The other night, whilst watching season five of my Sex And The City DVD box-set, I stumbled across the episode where Carrie gets dumped by (drum roll please)…a POSTIT NOTE. No face to face ‘talk’ or phone conversation revealing the dreaded news. Just simply a small yellow Post-it which read, “I can’t. I’m sorry. Don’t hate me”.

I too was outraged at Berger, the author of this cowardly script, on Carrie’s behalf. Needless to say, it got me thinking… how many of us in 2011 are getting dumped via spineless media? Is anybody doing the ‘honourable’ thing anymore and breaking up with someone in person? And is virtually breaking up with somebody well…virtually the cleanest and most sensible way to end a relationship?

Let’s call a spade a spade, nobody takes rejection well. Yet, isn’t it fair to say that us girls take being dumped pretty badly? Tears, demands, shouting, blame-throwing; all are known to follow the verbal cessation of a relationship. So, can we really blame people for taking the easy way out?

After all, in 2011, anybody wishing to their cut ties from a relationship has a myriad of options to choose from. Apart from text messaging, social networking sites such as Facebook facilitate the dumper in their quest to be single. I give you, the Facebook relationship status setting. Once changed, this appears on the homepage of all their friends. I wonder how many people have logged on to find out that their partner is newly single.

Let’s face it the majority of us have been either dumped or did the dumping in this cold, clinical way.

The big complaint is that awful American word; Closure. A lack of closure is usually the main complaint that us girls who are dumped via faceless means have. Yet at the risk of being lynched, aren’t the majority of us that desperately seek face to face ‘closure’ from an ex just desperate to get them into a situation where we can do our utmost to convince them to change their minds?

Is demanding a face-to-face play-by-play analysis post break-up that could envy any RTE panel’s post match punditry really going to heal the heartache? Couldn’t it just make things worse? Initially after a break-up, emotions are running high between both parties and chances are that the talk will be far from amicable.

So, shouldn’t we be giving ourselves the closure we need over a Lemon Jelly coffee with our girlfriends, rather than relying on an ex who clearly wanted to avoid any dissection of the relationship in the first place?

I find that in the majority of break-ups, the end has been in sight to both partners for quite some time. It is rare that someone should just one day out of the blue end a relationship. There are usually warning signs such as arguments or a lack of interest on one party’s behalf. Perhaps we should heed these and either try to resolve the issues that exist in our relationship, or face facts that things just aren’t working and take the high road before they can.

After all, Carrie in Sex of the City had been aware that things with Berger were far from rosy for some time. Sure, facing up to the facts that a relationship isn’t going to work is painful, but in the long run it saves on the amount of heartache that inevitably follows from a relationship which is dragged out to the bitter end.

Related posts:

1. Racing to the altar

And they have.

The gossip blogs are going nuts; it’s like Christmas to them. Headline joy:

Cold! Melissa Etheridge Will NOT Be Paying Tammy’s Legal Fees!

Melissa Etheridge gets nasty in divorce. Shame on her.

Tammy: Melissa Left Me With $4 To My Name

The game? Slate the celebrity. This time, made all the more easy by the ex who publishes a barely-readable blog that I hope disappears before her children are able to read.

It seems to be cool to side with Tammy on this. And I have to say, when the rumours first started up, I was very sympathetic to what she must have gone through.

i still love that damn woman so much, i’m still trying to stop. i had a dream last where honey and i were fighting and going to get a divorce, and i woke up sobbing…. then i realized. oh. it’s true. and then what do you do? when the horrible feeling in the dream gets to stay even after you wake up?
Hollywood Farm Girl 20.05.2010 (Tammy’s blog. Note: she regularly deletes posts)

It’s hard to dismiss that kind of emotion and it’s harder to not empathise with the person expressing it. When I read that I was near tears.

Apparently everyone else was too. Even lesbian favourite pop culture blogger Dorothy Snarker appears to be on “Team Tammy”, joining ever classy Perez Hilton in his condemnation of Melissa Etheridge.

Despite my vunerability to emotional rants, the facts just don’t add up. Tammy and her lawyer claim she is destitute:

Knowles tells TMZ Tammy has a grand total of $4 to her name … adding, “Melissa has not been treating Tammy or the children as if they are a wife and children, financially and otherwise.”

Knowles says Melissa has not given Tammy or the kids a penny since the breakup … and she is now destitute.
TMZ

But when she applied to the court to force Melissa to hand over $25,000 and pay Tammy’s legal fees, the judge disagreed on the grounds that Melissa’s lawyers were able to prove that Tammy’s living expenses which (according to Melissa’s lawyer) total “tens of thousands of dollars per month,” are being covered by Melissa. She is also providing Tammy $2000 a month in addition to covering housing/child care/car lease/ living expenses.

Now I’m not sure why everyone thinks that the judge is in some way biased towards Melissa on this. Surely the judge would have required some evidence. In this case, I’m going to go with the judge, and not the crazy lady rants on Tammy’s blog. Dorothy, Perez, why do you think the judge wants Tammy and the children destitute?

Ultimately even Tammy’s lawyer admitted to People Magazine that Tammy and the children were being supported by Melissa.

Melissa is applying for joint custody. Tammy is applying for full custody. I know which appears reasonable and in the interests of the children to me. Tammy is blatantly using those children as a bargaining chip to get money from her wealthy ex. Unless a parent is abusive, no reasonable person would try and separate their children from their other parent. To even attempt to do so is wrong wrong wrong.

I’m not saying I think anyone was blameless in this break up. I’m not saying Melissa didn’t withdraw from family life. I’m not saying her cheating is a total impossibility. Nobody but Melissa and Tammy really can know those things. But what I’m saying is that Tammy  is already making clear her lack of a deep, abiding relationship with reality. She’s lying. She’s trying to permanently separate her children from their mother.

“Team Tammy” is just another symptom of a dumbed down pop culture that elevates feeling over facts.

No related posts.

Two couples – Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarillo – are taking a case to the federal courts against the state of California. The couples in the case – Perry v. Schwarzenegger – are unmarried couples, and they are suing to challenge Proposition 8 as being in breach of the US Constitution.

As you may be aware, Proposition 8 was run in California at the time of the presidential elections in November 2008, and was passed by just over half of voters. The Proposition bans same-sex marriage in California. (Same-sex marriage was legal for a few months prior to the passing of Prop 8, and those marriages remain legally valid according to the California Supreme Court.)

On Wednesday, during a preliminary hearing in the Perry case, an unusual discussion took place. An excellent report by Lisa Leff for the Associated Press details the exchange between chief judge Vaughan Walker and lawyer for the proponents of Proposition 8, Charles Cooper. Cooper was seeking to have the case either struck out altogether, or to make it more difficult for the plaintiffs in cases such as these.

In refusing the application, the judge – appointed by former president, George W. Bush – informed Cooper that when the case goes to trial in January 2010, he and his legal team must “present evidence showing that male-female marriages would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal”.

Honestly, read Leff’s report in full which quotes parts of the dialogue in detail. Vaughan pressed Cooper to show what is the harm or adverse effect on opposite-sex marriages and on children. Cooper was unable to answer: in relation to the question concerning the effects on opposite-sex relationship, he eventually responded, “I don’t know”.

When pressed further, using a double-negative he asserted that it is not self-evident that there is no harm, and suggested that the people of California should not “take the risk” but should be allowed to see how the same-sex marriage “experiment” plays out in other U.S. states. Vaughan was having none of it: “Since when do Constitutional rights rest on the proof of no harm?”

Read it! [here]

Read it, especially because some entities in Ireland continue to raise similar issues as those put forward by Cooper and co. We have long heard anti-marriage equality voices in Ireland talk of “allowing certain rights to same-sex couples”, but referring to marriage as “the gold standard” (as persistently parroted by David Quinn) and as being the only place within which to raise children. Marriage is often – explicitly or implicitly – discussed and defined in terms of procreation.

Such arguments were even put forward in the Zappone and Gilligan case, and were referenced by judge Dunne in her judgment against the two women. (This includes relying on evidence by the Irish state’s witness, Prof Patricia Casey, who to my knowledge failed to disclose her position as patron of the Iona Institute, which was launched shortly after the judgement was issued.)

Indeed, as well as the issues mentioned above, judge Vaughan also wants to find out if the proponents in of Prop 8 have or had any anti-gay stance, and has required the disclosure of correspondences of those involved in the campaign.

The Perry case is relevant to Ireland not only because the case deals with the topic of marriage equality. It is relevant because Ireland and the UK (like many former and current Commonwealth members and former British colonies) are ruled by the common law system, as well as by legislation.

Our laws are not the same, certainly, but our legal traditions are; moreover, the courts in Ireland have in the past regarded US and Canadian rulings (among others) as either being of persuasive value or approved them to cite as precendent, thereby incorporating such cases into Irish caselaw. (For example, the infamous Flynn v Power ruling of 1985 relies on a ruling of the Canadian courts; the case has since been overturned in Canada and is now defunct there, but remains good law in Ireland. But that’s a whole other matter!)

The Perry case is due to go to trial in January 2010. As yet, there is no date that I’m aware of for the Zappone and Gilligan case to be heard in the Supreme Court (and that Court has quite a backlog, by all accounts).

I’ll be keeping a trained eye on the news reports – and, if possible, the transcripts – of Perry as it proceeds. I hope that the Zappone and Gilligan legal team will do likewise, as the appeal to the Supreme Court will deal solely with legal argument (the facts as established in the High Court may not be re-visited on appeal). I also hope that activists, Irish lawmakers and members of government are aware of the details of the case.

Whatever the eventual outcome of Perry, how the issues will be discussed – those indicated, at least, by Wednesday’s pre-trial hearing – will be very, very interesting to see.

See also:
MarriagEquality
LGBT Noise

Related posts:

1. Setback in fight for marriage equality in Ireland
2. Preliminary hearing in Zappone & Gilligan appeal tomorrow!
3. Marriage: The Gold Standard?

The Bill is thought to fall short of the needs of same-sex couples and families, for example not catering for same-sex couples who have children, or dealing with the issue of adoption. Yesterday, we saw protesters at Dáil Éireann, opposed to the fact that the Bill won’t provide full equality for lesbian and gay couples. Today, The Irish Times front page reports that the Green Party is in a bit of a huff about the Bill not going as far as they had hoped. Gosh, if only there were a party in government whose election mandate was for full equality for same-sex relationships. Oh yes, that’s you, Greens. Too little, too late.

Keep watch here for analysis of the Bill as soon as we can get our grubby little mitts on it!

Update:

The Bill has now been published, along with an explanatory memo:
- Civil Partnership Bill 2009 as initiated (PDF format)
- Civil Partnership Bill 2009 Explanatory Memorandum

The Bill may be amended as it proceeds through the houses of An tOireachtas (the Dáil and Seanad). We’ll try to give our own comments as and when we can read through it. In the meantime, please feel free to give your own opinions and thoughts in the comments!

Update 2 – 1:26pm:

Newstalk 106 FM are due to have a panel discussion on the Bill soon, it appears – You can tune in on the radio, or listen via their website. (Nothing yet on RTÉ Radio 1, as far as I’m aware.)

Update 3:

Newstalk 106 FM headlines at 1:30pm quote Minister Dermot Ahern as saying that Civil Partnerships “are not a stepping stone to gay marriage”.

Update 4:

The Irish Times Breaking News reports on the Bill here, with comments from Minster Ahern, Labour’s Brendan Howlin and the ICCL.

Update 5:

The Irish Examiner’s Breaking News also has the story, here, including this comment from GLEN:

“This is a major civil rights reform that will resolve many immediate and pressing issues faced by lesbian and gay couples” said Kieran Rose, Chair of GLEN, who said the Government were to be congratuled “on bringing forward this complex and comprehensive legislation and committing to its early enactment”.

[ ... ]

However GLEN said a remaining concern was the issue of legal support and recognition of the many children being parented by same-sex couples.

“Inclusion of legal recognition of children being parented by same-sex couples will be critical for the welfare of these children” said Rose.

Update 6:

LGBT Noise have now issued a press release concerning the Bill. Read it here. The statement includes:

Noise believes that this bill will only serve to cement inequality for gay and lesbian people by explicitly excluding them from the primary social insitution of marriage, and that it is nothing but state-endorsed discrimintaion. Gay couples should not be forced into a situation where they are made to participate in their own discrimination out of urgent necessity to regularise their legal arrangements.

Update 7

MarriagEquality.ie have accused the government of “short-changing” lesbians and gay men with this bill:

Following the publication of the civil partnership bill today, MarriagEquality is calling on the Government to acknowledge that the bill is forcing lesbians and gay men to accept a second rate set of rights, and ensures that lesbian and gay relationships will be regarded as inferior to married couples. MarriagEquality advocate that the Government instead move to provide lesbians and gay men with equality by providing access to civil marriage.

Research conducted by Lansdowne Market Research shows that 81% of the public agree that everyone should receive equal treatment from the state regardless of their sexuality. 61% further believe that denying lesbians and gay men civil marriage is a form of discrimination.

Grainne Healy, Co-Chair, MarriagEquality, commented, “MarriagEquality want equal marriage rights for lesbians and gay men. Civil partnership is not marriage like, and does not confer marriage like rights on lesbians and gay men who choose to legally register their relationship through it. The civil partnership legislation is deficient on so many levels and discriminates against lesbians, gay men and their children to such an extent that MarriagEquality are calling on to Government to legislate for civil marriage now.”

A deeply upsetting aspect of the civil partnership legislation is that the Government has totally ignored lesbian and gay parents and their children. In reality all children should have equal access to their parents and vice-versa, and should have the same rights as all children in Ireland. 75% of the public believe that all children should be treated equally by the state. Furthermore, a same-sex couple will not be eligible to apply to be considered to adopt a child under civil partnership: not even the child of their registered civil partner.

Update 8 – 5:55pm:
(Thanks to HAL for adding all my updates while I’ve been offline!)

Courtesy, once again, from MamanPoulet, Minister Ahern – who today has stated clearly that the Civil Partnership Bill is “not a stepping stone to marriage” and that marriage is “preserved” and “guarded” – was in 1993 opposed to the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Yes indeed, and this is a matter of public record.

After quoting from the Irish constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann (Articles 40.1, 41.1.2º, and 45), Ahern who was then a backbencher went on about his “not being intolerant” (in fact, “Anyone who knows me well knows that I am a very tolerant person”) and about “the common good.”

He said, “We seem to have reached the stage where we are legislating for pressure and minority groups.” And he said, “We have a duty to legislate for the standards and norms which we regard as appropriate for the Irish people. This does not necessarily have to include all the people, but we should strive to achieve a certain standard and norm in our society.”

The deputy went on to talk about “the breakdown of society” and “protecting the family unit,” and even managed to include reference to the murder of Jamie Bolger.

Just before he ended his speech he said:

Mr. D. Ahern: Much play is made of the word “equality”, for example, equality in regard to the age limit. I wonder if this issue will end here. Will the pressure groups which have succeeded in having this legislation brought before the House stop here? I think not. Will we eventually see the day in this country when, as has happened in the USA, homosexuals will seek the right to adopt children? We should think seriously about this possibility.

I have a problem with the age limit of 17 years. I appreciate that the Minister is endeavouring to equalise the age limits for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. However, under the child care legislation passed by this House a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18 years. We should bear this in mind.

Oh yes, and when the now Minister began his speech on that day – almost to the day – back in 1993, he said, “I do not often find myself in agreement with my constituency colleague, Deputy McGahon, but on this occasion I am.” With what was he agreeing, you may ask?

With this:

Mr. McGahon: Homosexuality is a departure from normality and while homosexuals deserve our compassion they do not deserve our tolerance. That is how the man in the street thinks. I know of no homosexual who has been discriminated against. Such people have a persecution complex because they know they are different from the masses or normal society. They endure inner torment and it is not a question of the way others view them.

The Lord provided us with sexual organs for a specific purpose. Homosexuals are like left hand drivers driving on the right hand side of the road. The Minister should seek a derogation from the ruling of the European Court to prevent this unacceptable legislation being foisted on the Irish people. I remind the Minister that the age of consent has been reduced to 12 years in Holland. Will we have to accept such an appalling move in years to come? Many Members of the Minister’s party are very unhappy about this legislation although some of them have expressed their support for it. The Minister should put the issue to the people in a referendum.

Make of all that what you will..

Related posts:

1. Irish support same-sex marriage

The newsdesk has been a-flutter with reports that members of direct-action community group for fair treatment of lgbtq people, EQUALS, are demonstrating their discontent with what they see as the codification of inequality in the Civil Partnerships Bill 2009 at Leinster House this Thursday lunchtime. Lisa Connell was chained to the gates of the Houses of the Oireachtas and Will St. Leger mounted the gatehouse with a flag which read “Marriage Rights are Equal Rights” on Kildare Street, Dublin 2. Both have now been removed by the gardaí but not before they got a chance to talk to waiting journalists. Senator David Norris has also addressed the crowd who assembled to support the demonstration. Tune into your new bulletins for reports and interview snippets and follow the action as it happens on Twitter with Gaelick, David Norris and Panti.

Photos to follow. More breaking news information from BreakingNews.ie.

UPDATE: Will St. Leger has been arrested and brought to Pearse Street Garda Station, Dublin 2.

UPDATE: You can follow Equals on Twitter and Facebook and also see some photos from today in LGBT Noise’s Flickr pool.

UPDATE: Will St. Leger has been released without charge.

UPDATE: Added more photos. Thanks to Caroline Kinsella for permitting us to reproduce them.

 

Will St. Leger atop gatehouse

 

Demonstration at Dáil Éireann

 

Lisa Connell interviewed by TV3

 

Gardaí prepare to remove Will St. Leger

 

Gardaí arresting Will St. Leger

 

Will St. Leger and Lisa Connell

No related posts.

The court’s decision effectively means that the vote by the simple majority to pass Proposition 8 still stands. (That simple majority, by the way, was 52.24% – hardly resounding.) Proposition 8 inserts a new provision into the Californian constitution, stating that marriage can only between a man and a woman. It reads:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Some have been outraged at the court’s decision; some have taken a stoical view along the lines that the ruling was technical and that the court’s hands were tied.

Reading the decision, however, I’m not so sure I ultimately agree with the latter view. The ruling is set out very clearly into an introduction, and three subsequent sections detailing the court’s reasoning. (It can be read here [.pdf].)

The decision helpfully and clearly summarises the previous marriage cases which led to the same court’s earlier decision stating that same-sex marriages should be allowed. The distinction is that, in the previous cases, the law at issue was statutory; in the present case, however, it’s a constitutional matter.

The first matter to be decided, according to the court, was whether Proposition 8 constituted an amendment or a revision. (After that, they would deal with the issue of those who have already been married over the past year.) To do this, they needed to carefully “assess (1) the meaning and scope of the constitutional change at issue, and (2) the effect — both quantitative and qualitative — that the constitutional change will have on the basic governmental plan or framework embodied in the preexisting provisions of the California Constitution.”

The judges in the present case (I don’t know if they were actually the same individual judges who issued the previous marriage ruling) strive to frame their decision in the context of the earlier case, and thereby limit the scope and effect of the Proposition 8 provision: they say that the effect of Proposition 8 does not limit “the constitutional right of same-sex couples to ‘choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage’ (Marriage Cases [...] 43 Cal.4th at p. 829)”.

The danger in this approach as I see it, however, is that the judges hands are tied to saying that same-sex couples are (at present, at least) separate but equal: this calls to mind the U.S. era of segregation, or South African apartheid – the whites at the whites’ water fountain, the blacks at theirs: separate, but equal. Of course, we know what history has to teach us about such arrangements.

What is more worrying, however, is that the judges strain their reasoning to reach this conclusion, not as their overall ruling of the court, but in order to justify calling Proposition 8 an “amendment” (which is permitted) – rather than a “revision” (which is not permitted).

That is to say, if the judges found that Proposition 8 was found to have “entirely repealed or abrogated” the constitutional privacy rights of same-sex couples and due process; or if they had found that Proposition 8 had “fundamentally altered” the meaning and substance of constitutional equal protection principles: then, they might have found that Proposition 8 was a revision and therefore invalid.

But they didn’t: the judges found that

Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

Perhaps I’m missing something, but the fact that they’ve decided to classify Prop 8 as an amendment and not a revision (thereby allowing Prop 8 to remain valid) worries me. (Especially as people on this side of the water are fond of following the people on the other side of the water..)

What do you think?

No related posts.

The full title of the conference is the trip-off-the-tongue, “Marriage Matters for Lesbian and Gay People in Ireland: Social and Legal Perspectives” (mm, sounds fun..!) and it’s taking place in the Westbury Hotel, Grafton St, Dublin 2, from 10am-4pm.

Despite the soporific name, there are some muchos interesting headline acts attending, including:

• Alejandro Alder, International and Human Rights Co-ordinator, FELGTB;

• Patricia Prendiville, former Executive Director ILGA-Europe, 2004-2008;

• Professor Sheila Greene, Director, Children’s Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin;

• Peter Tatchell, Human Rights Campaigner, Gay Rights Activist, Writer;

• Niall Crowley, former CEO Equality Authority and Equality Expert

There will also be panellists, including Grainne Healy (Co-Chair, MarriagEquality) who spoke at Sunday’s rally; Brian Sheehan (CEO, GLEN); LGBT Noise, go team!; Dundalk OUTcomers; Platform for Equality.

The info, according to MarriagEquality’s mailing list email:

The National Lesbian and Gay Federation (NLGF) with the support of the Equality Authority are holding a National Symposium: ‘Marriage Matters for Lesbian and Gay People in Ireland: Social and Legal Perspectives‘.

Symposium Aim
To provide a forum for the exchange of information and for dialogue between interested LG national organisations, community groups and individuals, as well as legal, equality and human rights professionals, and all those advocating for change on the issue of lesbian and gay marriage, subsequent to the introduction of civil partnership legislation.

Who should attend?
The symposium will be of particular interest to lesbian and gay equality advocates and activists; politicians; policy makers; legal practitioners; community and social work professionals; trade unionists; and all those interested.

This event will take place on Thursday 7th May 2009 in the Westbury Hotel, Grafton St, Dublin 2, from 10am – 4pm.

The symposium is a follow-up activity to the European Year of Equal Opportu nities for All (2007).

It’s free to attend, but you must reserve your place by next week, on 1st May 2009.

Email nlgfederation [at] gmail [dot] com

No related posts.

We thought it might be a good idea to try to collate as many photos of the rally as possible from anyone and everyone who’s there. Thanks to a brainwave by the lovely Conor Pendergrast, we’ve decided to set up a Gaelick Flickr group – so, anyone who wants to, should be able to upload their pics of the rally there!

Here are the particulars:
- Our Flickr group
- Flickr groups FAQs

Hopefully we won’t meet any technical glitches along the way. If you do, please let us know in the comments or by email: clickhere [at] gaelick [dot] com

Hooray!

No related posts.

So many would-be commentators have suggested that the only way marriage could be extended to same-sex couples is “if we have a referendum” (followed by sage nodding). Well, I ask both, “Why?” and, “What if?”

What if our legislators just legislated for same-sex marriage? They legislated for opposite-sex marriage for the first time in 2004: before then, it was all court-made law. Of course, as we all know, while courts are bound by precedent, the law can (eventually) evolve to reflect real life. Well, the 2004 Act put the kybosh on that: now courts are bound to interpret that law, and that law is pretty clear:

Civil Registration Act, 2004, section 2(2)(e):

For the purposes of this Act there is an impediment to a marriage if—
. . .
both parties are of the same sex.

So, I suggest that a law be enacted by the Dáil and the Seanad to simply delete this one line from the statute books.

But wait, I hear strains of “…but the Constitution says..” Actually, the Constitution doesn’t say: the courts said. If legislation was proposed, one of two things could happen:

(a) The President could refer the matter under Article 26 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court to examine whether the law is constitutional before it was enacted and signed into law; or
(b) An individual could attempt to challenge the legislation through the courts after it has been enacted

Referring a Bill to the Supreme Court is a discretionary function of the President. Personally, it would be quite unfortunate if President McAleese referred the matter to the Supreme Court as she has in the past been a supporter of the LGBT community. But, under the law, she may do so.

So, in an ideal world, let’s assume the legislation has been signed into law. There are a few important practical issues to consider. It’s all very well to suppose what the Constitution “says” (even though the Constitution is, in fact, silent on the definition of marriage), but there’s theory and then there’s practice. And in practice, when it comes to matters legal, there are procedures.

Firstly, someone would need to show that their personal rights are somehow adversely affected by the new law. Secondly, if they even managed to do that (which I seriously doubt), they’d have to rebut what’s known as “the presumption of constitutionality”.

The presumption of constitutionality is basically where a law enacted by An tOireachtas (our parliament) is presumed to be in accordance with the Constitution, and the burden of proving otherwise lies on the person seeking to impugn the legislation.

But first, who could actually take a case to the courts to challenge such a law? Seriously, who?? Who would actually be affected by gays suddenly being able to legally regularise their relationships?

It must be someone who can establish what’s known as locus standi. No, that’s not a biblical plague: it’s showing that you have some standing to challenge a law or a ruling.

The courts in this country have pronounced on it in various situations, to do with constitutional cases and non-constitutional cases. The authority is a case called Cahill v Sutton [1980] I.R. 269, and has been cited here, here and interestingly for our readers, in the Norris judgement of 1983. Locus standi can be summed up thusly, in the words of judge Henchy in the Cahill case:

The Constitution has given Parliament the sole and exclusive power of making laws. The courts normally accord those laws the presumption of having been made with due observance of constitutional requirements. If a citizen comes forward in court with a claim that a particular law has been enacted in disregard of a constitutional requirement, he has little reason to complain if in the normal course of things he is required … to show that the impact of the impugned law on his personal situation discloses an injury or prejudice which he has either suffered or is in imminent danger of suffering.

In the same case (hat tip to McGarr Solicitors’ blog), the then Chief Justice said:

Where the person who questions the validity of a law can point to no right of his which has been broken, endangered or threatened by reason of the alleged invalidity, then, if nothing more can be advanced, the Courts should not entertain a question so raised. To do so would be to make of the Courts the happy hunting ground of the busybody and the crank.

(Emphasis mine – fnarr)

But back to the first quote: Someone please tell me, who – who? – would suffer “an injury or prejudice” if I can marry me missus?
_______________________________________

Give Inequality the Red Card: Civil Marriage Rally – Sunday, 19th April 2009, 2pm @ Central Bank, Dublin

Free tea and cakes before the rally @ Panti Bar, Capel Street from 12 noon; post-rally BBQ @ The Purty Kitchen, Essex Street East
_______________________________________

Previous posts:
Give Inequality the Red Card: Civil Marriage Rally
Same-sex relationships: are we really excluded from equality?
Marriage on Gaelick

No related posts.

Bank Holiday Monday, 13th April
Make your placards at Make-And-Do-Monday @ PantiBar

Sunday, 19th April
12pm: Pre-Rally Tea and Cake @ PantiBar
2pm: Red Card Rally @ Central Bank
Post-Rally: BBQ @ The Sycamore Club over Purty Kitchen

Why?
Read on..

Do you believe in equality?

Do you think everyone should have the choice to marry the person they love?

If so, come and join us in telling the government that half-measures won’t do – we want civil marriage, not civil partnership!

Civil Marriage Rally,
Central Bank
2pm, Sunday, 19th April 2009

www.lgbtnoise.ie
twitter.com/lgbtNOISE

* * * * * * * *
PLUS

Support
MarriagEquality

“I Do”

More people than ever support the freedom for gay and lesbian people to marry.
We can make it happen. But we need your help.

Here’s how: Join the MarriagEquality campaign and make your support seen and heard.

Visit your TDs. Talk to your family and friends.

Tell them why marriage is the only equal option for gay and lesbian couples and our families.

Say “I do” to real change now

For more information contact Moninne on 01-6599 459
www.marriagequality.ie

No related posts.

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’s 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was totally meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn’t changed at all: women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That’s why we only have one religion in Ireland.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign the marriage register.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars, microwave ovens or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate legal status will for gays and lesbians.

Related posts:

1. My marriage is equal

I mentioned briefly in a recent post the Free Travel Pass scheme.

The Free Travel Pass scheme is a social welfare scheme which allows the Pass holder to be accompanied by their other half, the latter travelling for free – married or unmarried. Now, the scheme was the subject of a challenge by an elderly gay couple, with the assistance of the Equality Authority, in 2003 under equality legislation, because the guidelines of the Department of Social and Family Affairs said that a partner must only be of the opposite sex. As a result of the legal challenge, the Deparment settled – guilty, were we?

A few months later, however, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Mary Coughlan – now our Tanaiste – enacted legislation enshrining the very discrimination that was contained in the impugned guidelines. Her Department defined the word “spouse” as meaning opposite-sex spouses only – whether married or unmarried – and applied this across several social welfare schemes: many more than just the Free Travel Pass scheme.

At the time, Coughlan defended her legalisation of discrimination by the State against homosexuals by claiming it to be just an interim measure to allow her Department to “review” social welfare and family policy. It was also convenient that the Irish government, in our equality legislation, gave itself permission to discriminate within Acts of the Oireachtas.

I called that earlier post, “Same-Sex Relationships: Are We Really Excluded from Equality?” And it seems my question has been answered during the week by Maman Poulet [link and link]: yes.

It transpires that Ireland’s rail service, Iarnród Éireann, is now actively enforcing the discriminatory legislative provisions. The company’s Barry Kenny has confirmed the practice in email correspondence to Maman Poulet, and deferred to the Department – now headed by Mary Hanafin – when it was put to him that active enforcement might just be anti-equality.

One of MP’s commenters, solicitor Simon McGarr succinctly points out that just because something is legalised, does not mean it’s legal.

Ireland, like over 40 European states, is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits discrimination in certain cases.

And the EU has recently adopted proposals to prohibit discrimination in the provision of goods and services.

The Irish government may have negotiated an employment equality get-out clause for institutions of a “religious ethos”, but there is no wriggling out of their obligations under European minimum standards as contained in law.

I wonder how many elderly same-sex couples use Ireland’s rail service, and I wonder if there are any legal reps out there up to an interesting challenge.

—–

You might also be interested in reading: Irish Rail’s Gaywatch – Confirm they are on the lookout to stop gay couples

You might also like to send emails to your local TD, and to:
info@welfare.ie
info@transport.ie
minister@welfare.ie
mary.hanafin@oireachtas.ie
noel.dempsey@oireachtas.ie
info@irishrail.ie

Related posts:

1. Missing Pieces: Parent & child, other issues
2. Missing Pieces: The Family Home & Finance
3. Missing Pieces: Immigration & legal procedures

Here in Ireland, we’re always told that the Constitution is the one thing that prevents us being treated equally by the law in terms of marriage. Last month, I rambled on about the constitution itself. Now, let’s see how the courts have interpreted the constitution.

(And let’s not forget that it is the role of the courts – and not parish-pump politicians or self-appointed moral custodians – whose job it is to interpret the Constitution and the laws.)

Two recent publications by the Law Reform Commission succinctly sum up how courts regard marriage under Article 41 of the Constitution: the first is the Consultation Paper on the Rights and Duties of Cohabitees from 2004; and the second is the Report on the Rights and Duties of Cohabitants from 2006.

The Consultation Paper sets out the most important court judgments in relation to Article 41. Now, the Law Reform Commission isn’t some sort of bastion of liberal, do-gooder hippies. Its publications are sober, factual, well-reasoned documents. One of its current Commissioners is a former judge of the Irish Supreme Court, Mrs Justice Catherine McGuiness (whom I lurrve, by the way).

Anyway, here is that Paper’s conclusion:

1.17 The Commission is of the view that Article 41 does not prevent the Oireachtas legislating in respect of cohabitees, so long as the legislation does not grant cohabitees more extensive rights than those enjoyed by married couples.

And I think we can all see the sense in that. Not only is that what the case law implies, it’s arguably reasonable to think that non-married couples aren’t treated more preferably than married couples. Basically, that is all that is required, according to the Law Reform Commission.

Conversely, then, treating same-sex couples equally in a civil marriage would not constitute an “attack” on marriage, either in the eyes of the law, or by simple logic.

The Oireachtas attempted to put the kibosh on this marriage equality lark, however, back in 2004: the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs, our current Tánaiste, Mary Coughlan was responsible for inserting into legislation for the first time in Irish history a definition of marriage as being only between opposite-sex couples [section 2(2)(e)]. Until then the law was essentially court made. The law was approved by all but Sinn Féin TDs.

(This is the same Mary Coughlan who legislated to discriminate against same-sex couples in social welfare benefits. Notably, this was a few months after her then Department settled a legal challenge by a same-sex couple over discrimination in the Free Travel Pass scheme. You see, cleverly, Bertie Ahern’s government made sure to include in the 1990s equality Acts provisions which permit discrimination which is contained in statutes. Neat.)

Of course, judge Elizabeth Dunne in the High Court recently ruled against Katherine Zappone and Ann-Louise Gillgan in their attempt to have their Canadian marriage recognised for the purposes of taxation. The case is now the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ireland. (Interestingly, witness for the State, Prof Patricia Casey, never disclosed to the court or anyone else that she is a patron of the Iona Institute. The Iona Institute was ‘launched’ shortly after the High Court’s decision.)

Very recently, however, in April of this year, the High Court ruled that a lesbian couple and their child constituted a de facto family:

Mr Justice John Hedigan … found that where a lesbian couple live together in a long term committed relationship, they could be regarded as being a de facto family and enjoy family rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

RTE also reported that:

The judge hearing the case has called on the Oireachtas to give urgent consideration to legislation to take account of the existence of same sex couples and securing their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly where such a couple wishes one of them to bear a child.

So, where to now?

Update (4th Oct 2008)
At the time of original publication, I could not locate the High Court’s judgement on www.courts.ie. Happily, I have since had luck: the case is McD v. L & Anor. [2008] IEHC 96

No related posts.

It’s date one, and you’ve bonded over Ellen jokes/Melissa Etheridge/mungbeans/cats (delete as appropriate).

It’s date two, and you confirm, while talking for a solid thirteen hours over dinner, that you are connected by at least four different exes.

It’s date three, and you’re planning a long-haul holiday together – upon which you embark the following week.

You return from your holiday to discover that your friends have found creative ways to merge your names into one.

It’s month two, and you’ve moved in together.

It’s month two-and-a-day, and you’re deciding on cat names.

It’s month two-and-a-week, and you’re both congratulating yourselves on how you no longer have to put up with the god-awful “scene”.

It’s month three, and you are leading the campaign for the right to marry.

The contents of your respective wardrobes appear to have been swapped entirely since week two.

You have developed a witty and inciteful form of coded language which, unfortunately, is understandable only to you and the misses.

You use up your entire overdraft on lavish gifts to mark a random month’s “anniversary”.

Your apartment contains at least two copies each of various books by Emma Donoghue, Sarah Waters and Radcliffe Hall.

Very early on, the thought of a quiet night in with a DVD and bottle of wine is much more appealing than the idea of boozing till the wee hours with your mates.

You’ve barely reached your first anniversary, and the inevitable happens: Lesbian Bed Death.

You happily console yourselves with copious amounts of the duplicate books, DVDs and bottles of wine.
Alternatively, you happily console yourselves with copius amounts of sex-toys and role-play.

No related posts.

Following on from my previous article, and some of the debate generated by the publishing of the Heads of Civil Partnership Bill, I thought I would elaborate in more detail on my thoughts. Also, I’m feeling quite ranty.

As the Queen said to Alice, let’s begin at the beginning, then continue until we reach the end; and then stop.

I shall begin with the basics: Bunreacht na hÉireann. “Bunreacht”, “bunaidh”: the basics, the fundamentals. Or in other words, the constitution of Ireland. Of course, the issue of the constitution seems to be the last to be dealt with by commentators and politicians – often with the apparent attitude being that any push for full marriage equality would require a constitutional referendum, so let’s not even consider the matter.

At this point it should be mentioned that the constitution of Ireland is regarded as “a living document”. This is an established legal view of the highest courts of this land. That is to say, the constitution isn’t interpreted according to the prevailing attitudes of 1937, when it came into force. The constitution is interpreted according to the attitudes of contemporary times.

So, first of all, why was I yabbering on earlier in Irish? Article 8 of the constitution tells us that the first language of Éire – or, in English, Ireland – is Irish; we are afterwards told that English is a second language of Ireland. The Irish constitution was written simultaneously in Irish and in English, as opposed to being translated from Irish into English. The courts are clear, however, when they say that if there is any clash in terminology or interpretation, that the Irish language constitution prevails.

Why is this interesting? It is interesting because we are constantly told that the constitution will have to be amended to give full marriage equality to same-sex relationships. So just what, exactly, are we being told has to be amended? Article 41 of the constitution, presumably. The most quoted section in this respect is:

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.

And that, we are led to believe, is that. What is to be done? No possibility of same-sex marriage on that basis, no-no.

Or, does that argument bear scrutiny?

The quoted provision comes from the section of the constitution entitled, “The Family”, and that is within a section called “Fundamental Rights”. So this is important detail. Not “marriage”, but “The Family”. It is not by accident that this collection of constitutional provisions comes under this heading. But look at the Irish language version of the constitution, and it reads “An Teaghlach”. Not “the family”, but “the household”.

So, from the outset we see where the constitutional priorities lie.

The first provision under the “Family”/”Teaghlach” heading is:

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.

or

1. 1° Admhaíonn an Stát gurb é an Teaghlach is buíon-aonad príomha bunaidh don chomhdhaonnacht de réir nádúir, agus gur foras morálta é ag a bhfuil cearta doshannta dochloíte is ársa agus is airde ná aon reacht daonna.

2° Ós é an Teaghlach is fotha riachtanach don ord chomhdhaonnach agus ós éigeantach é do leas an Náisiúin agus an Stáit, ráthaíonn an Stát comhshuíomh agus údarás an Teaghlaigh a chaomhnú.

So we see, re-stated but in some more detail, the primary status afforded to families, or households, according to the constitution. No definition of family, or teaghlach, yet. Nor mention of marriage.

The next provision of the constitution, and one which has been the source of some rankling from about 50% of the population, reads as follows:

2. 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.

or

2. 1° Go sonrach, admhaíonn an Stát go dtugann an bhean don Stát, trína saol sa teaghlach, cúnamh nach bhféadfaí leas an phobail a ghnóthú dá éagmais.

2° Uime sin, féachfaidh an Stát lena chur in áirithe nach mbeidh ar mháithreacha clainne, de dheasca uireasa, dul le saothar agus faillí a thabhairt dá chionn sin ina ndualgais sa teaghlach.

This provision may be regarded as a product of its time, and certainly such attitudes may have led to the “marriage bar” in the Irish civil service, which required the mandatory resignation of female employees once they married. That requirement was done away with upon accession by Ireland to the European Union.

The provision may be regarded as an example of what was next in order of priority for the constitution as enacted, but also can be used to demonstrate the evolution of interpreting the same text for contemporary times, as legislated by An tOireachtas since 1973.

Finally, then, in the very last section, at the end of the list of priorities, we reach Article 41.3.1°:

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.

or

3. 1° Ós ar an bPósadh atá an Teaghlach bunaithe gabhann an Stát air féin coimirce faoi leith a dhéanamh ar ord an phósta agus é a chosaint ar
ionsaí.

Here we have a limited definition of “family”, or “teaghlach”, defined by reference to the institution of marriage. The definition arises in the context of the commitment of the State to protect the institution of marriage from attack. We do not have a definition, however, of marriage: that remains open to interpretation. Nor do we have a definition of an “attack”, or “ionsai”, on marriage.

But wait, what to we have here? There is more to Article 41.3:

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –
i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,
ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

or

2° Féadfaidh Cúirt a bheidh ainmnithe le dlí scaoileadh ar phósadh a thabhairt sa chás, ach sa chás amháin, gur deimhin léi
i. go raibh, ar dháta thionscnamh na n-imeachtaí, tréimhse ceithre bliana ar a laghad, nó tréimhsí ceithre bliana ar a laghad san iomlán, caite ag na céilí ina gcónaí ar leithligh óna chéile le linn na gcúig bliana roimhe sin,
ii. nach bhfuil ionchas réasúnach ar bith ann go mbeidh comhréiteach idir na céilí,
iii. go bhfuil cibé socrú ann, nó go ndéanfar cibé socrú, is dóigh leis an gCúirt a bheith cuí ag féachaint do na himthosca, le haghaidh na gcéilí, le haghaidh aon leanaí le ceachtar acu nó leis an mbeirt acu agus le haghaidh aon duine eile a bheidh forordaithe le dlí, agus
iv. go gcomhlíontar aon choinníollacha breise a bheidh forordaithe le dlí.

A constitutionally-sanctioned attack on marriage, based upon the wishes of the people of this State, one might say.

In short, then, the counstitution places priority on families, or households, and especially those based on marriage; but the consitution does not define marriage, nor does really it help us in defining the family or the household; finally we have seen that the constitutional obligation on the State to “guard with special care the institution of marriage” is limited by the constitutionally permitted dissolution of marriage, which was inserted into the constitution based on the will of the people.

So, we’ve looked at what the constitution of Ireland says, and how it could possibly be interpreted in theory. But why do politicians insist that the constiution needs a referendum to allow for marriage equality for same-sex couples, and how have the courts interpreted it? And is there any other case-law that needs to be taken into account? I’ll try to sift through the role of the courts in this area, both pre- and post-Bunreacht na hÉireann of 1937.

Related posts:

1. Irish support same-sex marriage

The Heads of the Civil Partnership Bill were published on Tuesday by the Irish government. Lauded by its proponents, lets consider why it’s bad law.

Let’s begin by using the words of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform – Dermot Ahern – against him. The government press release, announcing publication of the Heads of Bill reads:

The Heads of Bill draw on the Colley Options Paper and the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in their report, Rights and Duties of Cohabitants. The Scheme will establish a statutory mechanism for registration of same-sex partnerships, and set out the duties and responsibilities of registered partners, and set out the consequences of dissolution of such partnerships.

What is the Colley Options Paper? Also known as the Options Paper Presented by the Working Group on Domestic Partnership (whatever a “domestic partnership” is supposed to be), it states that the task of the Working Group which prepared it was as follows:

The Working Group was asked to consider the categories of partnerships and relationships outside of marriage which to legal effect and recognition might be accorded, consistent with Constitutional provisions. …

[Emphasis added.]

So the outcome of the Options Paper, publised in 2006, was a foregone conclusion, to the extent that the Minister for Justice who commissioned it (Michael McDowell) did not allow the Working Group to properly consider the option of marriage equality.

Nevertheless, the Options Paper went on to state:

The introduction of civil marriage for same-sex couples would achieve equality of status with opposite-sex couples and such recognition that would underpin a wider equality for gay and lesbian people. Civil marriage offers legal certainty and predictability in terms of the consequences for each partner. It would be administratively straightforward as the registration arrangements already in place for marriage would apply and would also be straightforward in terms of recognition.

As to the Heads of the Civil Partnership Bill: generally speaking, they at length set out amendments to various statutes, mainly inserting after numerous legislative references to “spouses” references to “civil partners”, or somesuch.

Among the amended legislation is the Civil Registration Act 2004. Interesting that this Act placed into legislation for the first time in Ireland’s history the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Prior to that, the law was case-law, handed down by the courts. An option that is open to this government is to either delete or amend section 2(2)(e) of the Civil Registration Act.

The current Minister for Justice excused the failure of actually providing equality, as the fruit of all this effort, to RTE News in the following terms:

…[B]ut it is not going as far as giving them full rights to marriage, because under our Constitution it wouldn’t pass muster.

However, if the Civil Registration Act was amended, it would require someone with a lot of money, time and expert lawyers to challenge it in the courts. Granted, crazy right-wingers have that in spades, but what harm a referendum which could result? I’m sure referenda aren’t all that popular with the government since 12th June, but that’s no reason to shy away from amending the Constitution for the Nth time.

Moreover, a referendum might not necessarily be required if an enlightened Supreme Court – with the possible assistance of an informed amicus curiae, the trends among more progressive governments, and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights – was to rule that such a legislative amendment were not unconstitutional. (In fact, the first thing the Irish courts must do, is deal with “the presumption of constitutionality” which every post-1937 enactment enjoys.)

Let’s not forget, indeed, that children raised by same-sex couples are not covered by this proposed legislation, despite a recent High Court ruling describing a same-sex couple and their child as a de facto family in accordance with the right to privacy and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.

It seems that the only real argument that is now maintained by the State against marriage equality is the Constitutional argument. Cartainly, the bogus financial or economic arguments against even some form of recognition for same-sex relationships have now been, one must assume, abandoned. Yet, no matter how much the government might wish otherwise, the arguments in relation to Constitutionality are not to the same effect: the Constitution can be interpreted in a number of ways, not least because neither “the family” nor “marriage” are constitutionally defined.

A further major flaw to this argument by the government is the existence of the final section of the Heads of Civil Partnership Bill: which provides for a system of recognition for “qualified cohabitants” – same-sex couples, or opposite-sex couples who do not wish to marry. According to the most recent census, approximately 12% of all families could potentially avail of this scheme.

Now, whatever about allowing more people to avail of marriage, but if that doesn’t “undermine the family based on marriage,” I don’t know what does.

—-

Further reading:

MarriagEquality

LGBT Noise

Action for Equality

The experience & strategy in Spain, eventually achieving equality – a must-read! [.doc]

My previous opinings elsewhere

No related posts.

From LGBT Noise:

-

Civil Partnership? WE DON’T WANT IT! Civil Marriage Now!

Dublin: South King Street opposite the Gaiety Theatre
Gathering from 2pm, begin at 2.30pm
Saturday 28/06/08

Cork: Daunt Sq on the corner of Patrick St and Grand Parade.

Gathering from 2pm.

Galway: Details to follow.

A full three months late, the Fianna-Fáil-lead government has put before us a shoddy, half-baked plan for a registration scheme – dog license, anyone? – that doesn’t come close to realising a basic right of ALL the people of Ireland: EQUALITY before the law.

Instead, here’s what it does:

- It denies gay and lesbian people’s relationships the constitutional protection of the family;
- it leaves them legal strangers to the children they raise;
- perhaps most importantly, it denies them the special status society recognises in committed loving couples through the marriage contract.

That’s not acceptable to the Noisers, and it shouldn’t be acceptable in any progressive, egalitarian society.

We want the government to hear our message loud and clear, and we need your help: join us this Saturday 28/06/08 to tell the government that we deserve equality, that we demand equality, and that equality means
one thing – CIVIL MARRIAGE NOW!

See you there!

Love and Noise,

The Noise Team

www.lgbtnoise.ie

Related posts:

1. Ministry of Protest
2. Irish support same-sex marriage