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.
THE GOVERNMENT has been advised that it would be illegal to offer civil partnership to heterosexual couples.
Justice minister Alan Shatter has said the government’s legal advice is that it would be a breach of the constitution to extend some of the rights and obligations of marriage to people who have the option to avail of it, but choose not to.
Shatter said this was because the constitution grants a special status to marriage, which the State is required to “guard with special care”.
The Civil Partnership Act 2010, which created the system of same-sex civil partnership, includes an explicit clause that forbids couples of the opposite sex from entering a civil partnership.
“I have no plans to amend this,” Shatter said in response to a written Dáil question from Fine Gael backbencher Patrick O’Donovan.
“In any case it would be constitutionally impermissible to do so,” he added, explaining:
[T]he legal advice available to the Government is that making a relationship with many of the rights and obligations of marriage available to opposite sex couples, who have the option of marriage, would violate the constitutional protection for the institution of marriage.
In other words, any move which gave marriage-style benefits and obligations to couples – who had the option of getting married but chose not to, for whatever reason – would be a violation of the State’s duty.
Couples of the opposite sex already have the right to enter a civil marriage without having to also enter into a parallel religious marriage.
The State has always maintained the attitude that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, as the basis “on which the family is founded”. The family, in turn, is recognised in the constitution as “the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society”.
The Constitutional Convention is due to discuss potential changes to the constitution, formally expanding the definition of marriage so that it can extend to same-sex couples, at a meeting next month.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Yet another reason why the catholic constitution of Ireland is not fit for purpose in the 21st century, tear it up and rewrite it for the modern era. We are not ruled by Rome any more, times have changed and things have moved on. Not everyone believes in marriage and a constitution should not be promoting one lifestyle in favour of another, people are entitled to equal rights wether or no they choose to marry or live together it is not the job of the state to make moral judgements on how people chose to live. Either we have a constitution that protects everybody’s rights or we don’t have a constitution at all. The Irish constitution as it stands belongs in the dark ages!
You have my 100% support
100% correct. But FG dont have the balls to do it. Perhaps another generation before Ireland grows up
Nobody has the “balls” to do it because they know it would be impossible to produce a document that would gain enough wide ranging support to get passed.
This is nothing to do with party politics. There’s no political party in this country saying we should have an entirely new constitution. In fact the current FG/Lab government have moved further on constitutional reform than the last three FF led governments by having a constitutional convention and trying to see what can be improved in the current document.
We have problems getting any amendment passed a new constitution hasn’t a chance of ever been passed
FG backbench are far too holy joe to allow this. Thats the probem.
It’s was never designed with equality in mind. It was devised by the RCC with the Irish government acting in an advisory capacity.
DeValera had a penchant for the smell of John Charles McQuaids arse.
Brillant. Made my day. Ha ha ha
Please explain how the constitution is Catholic and where it states that we’re “ruled by Rome”. Bunreacht na hÉireann guarantees complete freedom of worship and forbids the state from creating an established Church. The clause referring to the special position of the Roman Catholic Church (Art 44.1.2) and granting express recognition to other religious groups (Art 44.1.3) were repealed by referendum in 1973, with 84.4% of the voting population in favour of this move.
Amazing that most people have since chosen to forget that this referendum took place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland
The clauses relating to marriage and the position of the woman in the home are both to be examined by the constitutional convention. It’s fairly likely that they will be amended or repealed by way of referendum within the next few years.
So please stop with this incessant talking of down our constitution until you’ve read it. And when you’ve read it, you might also watch the opening address by Judge Gerald Hogan of the High Court, who compares it to (*shock horror*) other liberal (yes! I said liberal!) European constitutions like the Weimar constitution. Hogan explains how Bunreacht na hÉireann was drafted, and deconstructs many of the accusations leveled against it much like your own one there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mX3LLn3l6Q
“It’s the vibe of the thing”.
No , we are not ruled by Rome we are ruled from Brussels through Libertarian graduates of Sociology who want everything legalised and who blame all the problems of the world on the catholic church day in and day out , its getting tiring at this stage , same old articles with different words calling for freedom of expression for everybody apart from catholics that is.
Well Freebies had the RCC not made an Olympic sport out of the physical and sexual abuse of 000,000′s of individuals world wide perhaps folks would not feel the way they do about you’re beloved organization.
Not sure if you’ve noticed but there is a little bit of a Royal Commission going on in Australia at the moment where the all singing all dancing traveling show that is the Irish clergy once again appear to have taken center stage.
More victims, more legal obfuscation and above all more cover up…..a gift from Ireland to other countries that just keeps on giving.
So yes Freebies, lets celebrate the wondrous and altogether blameless institution that is the RCC.
%100 absolutely agreed…
Try getting your children into a school in rural Ireland. Who owns the schools? The only interesting bit is that on all the enrolment forms it just uses the word Catholic…and no mention of the words Roman or Church. Despite that if you dare tell your children that it’s all old stories and you’re better off believing in faeries as they at least are indigenous as opposed to some old Jewish book, that caused mayhem and murder for a coupla thousand years, your kids are liable to be expelled and your school trip twice a day could be fifty miles. We should dig up McQuaid and boil his bones to poison the rats. The Constitution is just paper (or digital). It’s the minds and culture that are the problem…can’t legislate or produce a constitution for that. Who needs one anyway. The Brits don’t have one as they’re all subjects and are right up themselves and we shouldn’t be upstaged.
Now..oh yeh, headline..straight people getting gay rights..That’s cool.
Easily solved: Dont have straight or gay marriage contracts. Have equal marriage and amend the current marriage Clause to refer to two adults and do not specify gender. Then all these legal ‘blockages’ for couples in love, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation or gender identity goes. All consenting people can avail of a State marriage and Churches can still marry members of their own congregations if they want.
*two adult humans
So fair three downvoters want to marry outside of their species. Lol.
It should be about consent. A minor is not deemed legally able to give informed consent and it’s impossible to gain consent from an animal or an inanimate object.. Whereas two adult humans can give their consent and sign the contract.
absolutely agree! consent between two adults, a loving relationship, that is all that should matter, as far as the state is concerned.
If the couple have wishes regarding a religious ceremony, then that should be between them and their church
The government should have nothing to do with marriage at all. I’ve never heard a good reason for state involvement in love.
It has to. Marriage is about love but is also a legal contract which gives a number of rights and protection to the couple and the family.
Unless it can offer the same rights to all it’s citizens what’s the point, otherwise it’s just a form of apartheid
Yeah I am fully in support of gay marriage. I am mystified as to why a straight couple would want a civil partnership which is clearly inferior to marriage. Still the state needs to get involved
Buying a bag of washers from the local hardware shop is also a contract. That’s no reason for the state to be involved in it.
Nonsense,
With no blood line how could inheritance pass to a spouse, these is one of the issues that it addresses
Brian, I don’t think you can be married to somebody on your blood line
Emily, who defined that contract between you and the hardware shop?
Brian it’s not 1542 and your not the king of France.
@Brian your comment makes no sense whatsoever
It makes sense if you’re married to your aunt.
@Brian
You could write a will.
Does anybody else think it is time for a new constitution. We keep having to have expensive referenda to make changes in any case. Also it was written for a different time, with different values, different objectives.
It probably would be great if we could have a completely new constitution which was written to reflect the reality of life in the 21st century. But sadly the chances of such a document being passed would be very slim.
One only has to look at the way seemingly straightforward referendums have run into difficulty in being passed to know that trying to get a majority behind an entirely new document would be practically impossible. All sorts of interest groups would find things that they wouldn’t like and therefore would campaign against it.
So if a constitution included marriage equality it would run foul of the more conservative elements in society. Likewise if it included abortion rights. And yet if it didn’t include these it would probably run into problems with the more liberal groups in society. Add into it provisions with relation to Europe, property rights, neutrality, children’s rights, freedom of information and you can see how easily it would be for a broad based opposition to form against any proposed new document.
The reality is that we are most likely stuck with the document we have and we will have to keep trying to change it to reflect society as it exists today.
The constitution we have at present is perfect , its a wonderful and outstanding piece of work by true irish people that reflects the majority opinion on the Island , we should not allow it to be re-written for Libertarians as a school project much like the current ‘european’ one.
quote Jim Walsh “The reality is that we are most likely stuck with the document we have and we will have to keep trying to change it to reflect society as it exists today”
so if society today becomes more violent we should change the constitution to allow for Guns , if society today becomes more addicted to drugs we should change the constitution to allow for the use of all types of drugs , if society today becomes more radical , we should change the constitution to allow for the kkk and similar groups to take part in politics etc … yes Jim you are a smart guy
@Freebies Ireland – Thanks. I think I am a smart man which is more than I think of you who can’t seem to see that if the Constitution of Ireland was so perfect then why has been amended over 20 times since it was enacted sometime in quite major ways.
The simple fact is that the Constitution is a living document which is why it has a methodology that allows it to be changed should the will of the people agree to it. If you look at some of the changes that have been made to it over the years you’ll see that they were done as society moved on and reflect the changing morality and views of that society. And this process will continue as we move forward assuming we keep our current Constitution which is entirely likely.
Apart from the fact that many of your extreme suggestions would have no place in the Constitution, the reality is that even if they did and were enacted they could only be done so by a majority of those who voted on the referendums that would have to be called. So even if you didn’t like any of those suggestions you’d still have to accept that it was the will of the majority. I think the concept is called democracy and maybe you should look it up and understand it before you decide on silly insults.
yes Jim , its been amended much of those times to make way for EU treaty ratification , so we can be ruled from the Reichstag , the constitution itself is perfect , ok it doesn’t gratify the Libertarians , but thats more to be welcomed than anything .
Goddamn heterosexuals demanding equal rights…
Absolutely its another reason why its not fit for purpose and hasn’t been for quite some time. People who happen to be lgbt have the right to be as miserable as everyone else and dammit if I’m gonna stop aiming to be as miserable as everyone else anytime soon!
Lets all vote to change the bloody thing then, a majority of people want this situation to change so lets change it
The hypocrisy of this government knows no bounds. This is the crowd who recently pulled a major stroke to circumvent the Hall Supreme Court case. They ignore 2 referenda on x case yet they quote the legality of constitution when it suits there fascist cause.
Typical of the A Holes supposedly running our country. That’s unconstitutional but robbing every working person of their wages and supporting unsupportable banks with that money is not??!?! Why are we keeping these apes (sorry if I have offended any apes or monkey reading this) in these jobs??
Conor
When you have an intelligent contribution to offer please don’t hold back but when you’re on the sauce try to resist the urge because it’s ugly.
Conor is perfectly correct. The constitution and the property rights contained therein are invoked every time the question of politicians’ or bankers’ pensions and ‘entitlements’ are challenged. Mutterings about contractual obligation, legitimate expectation etc. None of this however prevented this Government from ending at the stroke of a pen the entitlements of the lower paid IBRC workers when it suited.
Government should have no hand act or part in marriages or civil partnerships, Religion should have no hand act or part in education and teachers should have no hand act or part in government. Solves a multitude of issues.
When the people are serving The Constitution, rather than The Constitution serving the people then its time to get Tipp-Ex and Quill back out.
It is no longer a document of empowerment, it is a legal straight jacket obstructing the freedom that a 21st century citizen expects.
Bullshatter. Equality for all.
have your say