NationStates Jolt Archive

Lesbian couple lose marriage recognition case

14 December 2006 17:04
A lesbian couple have lost their attempt in the High Court to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Ireland.

Dr Katherine Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan, an academic, were married in Canada in 2003.

They argued that the failure to recognise their marriage breached their rights under the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Charter of fundamental freedom.

Advertisement


But today in the High Court Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne rejected their argument.

She said she could not agree with their argument that marriage under the Irish Constitution includes same-sex marriage.

She also said that the position in the Constitution on marriage was not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.


Dr Gilligan said she and her partner were grateful for the way their case had been handled.

I wonder if Ireland and Canada have any sort of treaty regarding the recognition of marriage?

Take that?

Take that?

This is gorias' way of thumbing his logical nose at gay people. Since he also tends to leave out words in his posts, I guess he left that part out. :rolleyes: I'm not in the mood. I do wish I hadn't been born in the 20th century. Maybe little kids today will think all this fuss is just that, a fuss over nothing.

Advertisement?

Lesbian couple lose marriage recognition case

14 December 2006 17:04
A lesbian couple have lost their attempt in the High Court to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Ireland.

Dr Katherine Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan, an academic, were married in Canada in 2003.

They argued that the failure to recognise their marriage breached their rights under the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Charter of fundamental freedom.

Advertisement


But today in the High Court Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne rejected their argument.

She said she could not agree with their argument that marriage under the Irish Constitution includes same-sex marriage.

She also said that the position in the Constitution on marriage was not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.


Dr Gilligan said she and her partner were grateful for the way their case had been handled.

Its unconstitutional in regards only to the irish constitution in its present state.Fortunatly our constitution is not written in stone and can be changed by a referendum.This happens every couple of years or so.Infact the age of consent is probably going to be changed in a referendum on childrens rights.Also this can still be taken to the supreme court so its hardly the end of the matter.

Take that?


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42337000/jpg/_42337699_takethat_ap203b.jpg

:eek:

Advertisement?

Get your Irish Constitution, European Convention on Human Rights, and European Charter of fundamental freedom, all three for just 10 Euros! And if you act now, we'll throw in copies of the Magna Carta, the US Declaration of Independence, and the US Bill of Rights, all suitable for framing! Don't delay! Operators are standing by!

http://home.no.net/eovti/BabyJesusCry.jpg

http://home.no.net/eovti/BabyJesusCry.jpg

http://i13.tinypic.com/2i6j37q.jpg

Baby Hitler seems to dig it though.

Can't seem to find anything on any actual treaty between the two countries (and even if there was, Ireland would have been the one to break it), so I say the way to respond is that Canada should refuse to recognize any marriages performed in Ireland. Comity only works if it goes both ways.

Take that?

that that as in *smack!*

i'm happy they lost. gay marraige doesnt suit us. whats next? nazis taking over riding dionsaurs?

I do wish I hadn't been born in the 20th century. Maybe little kids today will think all this fuss is just that, a fuss over nothing.

Hopefully, but i'm not optimistic at the moment.

Can't seem to find anything on any actual treaty between the two countries (and even if there was, Ireland would have been the one to break it), so I say the way to respond is that Canada should refuse to recognize any marriages performed in Ireland. Comity only works if it goes both ways.

most countries generally dont automatically recognise each others marrraiges anyway, unless they plan to live there.

This is a shame, better luck in the supreme court. I dont know to much about the social vibe in Ireland but i hear its religious, what would the odds be of them out and out legalizing same sex marrige?

that that as in *smack!*

i'm happy they lost. gay marraige doesnt suit us. whats next? nazis taking over riding dionsaurs?
Oh, I got it. :rolleyes:

Lesbian couple lose marriage recognition case

14 December 2006 17:04
A lesbian couple have lost their attempt in the High Court to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Ireland.

Dr Katherine Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan, an academic, were married in Canada in 2003.

They argued that the failure to recognise their marriage breached their rights under the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Charter of fundamental freedom.

Advertisement


But today in the High Court Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne rejected their argument.

She said she could not agree with their argument that marriage under the Irish Constitution includes same-sex marriage.

She also said that the position in the Constitution on marriage was not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.


Dr Gilligan said she and her partner were grateful for the way their case had been handled.

Good for Ireland for sticking to their guns. Props to them for rejecting this nonsense, I hope this continues.

gay marraige doesnt suit us.

Feel free to speak for yourself, not for 4 million people - thank you very much.

Feel free to speak for yourself, not for 4 million people - thank you very much.

i wouyld imagine if there was a referendum now, the majority would vote against change. cause usually liberals are too lazy to vote.

Hopefully, but i'm not optimistic at the moment.

I am, on this issue at least, because at least in the US, we're moving oward acceptance. That's why the assholes want a federal marriage amendment--if they don't get it (and they won't), they know it's only a matter of time before same sex marriage is nationwide. The younger the group polled on the question, the higher the acceptance of same sex marriage rights, and the number goes even higher for civil unions. Last poll I saw had people 18-25 supporting same sex marriage by around 60%, and the only group still opposed to civil unions was people over 65.

I am, on this issue at least, because at least in the US, we're moving oward acceptance. That's why the assholes want a federal marriage amendment--if they don't get it (and they won't), they know it's only a matter of time before same sex marriage is nationwide. The younger the group polled on the question, the higher the acceptance of same sex marriage rights, and the number goes even higher for civil unions. Last poll I saw had people 18-25 supporting same sex marriage by around 60%, and the only group still opposed to civil unions was people over 65.

its different in america. if i was living there i would support it. but not here.

i wouyld imagine if there was a referendum now, the majority would vote against change. cause usually liberals are too lazy to vote.

*raises eyebrow*

'Liberals'? What electorate are you looking at? The whole Conservative/Liberal pov doesn't exactly apply.

And what are you basing that on? The divorce referendum perchance? Oh wait.... that did change. D'oh! *slaps forehead*

*raises eyebrow*

'Liberals'? What electorate are you looking at? The whole Conservative/Liberal pov doesn't exactly apply.

And what are you basing that on? The divorce referendum perchance? Oh wait.... that did change. D'oh! *slaps forehead*

no that was a good thing. homo marraige doesnt suit for ireland. i dont mind getting some kind of partnership were they get next of kin privillages and inheritance. but not full marraige.

no that was a good thing. homo marraige doesnt suit for ireland. i dont mind getting some kind of partnership were they get next of kin privillages and inheritance. but not full marraige.

Why? What is it about the word marriage that's so special that it has to be kept from teh gay?

homo marraige doesnt suit for ireland.
Again with the speaking for 4 million people.

Doesn't suit you - in which case you may like Iran.
Doesn't suit Ireland? That'll be up to the electorate thanks. Stop speaking on our behalf.

Props to the Irish.

I am, on this issue at least, because at least in the US, we're moving oward acceptance. That's why the assholes want a federal marriage amendment--if they don't get it (and they won't), they know it's only a matter of time before same sex marriage is nationwide. The younger the group polled on the question, the higher the acceptance of same sex marriage rights, and the number goes even higher for civil unions. Last poll I saw had people 18-25 supporting same sex marriage by around 60%, and the only group still opposed to civil unions was people over 65.

That's sad upon reflection considering that things are probably worse here, and we don't even have a really powerful Jesus lobby (heh). The government has said a flat out "no" to civil unions and I believe the opposition party is in accordance with this. There is virtually no effective opposition to the status quo. On top of that, in the recent elections in my state, the Democratic Labour Party won two seats in the senate...their platform included, amongst other things (mostly focused on teh gay), "the recognition of HIV/AIDS as a homosexual disease caused by promiscuous sex."

Nope...i'm really not optimistic.

most countries generally dont automatically recognise each others marrraiges anyway, unless they plan to live there.

Untrue. Most countries, either through treaty or through comity, generally do recognize marriages performed in other countries. It doesn't matter if the couple is traveling, living there for a while, or becoming citizens of the country. As a general rule, countries on good terms with one another will recognize contracts (including marriages) from the other country.

However, one way or another, Ireland has shown that it is not going to do so with Canada. As such, Canada should do the same. If a couple from Ireland travels to Canada, lives there a while, or actually wishes to become citizens, they should have to be remarried in Canada to be legally recognized as such.

that that as in *smack!*

i'm happy they lost. gay marraige doesnt suit us. whats next? nazis taking over riding dionsaurs?

Who is this "us"? As a secular left winger you arent standing in the same group of "us" as me bucko. I suggest you tuck in your clothes, as the blue shirt is showing.

Why? What is it about the word marriage that's so special that it has to be kept from teh gay?

"Article 41
1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
...
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.
2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that *[...]"

On top of that, in the recent elections in my state, the Democratic Labour Party won two seats in the senate...their platform included, amongst other things (mostly focused on teh gay), "the recognition of HIV/AIDS as a homosexual disease caused by promiscuous sex."

Where the heck do you live that idiots are still putting that nonsense out?

Never mind. Are a lot of Australians really that misinformed? Or is it just a minority?

Again with the speaking for 4 million people.

Doesn't suit you - in which case you may like Iran.
Doesn't suit Ireland? That'll be up to the electorate thanks. Stop speaking on our behalf.

against consituation.

"Article 41
1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
...
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.
2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that *[...]"

Who is this "us"? As a secular left winger you arent standing in the same group of "us" as me bucko. I suggest you tuck in your clothes, as the blue shirt is showing.

i'm a fine gael supporter. so what?

against consituation.

"Article 41
1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
...
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.
2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that *[...]"

Doesnt say anything about hetrosexual marriage there.

against consituation.

"Article 41
1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
...
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.
2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that *[...]"

Where in there does it suggest that same-sex marriage would be against the Constitution?

In fact, I'd say it's pretty clear that the Constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriage. As it is now, the government only protects some families. It removes marriage from the foundation of some families and refuses to protect them.

against consituation.



...which is not written in stone. It can very easily be changed a la the divorce referendum or even Articles 2 and 3.

So, if it is changed will you be singing the praises of it then? No. You would be whining about it and saying 'it's not right'.

Where the heck do you live that idiots are still putting that nonsense out?

Never mind. Are a lot of Australians really that misinformed? Or is it just a minority?

The majority of people simply don't give a fuck, but we do have more than our fair share of bigots.

...which is not written in stone. It can very easily be changed a la the divorce referendum or even Articles 2 and 3.

So, if it is changed will you be singing the praises of it then? No. You would be whining about it and saying 'it's not right'.

if they changed it. then i would try and put forward a reformation on the idea of marriage. as in i would promote the idea that only marriages that poduce children should be considered valid.

Where in there does it suggest that same-sex marriage would be against the Constitution?

In fact, I'd say it's pretty clear that the Constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriage. As it is now, the government only protects some families. It removes marriage from the foundation of some families and refuses to protect them.

gays cant have children together. thus not a family.

Who is this "us"? As a secular left winger you arent standing in the same group of "us" as me bucko. I suggest you tuck in your clothes, as the blue shirt is showing.

calling me or you a secullar lefty? cause i wouldnt consider myself a lefty. but i'm certainly not religous.

only marriages that poduce children should be considered valid.

And we come full circle to this again. Forget it, not going back into this morass of a discussion. I'm done.

*dusts hands*

gays cant have children together. thus not a family.

Sterile women can't have children. Sterile fathers can't father children.

Are you suggesting fertility tests?

And we come full circle to this again. Forget it, not going back into this morass of a discussion. I'm done.

*dusts hands*

I agree. What's Gaelic for troll, I wonder? A thread entitled "take that homosexual equality" with an OP that extols the wonderfulness of a gay couple's case being refused by the Irish High Court smacks of trollage to me. Just my opinion, of course, I could be wrong.

Props to the Irish.

Props to cheerleaders.

"Article 41
1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
...
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.
2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that *[...]"

Doesn't answer my question. You said you were okay with civil unions, etc. but that you wanted the word marriage to stay only with one man, one woman. What's so special about the word that you have to segregate it from gay people? It's just a word, right?

The majority of people simply don't give a fuck, but we do have more than our fair share of bigots.

I would hope that the majority of people care about HIV/AIDS and proper information concerning it. Any and all of them can get it.


gays cant have children together. thus not a family.

So infertile straight couples who adopt children are not a family? Single parents and their children are not a family? If a mother dies in childbirth, the father and the children do not constitute a family?

Meanwhile, where is the "must have children together" requirement listed in the Irish Constitution?

calling me or you a secullar lefty? cause i wouldnt consider myself a lefty. but i'm certainly not religous.

Me. You're in the one in the blue shirt with Enda "I was mugged.............................................................................................. .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .........................in Kenya" Kenny.

Sterile women can't have children. Sterile fathers can't father children.

Are you suggesting fertility tests?

as i say over and over again. i prefere if only marriages that involve children should be valid. why should the gov care if people are in love?

if they changed it. then i would try and put forward a reformation on the idea of marriage. as in i would promote the idea that only marriages that poduce children should be considered valid.
My parents couldn't have children so they adopted me and my sister. Sweet fuck!!You are as dumb as I have come across in a long while.:rolleyes:

I agree. What's Gaelic for troll, I wonder? A thread entitled "take that homosexual equality" with an OP that extols the wonderfulness of a gay couple's case being refused by the Irish High Court smacks of trollage to me. Just my opinion, of course, I could be wrong.

its not trolling if its my opinion. also being against gay marriage is a right, also protect in our consitution. i'm not going to search were it is. basically, i'm allowed have any opinions i want.

as i say over and over again. i prefere if only marriages that involve children should be valid. why should the gov care if people are in love?

Why should the government care about marriage?

It's an age old religious ceremony.

Why don't we say that any religion that wants to do marriages, can do them? So if you're gay and want to be "married", go to a Unitarian Universalist church and have at it?

If you're a Baptist or Catholic, go to the church of your choice - where maybe they won't marry a gay couple.

Leave the government out of it altogether.

If you're worried about children, even unmarried couples have children. So maybe we have a child welfare agency that ensures they're not beaten or starved, regardless of who the children are living with.

People who are unmarried also buy property. Eliminate the marriage angle from property law - we should have one law for everyone as far as distribution of property is concerned.

Why in the world is it the government's concern who will have children, and who will stick their dick in something besides a vagina?

its not trolling if its my opinion. also being against gay marriage is a right, also protect in our consitution. i'm not going to search were it is. basically, i'm allowed have any opinions i want.

Yes, but people likewise have the right to hold the opinion that you are a bigoted prick for holding that opinion and the right to tell you that.

its not trolling if its my opinion. also being against gay marriage is a right, also protect in our consitution. i'm not going to search were it is. basically, i'm allowed have any opinions i want.

Gay unions are NOT against the Constitution.

They are simply not IN the Constitution.

There is a big difference between something being against the law and there not being a law to cover it.

My parents couldn't have children so they adopted me and my sister. Sweet fuck!!You are as dumb as I have come across in a long while.:rolleyes:

couples who adopt should also count in my books. they are talking care of a sort of family. so its grand. anyone talking care of a child should get government support.

as i say over and over again. i prefere if only marriages that involve children should be valid. why should the gov care if people are in love?

It isn't a matter of love. Most marriage laws are a matter of assets. The government needs to know what belongs to whom, what debts are owed by whom and to whom, and any number of other things.

Very, very, very few of the laws pertaining to marriage actually involve children. If you want an institution specifically for children, perhaps you need to find something else.

Meanwhile, if children must be involved for marriage, then gay couples with children should be allowed to marry, no?

couples who adopt should also count in my books. they are talking care of a sort of family. so its grand. anyone talking care of a child should get government support.
Just so long as your not gay... And for the record gay people can have children. Its not like being gay causes their ovaries to fall out or the nuts to drop off.

Yes, but people likewise have the right to hold the opinion that you are a bigoted prick for holding that opinion and the right to tell you that.

how am i being bigoted? i never said once i was against people being gay.

Just so long as your not gay... And for the record gay people can have children. Its not like being gay causes their ovaries to fall out or the nuts to drop off.
Certainly didn't stop my ex-wife--she had two, one with me and one before I came into the picture. Took her a while to come to grips with her lesbianism.

how am i being bigoted? i never said once i was against people being gay.

No, you're just against them having access to the same legal protections and responsibilities open to everyone else.

Just so long as your not gay... And for the record gay people can have children. Its not like being gay causes their ovaries to fall out or the nuts to drop off.

i shouldnt have to repeat myself over and over again. anyone that has a child should have support from the government. if a single person becomes pregnant then later decides to become gay later.. then the gov should still support them.

I would hope that the majority of people care about HIV/AIDS and proper information concerning it. Any and all of them can get it.

Well...i'm almost tempted to actually not care if the people who really think only homosexuals can get HIV/AIDS (and, what's more, are deserving of it) manage to become infected with it.

Almost.

No, you're just against them having access to the same legal protections and responsibilities open to everyone else.

oh. is everybody entitle to the legal protections and responsibilities? even single people with no children? didnt know that. i must be married too.

Well...i'm almost tempted to actually not care if the people who really think only homosexuals can get HIV/AIDS (and, what's more, are deserving of it) manage to become infected with it.

Almost.
Yeah. I'm about there too. Almost.

Can't seem to find anything on any actual treaty between the two countries (and even if there was, Ireland would have been the one to break it), so I say the way to respond is that Canada should refuse to recognize any marriages performed in Ireland. Comity only works if it goes both ways.

There's probably no treaty. I don't think the US has one either. Anway, no state as far as I know has a blanket recognition of overseas marriages for obvious reasons. They usually have to be valid where they were solmenized and valid where recognition is asked, so there really is nothing for canada to respond to.

oh. is everybody entitle to the legal protections and responsibilities? even single people with no children? didnt know that. i must be married too.

I dunno, are you?

i shouldnt have to repeat myself over and over again. anyone that has a child should have support from the government. if a single person becomes pregnant then later decides to become gay later.. then the gov should still support them.
So you contridict your earlier posts about marrige being about being able to reproduce with a partner of your choice. And what is this shit about deciding to become gay???You truly have a simple world view don't you.

its not trolling if its my opinion. also being against gay marriage is a right, also protect in our consitution. i'm not going to search were it is. basically, i'm allowed have any opinions i want.

You're certainly allowed to have and to express your opinions. Using a thread title like "take that homosexual equality" strikes me as being a little over the line into starting a thread with the express purpose of provoking angry responses. Had you entitled it "irish high court refuses to hear gay marriage case" it would be an entirely different matter. but you're a minor troll compared to some we see around here, so I shouldn't bother myself about it.

Can't seem to find anything on any actual treaty between the two countries (and even if there was, Ireland would have been the one to break it), so I say the way to respond is that Canada should refuse to recognize any marriages performed in Ireland. Comity only works if it goes both ways.
Although I agree with same sex marriages here in Canada, we have no right trying to thwart the democratic rights of other countries. Revenge is not an option.

I dunno, are you?

no i'm not and i'm not looking for the same "legal protections and responsibilities" as a married couple. i consider my claim the same as a gay couple.

but you're a minor troll compared to some we see around here, so I shouldn't bother myself about it.

i'll consider that some kind of support.

no i'm not and i'm not looking for the same "legal protections and responsibilities" as a married couple. i consider my claim the same as a gay couple.

Well for one, you're not two people, so claiming the tax breaks may be difficult.

Secondly, what rights of yours are being impinged currently?

i'll consider that some kind of support.

Please don't.

Well for one, you're not two people, so claiming the tax breaks may be difficult.

Secondly, what rights of yours are being impinged currently?

thats the point i'm trying to bring across.
i'm single without children. why should a couple without children be allowed have the tax breaks?
if its about love, why do they need a certificate? should one get extra tax breaks for loving multiple people? how do we make sure they are actually in love? is there some kind of love test?

thats the point i'm trying to bring across.
i'm single without children. why should a couple without children be allowed have the tax breaks?
if its about love, why do they need a certificate? should one get extra tax breaks for loving multiple people? how do we make sure they are actually in love? is there some kind of love test?

Right then, so you're just pissed off about being taxed? Do you even have a job?

why should a couple without children be allowed have the tax breaks?
Because two earners add more to the economy and society than one? Therefore to reward them, you be nice to them. See?

if its about love, why do they need a certificate? should one get extra tax breaks for loving multiple people? how do we make sure they are actually in love? is there some kind of love test?

...you don't ask that about straight marriages. No, for them, when they say they love each other, you assume they mean it. Not so with gays! Oh no, gays are all liars! :rolleyes:

Right then, so you're just pissed off about being taxed? Do you even have a job?


Because two earners add more to the economy and society than one? Therefore to reward them, you be nice to them. See?

no its not that i'm pissed off about being taxed. i dont like the idea that someone else isnt being taxed the same amount as me for reasons i dont consider valid.

the two earners would be adding the same to the economy if single. also its still cheaper to be married, the benifit of economies of scale.

Eh. They should've stayed in Canada. Best fucking country in the world.

...you don't ask that about straight marriages. No, for them, when they say they love each other, you assume they mean it. Not so with gays! Oh no, gays are all liars! :rolleyes:

when i said the certificate part, i was including straights. the point i was making is that, wether someone is straight or gay, why should i care that they are in love?
couples that take care of chldren are the only ones i consider important.
i've posted up before my whole "primary goal" idea before. i think its the govs role to support people producing (ideally healthy and educated) people into our society.

no its not that i'm pissed off about being taxed.

Clearly you are, as your very next line is about being annoyed about being taxed:

i dont like the idea that someone else isnt being taxed the same amount as me for reasons i dont consider valid.
Wah. Cry me a fucking river. I don't consider being poor is a valid reason to apply for waivers for bin charges - but I put up with it.

Odds are, you don't even have a job, or if you do - you don't earn enough to even get taxed in the first place!

the two earners would be adding the same to the economy if single. also its still cheaper to be married, the benifit of economies of scale.

Its about trying to dissuage people from leaving the work force - as oftens happens in married couples. "Hey, you both work, we'll make it a little easier for you!"

Welcome to a modern social democracy.

Odds are, you don't even have a job, or if you do - you don't earn enough to even get taxed in the first place!


party right. stoped working a few weeks ago. start working again soon. looking for a change, not sure what i want to luck for. off topic.

...you don't ask that about straight marriages. No, for them, when they say they love each other, you assume they mean it. Not so with gays! Oh no, gays are all liars! :rolleyes:

This is true. Gayness is demonstrably a modern evil and is only concerned with mens asses and dancing without a shirt on.

This is true. Gayness is demonstrably a modern evil and is only concerned with mens asses and dancing without a shirt on.

Ah, but gayness got us all that great music from Queen...

gays cant have children together. thus not a family.

So would a marraige of 4 men and 4 women be considered a family, to you?

Ah, but gayness got us all that great music from Queen...

the highest achievement of homosexuallity.

So would a marraige of 4 men and 4 women be considered a family, to you?

2 parents per one group of children.

the highest achievement of homosexuallity.

Somehow I doubt that.

Somehow I doubt that.

personally speaking. rather big freddie mercury fan.

i shouldnt have to repeat myself over and over again. anyone that has a child should have support from the government. if a single person becomes pregnant then later decides to become gay later.. then the gov should still support them.

"decides to become gay"? How precisely do you do that?

What if someone who already knows that they are gay decides to have a child? What if a gay couple decides to raise a child together?

I hate to try and bring this rambling topic back to the real world but this case isnt as 'grand' as some are making out.

A Canadian couple of 25 years recently got married in Canada. They sought a judicial review to see was their marraige binding in Ireland.

The court said no, foriegn marraiges are not by definition always recognised in Irish law and it wasnt a violation of their human rights as 'marraige' is clearly defined in the Constitution.

This was a legal response to a legal matter. Simple as.

No big homophobic conspiracy, just legal clarity. Clearly the court have interpreted the law correctly. Personally I would vote to change that article of the Constitution.

party right. stoped working a few weeks ago. start working again soon. looking for a change, not sure what i want to luck for. off topic.

Ever consider trying to be a proofreader? :p

Ever consider trying to be a proofreader? :p

You're not allowed to criticize people's spelling and grammar - that's not politically correct. You can, however, blame the government for not providing sufficient public education.

Ever consider trying to be a proofreader? :p

chosing to down the road of either of tv media or something to with foreign affairs. you would be surprised how articulate i can be when motivated.

There's probably no treaty. I don't think the US has one either.

No, it's generally just a matter of courtesy between countries. Of course, if one country refuses to extend that courtesy, there is no reason that the other should do it.

Anway, no state as far as I know has a blanket recognition of overseas marriages for obvious reasons. They usually have to be valid where they were solmenized and valid where recognition is asked, so there really is nothing for canada to respond to.

Of course there is something for Canada to respond to. Ireland has refused to recognize at least some Canadian marriages. As such, there is no reason for Canada to feel any obligation to recognize Irish marriages.


Although I agree with same sex marriages here in Canada, we have no right trying to thwart the democratic rights of other countries. Revenge is not an option.

How would this "thwart the democratic rights of other countries"?

Canada is under no legal obligation to recognize Irish marriages (just as Ireland is under no legal obligation to recognize Canadian marriages. This has generally been done, as it is in most countries, as a courtesy between countries. If Ireland is not going to extend that courtesy, there is no reason that Canada should.

I hate to try and bring this rambling topic back to the real world but this case isnt as 'grand' as some are making out.

A Canadian couple of 25 years recently got married in Canada. They sought a judicial review to see was their marraige binding in Ireland.

The court said no, foriegn marraiges are not by definition always recognised in Irish law and it wasnt a violation of their human rights as 'marraige' is clearly defined in the Constitution.

This was a legal response to a legal matter. Simple as.

No big homophobic conspiracy, just legal clarity. Clearly the court have interpreted the law correctly. Personally I would vote to change that article of the Constitution.
All it would take is a Government with a consience.Incidently it isn't all that long ago that homosexuality was illegal in Ireland.Thank you Mr Norris for helping to fix that.

Canada is under no legal obligation to recognize Irish marriages (just as Ireland is under no legal obligation to recognize Canadian marriages. This has generally been done, as it is in most countries, as a courtesy between countries. If Ireland is not going to extend that courtesy, there is no reason that Canada should.

dont care if canada recognises irish marriages. no reason why it should or shouldnt.

oh. is everybody entitle to the legal protections and responsibilities?

Everybody who chooses to get married, yes. If I choose to marry my best friend, I can get the legl protections and responsibilities, even if I have no intention of living as married with him. On the other hand, if he were a woman who I intended to spend the rest of my life with, someone I wished to merge my assets with and live as a single legal entity with, I couldn't get the protections put together for just that situation.

Why is that?

You're not allowed to criticize people's spelling and grammar - that's not politically correct. You can, however, blame the government for not providing sufficient public education.
Like you know what political correctness is beyond the straw version you pump out of your factory.

All it would take is a Government with a consience.Incidently it isn't all that long ago that homosexuality was illegal in Ireland.Thank you Mr Norris for helping to fix that.

and who was in government for that?

Everybody who chooses to get married, yes. If I choose to marry my best friend, I can get the legl protections and responsibilities, even if I have no intention of living as married with him. On the other hand, if he were a woman who I intended to spend the rest of my life with, someone I wished to merge my assets with and live as a single legal entity with, I couldn't get the protections put together for just that situation.

Why is that?

You know, if lesbians, at least, would agree to video their "wedding" night and allow the male "members" of the government to view said video, lesbians would be able to marry tomorrow. Maybe even this afternoon.

Everybody who chooses to get married, yes. If I choose to marry my best friend, I can get the legl protections and responsibilities, even if I have no intention of living as married with him. On the other hand, if he were a woman who I intended to spend the rest of my life with, someone I wished to merge my assets with and live as a single legal entity with, I couldn't get the protections put together for just that situation.

Why is that?

so you are a woman?
american?

the fact that it could become an abusable system is why i would prohibit it. i could just marry my male best freind, live together and get the tax benifits, even though we are not a couple, or gay.

i'm single without children. why should a couple without children be allowed have the tax breaks?

What do tax breaks have to do with the price of eggs in China? Most countries don't grant tax breaks for being married. They do grant tax breaks for rearing children, whether married or not.

In fact, in most of the US, unless you are very rich, very poor, or a single-income family, you are going to pay more in taxes after marriage.

if its about love, why do they need a certificate?

Married people tend to merge their assets. Even if they try to keep them separate, the lines of ownership and debt get very blurry, as they are living a life together, rather than apart. There are certain protections and responsibilities that should go along with a situation in which two people are so obviously no longer legally separate.

You know, if lesbians, at least, would agree to video their "wedding" night and allow the male "members" of the government to view said video, lesbians would be able to marry tomorrow. Maybe even this afternoon.

depends. is it all thier wedding nights?
sounds like very exspendsive porno.

Of course there is something for Canada to respond to. Ireland has refused to recognize at least some Canadian marriages. As such, there is no reason for Canada to feel any obligation to recognize Irish marriages.


Should we recognise Romanian marraiges involving 12 year old girls?

Polygamy? Foreign incesteous marraiges?

Someone somewhere manages to legally marry a goat?

While not comparing them to a gay marraige which I support, the Irish legal system is not by definition compelled to recognise marraiges from forign juristictions that do not conform to current Irish law.

Whether the law is correct is another matter, but that was the crux of the decision

so you are a woman?
american?

the fact that it could become an abusable system is why i would prohibit it. i could just marry my male best freind, live together and get the tax benifits, even though we are not a couple, or gay.

So? Heterosexuals can do that now. You won't allow homosexuals any fun at all, will you? Now we can't even abuse the system like straight people.

depends. is it all thier wedding nights?
sounds like very exspendsive porno.

Just the one, and for you, my Irish friend, a special discount.

so you are a woman?
american?

Indeed.

the fact that it could become an abusable system is why i would prohibit it. i could just marry my male best freind, live together and get the tax benifits, even though we are not a couple, or gay.

It is already abusable. I could marry my male best friend and live together and pay more taxes, merging our assets, even if we are not a couple or straight.

What's your point?

You are going to block legitimate couples from getting the protections associated with their situation just because the system could be abused in a way that it can already be abused?

so you are a woman?
american?

the fact that it could become an abusable system is why i would prohibit it. i could just marry my male best freind, live together and get the tax benifits, even though we are not a couple, or gay.

Yes, and right now you could just marry your female best friend and get tax benefits. How is that better?

What do tax breaks have to do with the price of eggs in China? Most countries don't grant tax breaks for being married. They do grant tax breaks for rearing children, whether married or not.

In fact, in most of the US, unless you are very rich, very poor, or a single-income family, you are going to pay more in taxes after marriage.


hence i've been saying, its different in america. in ireland you get tax breaks. if i was living in america i would promote it, for the gov getting more tax reason.

Yes, and right now you could just marry your female best friend and get tax benefits. How is that better?

its not. hence i've been saying i think only couples with children should have the tax break. i want to tighten the marriage laws here.

hence i've been saying, its different in america. in ireland you get tax breaks. if i was living in america i would promote it, for the gov getting more tax reason.

what tax breaks do you get for being married in Ireland?

do you fuck, havent since the late 80's

Should we recognise Romanian marraiges involving 12 year old girls?

No. And if you refused to, I would say that Romania would have no reason to recognize your marriages either.

Of course, marriages of young children, pedophilia, incest, goats, etc. have nothing to do with contracts between two consenting adults.

While not comparing them to a gay marraige which I support, the Irish legal system is not by definition compelled to recognise marraiges from forign juristictions that do not conform to current Irish law.

Whether the law is correct is another matter, but that was the crux of the decision

I never said it was. I simply pointed out that Ireland has chosen not to observe comity with Canada. As such, Canada should not observe it with Ireland either.


hence i've been saying, its different in america. in ireland you get tax breaks. if i was living in america i would promote it, for the gov getting more tax reason.

Are you sure? A lot of people in the US are under the impression that they get tax breaks here, even though it isn't true. Under what reasoning does the Irish government provide tax breaks to people who get married?

its not. hence i've been saying i think only couples with children should have the tax break. i want to tighten the marriage laws here.

Wouldn't it be wiser to tighten the tax laws then? :rolleyes:

its not. hence i've been saying i think only couples with children should have the tax break. i want to tighten the marriage laws here.

So you're not against gay marriage.

what tax breaks do you get for being married in Ireland?

do you fuck, havent since the late 80's

first they tax you as two serparate people. but if that is greater than the tax paid if you were tax as a single unit. you can claim the difference.
that to me seems to be an advantage. there are apparently others, but i dont know.

source. (http://www.revenue.ie/)

So you're not against gay marriage.

i'm not against the idea of them being apart of some religous group(like what ever the one was mentioned earlier) and that religion recognises thier marriage. i'm not religous.
its only about taxes.

first they tax you as two serparate people. but if that is greater than the tax paid if you were tax as a single unit. you can claim the difference.
that to me seems to be an advantage. there are apparently others, but i dont know.

source. (http://www.revenue.ie/)

great link, the revenue website front page.

all cohabiting couples have the same tax advantages. married, common law, gay etc.

you are wrong sir.

great link, the revenue website front page.

all cohabiting couples have the same tax advantages. married, common law, gay etc.

you are wrong sir.

sorry. cant link you the right page. check personal. then marriage. it should be there. it didnt read it all to see all of the advantages. one is enough.

note my opposition to gay marriage is just me nit picking. i like things systemed and ordered. i see allowing it is being slightly disorder. it annoys me. like i only like certain things to be in certain pockets. i like ordered systems.

"Article 41
1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
...
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.
2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that *[...]"
That says marriage will be protected not that some group or other will be excluded from such protection of marriage.
if they changed it. then i would try and put forward a reformation on the idea of marriage. as in i would promote the idea that only marriages that poduce children should be considered valid.
Great, so now couples who cannot prove they are fertile are refused the right to marry. That's not protecting marriage, that's altering it to its detriment.

gays cant have children together. thus not a family.
I cannot have children with my 2 of my siblings and wouldnt ever dream of having children with any of the 3 of them even if I could. My siblings and I are family. A good friend of mine was raised by his grandmother who didnt have him 'with' anyone, they were indeed a family.

as i say over and over again. i prefere if only marriages that involve children should be valid. why should the gov care if people are in love?
Marriage is not exclusively about children, nor exclusively about being in love. Marriage is about social cohesion more than any other thing. We know from social research that adults in 'familiy units', (that is groups of two or more people who consider themselves, and conduct themselves as a 'nuclear, familial household') have a tendancy to be more productive and a lessened propensity towards destructive behaviours.

Similarily people who are content with their familial arrangments are more likely to be productive and less likely to be destructive.

We can safely conclude that facilitating personal fufillment and security, as well as 'investedness' in a familial unit, promotes social stability and productivity.

its only about taxes.

Yes, and there are two possibilities:

1. You're a liar.
2. You support gay marriage when there's a family.

Yes, and there are two possibilities:

1. You're a liar.
2. You support gay marriage when there's a family.

2-kind of yes.

2-kind of yes.

Why only "kind of"?

:rolleyes:

Sadly, it does little good to have a Convention on Human Rights when the nations in question may or may not observe it at their leisure.

It seems to me all of these fine documents written up with flowery language, promising equality for all are just words of convenience written on fancy paper. Essentially the CHR is toilet paper. Much like the US Constitution. They mean nothing if the political will does not exist to enforce the terms of the documents.

I would suggest if Ireland is uncomfortable with their obligations as a member of the EU that they discontinue their association with it. Secede from it.

The idiotic foolishness of the human race leaves me very weary and mostly annoyed.

Why should the government care about marriage?
Because the government is a social insitution that concerns itself with other social institutions, such as marriage.

It's an age old religious ceremony.
No, it's an an age old social institution that (like eating) can incorporate religion and/or be incorporated into a religion.

Why don't we say that any religion that wants to do marriages, can do them? So if you're gay and want to be "married", go to a Unitarian Universalist church and have at it?

If you're a Baptist or Catholic, go to the church of your choice - where maybe they won't marry a gay couple.
Because that doesnt solve the problem, it simply increases the scope of the problem.

Leave the government out of it altogether.
Marriage is a social institution that the government reasonably has a stake in.

If you're worried about children, even unmarried couples have children. So maybe we have a child welfare agency that ensures they're not beaten or starved, regardless of who the children are living with.
I've more concerns than children. Firstly, marriage is a social institution, and a commonly held birth-right. It belongs to human beings not to 'religions'. No one ought to need to affiliate themselves with a religion to avail themselves of their commonly held birth-right - the institution of marriage.
Secondly, marriage is a long standing, wide-spread social institution. I see no good reason to remove it, but there may be many reasons why removing it would have negative impacts. We do not know that any good will come of changing a status quo that is largely working, we do not know that no bad will come of it. It would be stupid and shortsighted to remove such a wide-spread, long standing social institution without any good cause to do so, and no real idea of the potential effects of doing so.

People who are unmarried also buy property. Eliminate the marriage angle from property law - we should have one law for everyone as far as distribution of property is concerned.
Marriage involves situations in which working out the ownership of property in commonplace scenarios would be greatly complicated by an absence of the legislative forumulas that exist in regards to marriage offer. Legislation regarding matters of marriage help to give certainty to people in planning their lives, providing for their children and other kin. Marriage faciliatates certain legal matters that it would be expensive (and wasteful) for people to legally formalise on an individual basis while encouraging practises that society views as being in the financial/security interests of individuals, family units and society as a whole.

Why in the world is it the government's concern who will have children, and who will stick their dick in something besides a vagina?
Children are the government's concern as much as any other citizen, but due to the qualities of children, the government's obligation to them is above and beyond their obligation to non-minors. Therefore the having of children is a concern of the government in many contexts and cases.
There are legal issues of consent in regards to dicks, vaginas and other body parts, but this is for the most part an issue not directly connected to marriage.

:rolleyes:

Sadly, it does little good to have a Convention on Human Rights when the nations in question may or may not observe it at their leisure.

It seems to me all of these fine documents written up with flowery language, promising equality for all are just words of convenience written on fancy paper. Essentially the CHR is toilet paper. Much like the US Constitution. They mean nothing if the political will does not exist to enforce the terms of the documents.

I would suggest if Ireland is uncomfortable with their obligations as a member of the EU that they discontinue their association with it. Secede from it.

The idiotic foolishness of the human race leaves me very weary and mostly annoyed.
There, there, you'll get used to it. You learn to read folks like our friend Gorias after a while. Gay marriage disturbs his worldview, so he can't support it. That's his prerogative, I suppose. I just would wish that his attitude, and others more harsh, weren't being given the strength of law.

going to bed.

for the last time.

i'm in favour of the gov supporting any couple that is bring up a child. any other form of couple or "marriage" i dont think they should bother recognise.

why would the gov need to keep record of every homo or hethro couple that claim t love each other?

unfortunately, hethro couples without kids get the benifits, but i would like to change that.

i'm happy they lost. gay marraige doesnt suit us. whats next? nazis taking over riding dionsaurs?

Sigged for sheer delightful absurdity.

that that as in *smack!*

i'm happy they lost. gay marraige doesnt suit us. whats next? nazis taking over riding dionsaurs?

first drawn together reference i've seen on NS

sorry. cant link you the right page. check personal. then marriage. it should be there. it didnt read it all to see all of the advantages. one is enough.

note my opposition to gay marriage is just me nit picking. i like things systemed and ordered. i see allowing it is being slightly disorder. it annoys me. like i only like certain things to be in certain pockets. i like ordered systems.

It would seem to me that a society in which gay couples lived together as married, but did not have that union legally recognized, would be much more disordered than a society that did recognize it.

The reason that government recognizes marriage in the first place is the legal situations that not recognizing it can cause. Even now, if my fiance and I were to break up, there'd be some pretty strange legal situations because our relationship isn't defined or recognized by the government. When it is, the government will know how to deal with it. The same would apply to same-sex marriage.

why would the gov need to keep record of every homo or hethro couple that claim t love each other?

They don't. But they do need to keep track of assets - who owns what, who owes whom money, and so on. And the fact that people have a tendency to form into couples in which those lines are greatly blurred complicates the government's job to keep order and enforce contracts. As such, it allows those two people to be seen as a single legal entity - a married couple - and thus the issues of ownership and debts and legal responsibilities to one another are codified and ordered.

first drawn together reference i've seen on NS

Gorias' Corollary to Godwin's Law? "After the Nazis are brought into an Internet forum thread, it is only a matter of time before they're riding on dinosaurs."

that that as in *smack!*

i'm happy they lost. gay marraige doesnt suit us. whats next? nazis taking over riding dionsaurs?

No wonder you hate Israel. They have legalized Gay Marraige.

No wonder you hate Israel. They have legalized Gay Marraige.

They did? I must have missed that.

:rolleyes:

Sadly, it does little good to have a Convention on Human Rights when the nations in question may or may not observe it at their leisure.

It seems to me all of these fine documents written up with flowery language, promising equality for all are just words of convenience written on fancy paper. Essentially the CHR is toilet paper. Much like the US Constitution. They mean nothing if the political will does not exist to enforce the terms of the documents.

I would suggest if Ireland is uncomfortable with their obligations as a member of the EU that they discontinue their association with it. Secede from it.

The idiotic foolishness of the human race leaves me very weary and mostly annoyed.

where does the CHR or EU say gay marraige is a human right?


No wonder you hate Israel. They have legalized Gay Marraige.

but not gays walking around in the street.

we are the opposite. they cant marry but they can march without being attacked by fundamentalists

Maybe they should stop eating soybeans.

No wonder you hate Israel. They have legalized Gay Marraige.

Does everything HAVE to be about Israel with you? :rolleyes:

How would this "thwart the democratic rights of other countries"?

Canada is under no legal obligation to recognize Irish marriages (just as Ireland is under no legal obligation to recognize Canadian marriages. This has generally been done, as it is in most countries, as a courtesy between countries. If Ireland is not going to extend that courtesy, there is no reason that Canada should.
I believe that there are only 4 countries in the world that recognize same sex marriages and Canada is one of them. Canada shouldn't recognize the marriages of people from other countries (including the US) that do not recognize same sex marriages? Who would this hurt in the long run? I think that any gay couple that gets married in Canada and then goes to Catholic Ireland looking to have their marriage recognized there, are probably going to die of old age before that would happen.

This is gorias' way of thumbing his logical nose at gay people. Since he also tends to leave out words in his posts, I guess he left that part out. :rolleyes: I'm not in the mood. I do wish I hadn't been born in the 20th century. Maybe little kids today will think all this fuss is just that, a fuss over nothing.

Let them come to New Jersey. :)

I believe that there are only 4 countries in the world that recognize same sex marriages and Canada is one of them. Canada shouldn't recognize the marriages of people from other countries (including the US) that do not recognize same sex marriages? Who would this hurt in the long run? I think that any gay couple that gets married in Canada and then goes to Catholic Ireland looking to have their marriage recognized there, are probably going to die of old age before that would happen.

Some countries recognize same-sex marriage
Netherlands
Belgium
Canada
Spain
South Africa.
Israel (recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other countries, but does not perform them)

same sex marriage around the world (map) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Laws_on_homosexuality.png)

Stupid Ireland........:(