant is stupid.
I am the last person to say children are irrelevant given that I have volunteered and worked with them for years. kids with all kinds of problems, most of them generating in their homes with parents who are either nursing alcohol addictions or who simply do not want to put time and effort into their kids. I get pretty annoyed with the no campaigns claims about children because I know kids who would kill for one loving and decent parent whatever their sexuality let alone two. As I said earlier, I do not think that surrogacy would be legalised and to be honest even if it was I do not think marriage would be a factor and even if it was you are still talking about a tiny amount of that market being gay couples, most would be hetrosexual couples. I do not think.this is worth denying people the same rights we have.
@Dell,
All fair points well made, not everyone would agree but completely fair and valid point of view.
I can totally understand the impact that a No vote could have, irrespective of the reasoning, of people who see the referendum as a validation / symbolic affirmation of themselves and their nature. This has been built up and constructed somewhat by the Yes side, which is cynical in itself.
But I also know that is not the purpose of the referendum or what the vote is about.
The No side on the other hand in a huge amount of instances is full of crap, and seek to exploit fears and concerns and a conservatism. Often callously and with no regard to any natural justice.
With all these competing examples of cynicism and manipulation / attempted manipulation, the truth is lost, maybe it is the wrong time for such a vote
why should they Have to wait any longer? All the issues you have with it could and will be sorted afterwards. I don’t think there would be less bigots in 10 years trying to deny people rights by sending out misinformation or playing on people’s fears. Every referendum has had them, they will always be there.
Do yes voters think it’s right to deny a child (gay or straight) a mother and a father in order to have marriage equality. In any other circumstance would that not be considered child abuse. Up to now and true out history since the dawn of man it’s the one equality we were all guaranteed. We all have or had mother and a father, some good some not so good, but we all at least have or had them. This referendum will forever take away that right. But as long as Tiny minority of gay people get there way seems to be all that matters to some.
No stephen it won’t, that is a blatant lie. This referendum has nothing to do with adoption or surrogacy. Now that you know that stephen, can you tell us the real reason you want a no vote?
The dawn of man you say? The single man/woman marriage evolved in the 1400s from European royalty who wanted to consolidate power and transfer wealth among themselves. In the Bible marriage is never defined and actually Bible lists many different types of marriage.
Polygynous Marriage
Probably the most common form of marriage in the Bible, it is where a man has more than one wife.
Levirate Marriage
When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).
A man, a woman and her property — a female slave
The famous “handmaiden” sketch, as preformed by Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5).
A man, one or more wives, and some concubines
The definition of a concubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their “husband,” but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30).
A male soldier and a female prisoner of war
Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.
A male rapist and his victim
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker.
A male and female slave
A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent, presumably to produce more slaves.
and of course …
Monogamous, heterosexual marriage
What you might think of as the standard form of marriage, provided you think of arranged marriages as the standard. Also remember that inter-faith or cross-ethnic marriage were forbidden for large chunks of biblical history.
And its also worth mentioning Eve had children with her own children and Abraham married his sister and had children with her when she was 10.
‘Dawn of man’. Hah! It wasn’t even true in Biblical times, much less ‘the dawn of man’.
Funny you seem like you know every different form of marriage since the dawn of time but no where do you mention two gay men forming a marriage together much less renting a woman’s womb to produce a baby and telling that baby it has no mother and two dads instead.
Still haven’t answered my question stephen.
Where does it say anything in the referendum about children….. are you saying that every married person is obliged to have children. The scare tactics being used by the NO side are disgraceful, and the pure ignorance is scary, there is no link to marriage and children. Having children is a choice… there are straight married couples out there that choose not to have children. My God open your eyes and read what matters, children and marriage do not have to go together. Any female with a womb can have a child with or without the father being part of a child’s life. Stop bringing up surrogacy, mother/father and any other random straws you can grab at when in fact these straws you are grabbing have nothing to do with the matter in hand. Read the wording of the constitutional change and please tell me where children are mentioned??? And again in case you missed it the 1000 other times it has been said “Marriage and Children do not go hand in hand”. Get ready for a population explosion everyone, because according to the NO side anyone that gets married is obliged to have children by any means available them.. I swear I am sick of this campaign, there should be control over what information is being used to get a point across and if its totally not relevant (as all the NO posters are) there should be fines, public whippings…. something.. to make them think twice abut spreading pure lies and hatred. I really do hope that the people of Ireland pass this referendum so that future generations can make their own choices.
Saying children is irrelevant to marriage is not true.
Saying children are irrelevant to the family is not true.
Saying that adoption is relevant is not true.
Saying surrogacy is directly relevant is not true.
Saying surrogacy is not relevant indirectly is not true, it is.
There are a lot of issues that are involved, all a consequence of marriage, all a consequence of family status, and the blanket statements from the Yes side are at best only technically correct in many cases.
Many issues have been exaggerated by the No side, some are complete red herrings like adoption.
Others like surrogacy are complex, and are indirectly relevant in the absense of leglislation and regulations, the question becomes what are likely outcomes and could this have a relevance. The answer is possibly
you think we should hold off on marriage rights to a section of our society based on surrogacy laws that haven’t.even been written. I really don’t think commercial surrogacy would be legalised but even if it was, it would be more than a little strange that deciding factors woukd be based on whether people are married or not given that it does not feature with regard to adoption.
@Dell,
I don’t think commercial surrogacy will be allowed either.
But what will be allowed, and in what circumstance and to who. How ill the contracts be formed, what happens to the mother? What rights will the child have, gain or lose, how will it effect straight couples, how will it effect SSC’s.
Will it be possible to distinguish? Should we distinguish?
Why has this not been figured out in advance?
I think these things can and will be figured out afterwards
Yes I understand,
And many people think they should be figured out first
I just don’t trust the government anymore. They have lied to us for years.
Same sex marriage is a rights issue though Niall and has nothing to do with the government.
I would agree that the the government has lied to us for years. But the Marriage equality referendum is a civil rights issiue which will help to give equallity to a section of our society that has been treated very badly. So maybe instead of listenig to the goverment listen to the likes of all the childrens right Groups. To the medical council to any of the non political groups that have being advocating.
European court of human rights ruled that marriage is not a human right as recently as last year.
Fact
Well then let’s just stick to a society that allows one section to be afforded more choices and rights than another based on their sexuality. You or the European Court of human rights can claim whatever you want, but giving a section of the community less rights and less protection for their relationships and family than others is inequality
@Dell,
Law distinguishes between the gender all the time, for obvious and valid reasons, because they are different and need different rights, specific to their genders. Women and men have different rights across many areas, dependant on their gender.
If you accept this then why is it so different to have different rights dependant on sexuality, considering that the two groups are distinctly different and form different family models, to ignore difference is not equality.
Equality is taking differences into account and achieving results using rights to achieve as fair an outcome as possible.
So are you saying now that outside of the surrogacy argument you have been putting forward, you just don’t feel marriage is for gay people?
@Dell,
No I am not saying that,
I am saying that simply saying “equality” is wrong, saying “children is irrelevant” is wrong.
Saying surrogacy has no relevance different in SSC’s in particular is wrong.
Saying adoption is relevant is wrong.
Saying a vote No is a message to young gay people that society hates them is also wrong.
All these things are bolt on non sense in this referendum, and that this is a bad campaign and possibly a bad time for this change.
P.S. Bad from both sides
You might think that but the truth is no matter when this campaign would be held, there would be horrible tactics as there genuinely are people our there who do not like gay people simply because they are gay and they will use everything they can to deny them the same rights they have and they are not going anywhere fast.
I agree with @Jo Murphy that this is not the time to bring up the issues surrounding surrogacy. They just muddy the waters and very few people have expertise or clear understanding of what’s involved here.
I do have a few informed thoughts as an adult adopted person from Ireland, mother to a daughter taken in a forced adoption in the US, and as an advocate and activist in adoption rights and reform for more than twenty years. The world at large is entering into the murky arena of AHR/surrogacy with the same willful lack of insight, understanding and foresight into long-term repercussions that we once did with adoption seventy-odd years ago.
As long as we continue to commoditise children and allow the demand/entitlement for children to outweigh the rights and best interest of children and their mothers (and fathers) we will never get it right. Adoption was originally designed to provide loving homes for children who desperately needed them, not about finding children for couples who desperately wanted them – straight, gay or otherwise. But sadly we overlook children in care who DO need those homes, and the demand has become about finding womb-wet or exotic “saved” children, at the expense of vulnerable, disempowered women and families.
AHR/surrogacy is simply the next wave to further that exploitation and abrogation of rights. If we don’t regulate it now, we can look forward to the next generation’s Commission of Inquiry and another generation of adults with no right to identity. Long after the referendum, when adopted and surrogate adults are put back on the dusty shelf, having been used as unwilling pawns in a vicious political game by the “no” crowd, advocacy orgs like Adoption Rights Alliance will continue our business as usual, and fighting to regulate, reform and insure the best interests of children and family.
But please, let’s keep it out of the SSM marriage referendum debate, as it has no place there. Surrogacy world-wide is still overwhelmingly led by hetero couples. Let’s not forget that.
enough said, can’t and won’t try to add to it.
I’m really not sure it’s a helpful time to have this discussion, considering it’s being falsely used to manipulate people into a NO vote. I think it would have been better to hold it off.
“Like an increasing number of same-sex couples nationwide—specifically gay men—Messrs. Isaac and Stachowiak have hired a surrogate to carry their child or children, conceived with the help of an anonymous egg donor. Society quickly is becoming more accepting of same-sex couples with children, so more and more of them are enlisting surrogates and egg donors to have biological children rather than adopting.”
I’m sure, this things made people from Ireland look for palces where surrogacy is regulated by the law. I met one couple from Dublin in an overseas fertility clinic and they were looking for surrogacy. They came to Eastern Europe because they haven’t found support at home. I think things should be different.
have your say