“By voting yes in the family referendum, we’re saying that all families are equal, regardless of the marital status of parents,” he told reporters.
Marriage is a contract. The contract involves some legal issues. Those who marry have that contract, those who do not do not. Therefore the unmarried and the married are not equal.
Perhaps they should be regarded as equal in moral and ethical value, perhaps they shouldn’t, but in legal terms they’re not equal simply because marriage is that contract.
Why is this homosexual Indian lecturing Irish people about what a family is?
Irish people: you have perfectly good bogs.
Use them.
The problem with Irish politicians is that they sound insincere whatever they are talking about, even if ( God forbid ) they tell the truth. In fact, thinking about it and having worked for an Irish firm, any Mick in a position of authority sounds like a pompous lying twat.
I honestly can’t see what point this change in the Constitution has, in fact I don’t know why those clauses were there in the first place. Probably to assuage that murdering scumbag DeValera’s conscience.
I presume Ireland doesn’t have common law marriage because we were running the place when it got abolished here.
The problem with
Irishpoliticians is that they sound insincere whatever they are talking about, even if ( God forbid ) they tell the truth.FTFY
As if all those surveys into the well being of children never happened, eh?
There’s no such thing as a common law marriage, at least in a legal sense.
Our son and girlfriend informed us they didn’t believe in the institution of marriage. Fair enough, their lives etc.
When they got to the very serious point of talking about getting mortgages and children we decided to get our wills written to cover all eventualities eg if our son died in an accident with us and there were grandchildren and if there weren’t.
Our solicitor informed us that there was no such thing as common law and my brother would have a claim in some circumstances for example, so we ended up having to specify trust funds with the purpose of supporting her and any grandchildren, which meant nominating trustees and lots of other problems. It got very complicated and expensive.
Anyway, the ink was still wet on the wills when they informed us they were getting married.
BiND is quite right.
“It is sometimes mistakenly claimed that before the Marriage Act 1753 cohabiting couples would enjoy the protection of a “common-law marriage”. In fact, neither the name nor the concept of “common-law marriage” was known at this time.”
Where there’s a will there’s a way.
If we have common law marriage can we also have divorce as per The Mayor of Casterbridge?
Here in Oz defacto relationships are regarded as legally married. By Centrelink from the day you move in together. Probably a link to the prison colony history.
Our relationship, which we are unwilling to establish legally, is just the same at your relationship which you did establish legally.
If marriage and cohabiting are just the same, is he going to abolish gay marriage then?
It’s the exact same shit Emma Goldman was promoting in 1910. This stuff is older than Marcel Duchamp’s urinal.
“Nice civilisation you’ve built there,” said the termites.
Esteban,
I don’t know about where you live but the big problem of not being married here is you lose all protection for inheritance and you’re not even recognised as next of kin, no matter how long you’ve been living together, and so can’t intervene in medical cases and on the death of the partner you can’t even go to the banks to get at any money that’s in their name.
Friends who’d lived together for 40 years were advised by both their solicitor and their financial advisor to get married a couple of years ago. Same with neighbours, both in their 80s, who’ve been living together for over 25 years.
This was why some form of state recognised contract, marriage for the sake of argument, was needed for homosexual relationships.
Given the results of constitutional change here in Oz, I’d say the Irish should tell this bastard to fuck off!!
@BiND
Your experience confirms what I’ve been saying for years. Marriage is contract primarily between the couple & wider society, not between the couple themselves. That’d be just their matter. Why you had that bit in the marriage ceremony “Does anyone know…?” Society agrees & accepts certain obligations. Like in the legal matters you mention. The families accept obligations towards children of the marriage. In fact most of it was protecting the rights of the next generation. Something of familial importance.
Question now is: What obligations do you believe you have to a couple in a gay marriage? How exactly are you benefiting? Because the wider society entered into this contract because it saw benefits to it. It’s why we have marriage in the first place.
Wah wah, we never contracted an agreement of ownership of assets after death, why don’t I have any rights of ownership after death?
Wah wah, we never contacted joint occupancy of our home, why don’t I have any rights of occupancy?
Wah wah, we never contacted to be beneficiaries of our pensions, why aren’t I a beneficary of their penson?
Wah wah, we never contracted to protect out childen after our death, why aren’t our children protected after our death.
BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T.
In the early days of Quakers, they weren’t allowed to conduct marriages, and they didn’t want to marry as Anglicans, so they simply entered into contracts. Those contracts were everything covered by the state sponsored contract other than being entered into the state’s registers. They were enforced as normal contacts plus oversight from your peers who had witnessed them, and who you met every Sunday at Meeting. If you don’t want the state-provided contract, either enter into your own contract, or STOP COMPLAINING YOU HAVE NO COVERAGE.
Wah wah, I never bought insurance, my house burnt down, why won’t anybody give me a payout?
bis,
I think a gay couple should have the same rights as a married heterosexual couple.
To be clear, I have in mind the sort of gay couple we have in our village who have fully integrated. One of them got so involved as soon as they moved in he was co-opted on to the parish council and has since been elected and is deputy chairman. The other is a school governor.
I meant to say married heterosexual couple without children.
@BiND
Why? Where is the benefit to you matches the obligations? This was always the principle behind marriage. The real benefits it produced for those other than the couple. Sorry but him being on the parish council doesn’t really cut it, does it?
bis,
What’s the benefit to me? The same as for the childless heterosexual couple. I just see it as the state treating all equally and as I said above its mostly about NoK rights and inheritance.
Why should the State treat all equally? You get what you contribute.
The childless hetro couple’s really a cop out. The purpose of marriage was always about the production of children. Childlessness could be reason for annulment.
This is one of the reasons I’d never be a liberal . Liberalism is why things are now so fucked up.
Marriage is not a contract: it is a different kind of legal agreement. It is not enforced through the civil courts and does not consist of legally enforceable provisions between two parties. In any case, it is probably a good idea to read the actual changes being proposed before making ill-informed comments. There are three parts.
Firstly, to add “whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships” after the word “Family”. There can be little doubt that it is possible to have a family without marriage unless you create a special definition of what a family is. The popular idea of a common-law marriage shows just how well accepted is the idea that legal marriage is not what matters.
To match that change, the words “on which the Family is founded” are to be deleted after the word “Marriage”. This is essential for consistency with the first change, which is why they are part of the same amendment.
The third change is to wholly replace two clauses which say:
1. In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved
2. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
The first clause is obsolete sexism. Why recognise women in the home and not men? Is the work of a widower raising his children worth less than the work of a mother?
The second is sexist socialism. Why is it ok for fathers to be forced to neglect their duties in the home?
@jgh – “Wah wah, we never contracted an agreement of ownership of assets after death, why don’t I have any rights of ownership after death?”
No. It’s why do we not have the same size inheritance tax free allowance? And other similar measures which cannot be created by mere legal agreement between two citizens.
“Marriage is not a contract: it is a different kind of legal agreement. It is not enforced through the civil courts and does not consist of legally enforceable provisions between two parties.”
Jeez. Divorce cases, joint property etc.
” There can be little doubt that it is possible to have a family without marriage unless you create a special definition of what a family is. ”
You seem to have a different idea of what a family is from what has been recognised for the past few thousand years. A family is a line of descent. The current members being alive in the present. So in marriage, a non family member joins that family. There are obligations accruing on both sides. And the law recognises that.
Charles
“……..or on other durable relationships”
Gosh, that’s a clear definition. Won’t have the lawyers rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of all the dosh they can make running a cart and horses through it.
@Tim Worstall – “Divorce cases, joint property etc”
That’s not enforcing a contract. If it were a contract, one party could sue the other for specific performance, or damages. Marriage is its own legal relationship. It’s more like two people creating a company, which is not a contract but forms a legal relationship.
Addendum
As of 1900 on 9th March
on a lowish turnout f around 45% the first part of the referendum was declared as
No 67%
Yes 33%
Only one constituency, Dun Laoghire ( or Kingstown as it should be called ) voted yes and even then only with 50.5%
The second referendum about care is likely to go the same way.
Varadker, of course being a shameless shyster will not resign over this kick in the wossnames. Even squeaking in third in his own constituency in the election did not faze him, so this will just bounce off of his Teflon skin.
@ Esteban
That is a matter of opinion. The two of you think that it is just the same: the tax authorities do not.
@ bis
“a family is a line of descent”
Surely you mean “includes” not “is”!
My family includes my children, my wife, my surviving sister and her husband and their, adopted, children and grandchildren and my second-cousins – in the past tense it also included my parents, grandparents and my great-uncle and two great-aunts and my father’s cousin and her husband (albeit I barely knew him).
I’ll just wrap up with the other referndum
At 2100 with 37 out of 39 constituencies declared
Against 74 %
For 26 %
Even Kingstown voted 57-43 against this time.
LoL 🙂
It looks like that it wasn’t just apathy that killed this referndum, but it was seen as a waste of money and resources. People stayed away as a result and considered the proposals as so much hot air.