• This just in from our friends in Marriage Equality:

Senator Katherine Zappone and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan honoured among top inspirational female role models in Europe

Following a successful nomination to the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) by Marriage Equality, Senator Katherine Zappone and her partner Dr Ann Louise Gilligan have been featured in the EU organisation’s “Women Inspiring Europe” 2012 calendar.

With the publication of the calendar, currently in its second year, EIGE aims to give visibility and pay homage to some of Europe’s most remarkable women, by highlighting their achievements and success stories.

Moninne Griffith, Director of Marriage Equality, said:

We’re absolutely delighted that Senator Zappone and Dr Gilligan have been featured in the ‘Women Inspiring Europe’ calendar. They are hugely inspirational women for the marriage equality movement – not only in Ireland, but around the world. Their struggle to have their Canadian marriage recognised here is a huge part of the reason that we have Civil Partnership legislation in Ireland today.

While Civil Partnership is an important step on the road to equality, there is still much work to be done before equality is achieved. Senator Zappone and Dr Gilligan’s continued challenge has inspired people from all across the country to join the campaign for equality for same-sex couples, our families and our children.

Marriage Equality nominated Senator Zappone and Dr Gilligan not only for their work with the marriage equality movement, but also for their tireless dedication to women’s rights.

In 1986 they founded The Shanty (An Cosán) – a distinctive model of community-based education aimed at tackling poverty, isolation, inequality and disadvantage that played a key role in crystallising women’s community education in Ireland and worked to gain recognition of women’s community education as deserving a state-supported role within the education system.

They have also established the Centre for Progressive Change, which aims to respond to the crisis of the breakdown of financial and social systems that Ireland is facing by promoting an ethical vision that puts community at the heart of public life. The CPC offers services and training to individuals and organisations aiming to implement progressive change in the development of public policies and laws, and the design and delivery of public services.

Senator Zappone and Dr Gilligan are featured in the month of May, which coincides with the International Day of Families (May 15th) and the International Day Against Homophobia (May 17th). The 2012 calendar is the first time a lesbian couple has been highlighted as an inspirational feature. The text accompanying their photo praises their courage and devotion as an inspiration to others who encounter a violation of their rights to fight for them.

Speaking at the launch of the calendar, EIGE Director Virginija Langbakk said:

So many women across Europe could be promoted as great examples of their career and actions. We selected 12 women … just to give Europe a glimpse of their potential and to demonstrate that people can make a difference – if they act, and in particular, if they act different.

The “Women Inspiring Europe” calendar will be widely distributed in EU policy making circles. A copy of the calendar can be found online here.

Related posts:

1. Preliminary hearing in Zappone & Gilligan appeal tomorrow!
2. Congratulations, Senator Zappone
3. Setback in fight for marriage equality in Ireland

• Here’s another article from one of our new writers, Niamh Ní Mhaoileoin. Happy New Year!

2011 has been celebrated as a great year for the LGBT community. Of course, as long as severe inequality persists, it’s difficult to wholeheartedly agree that it was a great year. We’ve seen setbacks for marriage equality in Ireland, homosexuality still criminal in 76 countries around the world, lesbians tortured in anti-gay clinics in Ecuador, the LGBT community drastically suppressed in Russia, and gay teenagers everywhere still being tormented by homophobic bullying.

All the same, 2011 has certainly upheld that crucial message; that it gets better. So, grab a cup o’ kindness and we’ll run through some of the achievements of the LGBT movement in 2011.

1. Civil Partnership

Ireland rang in the New Year with the Civil Partnership Act, which came into effect on 1st January 2011, granting considerably enhanced rights to co-habiting partners, including gay couples. On 4th April, Hugh Walsh and Barry Dignam entered into the first publicly celebrated partnership under the Act.

On 5th March, the Taoiseach outlined the government’s intentions for a constitutional convention, including a provision for discussing marriage for same-sex couples. While the parameters of the convention remain unclear, the mention of marriage equality in the Programme for Government shows that gay rights have become something of a legislative priority. As Iarnród Éireann would put it, “We’re not there yet… but we’re getting there”.

2. LGBT Representatives in the Oireachtas

The number of openly gay Oireachtas members has quadrupled in 2011. In February, Dominic Hannigan and John Lyons of the Labour Party became the first openly gay TDs in the history of the State. David Norris, despite the upsets in his presidential campaign, held the Trinity seat he’s been fighting from for the last 24 years.

Finally, in a real triumph for the LGBT community, for women, for men, for children, for Human Rights, for Ireland, for the world, the solar system and the universe… the visionary Dr Katherine Zappone was appointed to the Senate at the request of the Táiniste.

3. Born this Way

Like it or not, Gaga’s anthem, released on 23rd May, was the soundtrack of gay 2011.

Gaga is a leader in a powerful popular campaign for equality that’s taking place on people’s TVs and iPods, and in their tweets, hearts and minds.

4. Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

On 20th September, the United States finally repealed the insidious, twenty-year old ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, which prevented LGBT people from serving openly in the military. At last, the army that professes to fight for freedom around the world afforded this most basic freedom to its own soldiers.

Last month the full adorable implications of the change were embodied by the ‘first kiss on land’ between Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta and Petty Officer 3rd Class Citalic Snell.

5. Hillary Clinton’s Speech

In the months since the repeal of DADT, the Obama administration has dramatically altered its foreign policy relating to gay rights. This shift culminated in Hillary Clinton’s ground breaking speech in Geneva on December 6th, urging the world’s leaders to afford LGBT people “the full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity.”

6. President Higgins

On 29th October, the election of Michael D. Higgins as the 9th President of Ireland was another victory for progressive, tolerant Ireland.

This feminist, human rights activist and LGBT ally is a true successor to the Marys Robinson and McAleese in the struggle to dismantle “the noxious apparatus of homophobia”.

7. International leaders support marriage equality

Around the world, the cause of Marriage Equality has been gaining momentum. In the UK, David Cameron has pledged that his government is now committed to discussing “how, not if” to implement full civil marriage for LGBT couples, and to have the legislation in place within the lifetime of the current parliament. The ruling Australian Labour Party also adjusted its platform to support full marriage equality.

In the USA, President Obama at last took a stronger stance on gay marriage, and voicing his support for the ‘Respect for Marriage Act’, which will invalidate DOMA. While many of the prospective Republican candidates for 2012 are virulently anti-gay, with Obama onside we’re promised a fair fight. Well, as fair as a fight can be when one side is clearly right.

8. Marriage equality in New York

On June 24th, just in time for a particularly joyful Pride, New York passed its Marriage Equality Act, becoming most populous state yet to legalise full gay marriage.

The first wedding in Manhattan was a real tearjerker, taking place between Phyllis Siegel, 77, and Connie Kopelov, 85.

9. Progress on homophobic bullying

Horrifying stories of gay bullying and suicide continued to emerge this year, most memorably that of 14-year old Jamey Rodemeyer, an out 14-year old activist and blogger. However, it seems that although change comes dropping slow, change does come.

In December, Ireland’s own Belong To were held up as role models at a UN conference in Rio, dedicated specifically tackling homophobic bullying as human rights abuse.

10. The UN’s first resolution on LGBT rights

This year the UN Human Rights Council passed a specific resolution supporting LGBT rights for the first time in its history. The resolution expresses “grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.”

While the resolution has no binding effect, it is a milestone in that it reflects an international shift in values. Its opponents are concerned that the Resolution will force countries to legalise homosexuality and recognise marriage equality. Here’s hoping that they’re right.

Have we missed anything important? Add your 2011 milestones in the comments!

Related posts:

1. BeLonG To’s example leads first ever UN meeting on homophobic bullying
2. LGBT Noise – March for Marriage 2011
3. I, like, like that you like this: Your fave Facebook links of 2011

The fight for marriage equality in Ireland suffered a minor setback yesterday when the Supreme Court ruled against Senator Katherine Zappone and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan on a technical point.

Sen Zappone and Dr Gilligan are currently appealing to the Supreme Court to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Ireland, having lost their case in the High Court in 2006.

At issue yesterday was a request by the couple’s legal team to challenge an Irish law prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The request asked the Supreme Court to allow a challenge to Section 2(2) of the Civil Registration Act 2004 be formally included as part of the appeal. This Section includes a provision which states that it is an impediment to marriage if both parties are of the same sex.

Sen Zappone and Dr Gilligan’s case, which started out in the High Court, began prior the enactment of the 2004 statute.

In its decision yesterday, the Supreme Court refused the request to have Section 2(2) included in Sen Zappone and Dr Gilligan’s appeal.

The judges noted that although reference was made to Section 2(2) during the course of arguments in the High Court, it was never formally included, nor properly considered by the High Court judge in her ruling.

The Supreme Court also took into consideration the fact that the Civil Registration Act 2004 is a recent statute; that the outcome of its decision yesterday would affect other members of Irish society; and that the respondent in any appeal (in this case, the State) has a Constitutional right to appeal, which would effectively be breached if this new issue could be introduced now.

A date for the full appeal hearing is pending.

• See also: Shatter Island?

• See also: Shout out loud: Zappone and Gilligan publish their memoirs

Related posts:

1. Preliminary hearing in Zappone & Gilligan appeal tomorrow!
2. New Anti-Marriage Equality Argument in Canadian Court
3. California’s Proposition 8 deemed unconstitutional

Well, when it comes to Alan Shatter, however, it’s literally true. Our current Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence is one of the leading authorities in Ireland on family law, and the author of Shatter’s Family Law – a familiar core textbook for any student or practitioner of law. He knows the law relating to families and marriage back to front and inside out.

Minister Shatter will therefore be aware of the nature and origins of marriage.

Yes, I’ve prattled on before about the changing nature of marriage – through time and in its variations around the world – but I think it’s important to take a look at marriage in Ireland today, and trace its history. Just for the laugh, like.

So: marriage in Ireland today is defined in s.2 of the Civil Registration Act, 2004.

Now, stay with me on this. Section 2(2)(e) states:

For the purposes of this Act there is an impediment to a marriage if—

[…]

(e) both parties are of the same sex.

This was a legislative provision enacted in 2004. That’s 2004, a mere seven years ago. The blink of an eye in law-making terms.

It was enacted when Fianna Fáil and the [Green Party] Progressive Democrats were in government. (We don’t like them. And Fine Gael especially don’t like them.)

Previously, the definition of marriage in Ireland was determined by caselaw. That is, judge-made law.

That’s right! Not even Bunreacht na hÉireann – the Irish Constitution – explicitly defines marriage. Nope, it was all judges all along. And they, generally, followed this definition:

Marriage as understood in Christendom is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

Now, where on earth did they dream that up?

Why, it’s from a case called Hyde v Hyde. Now, that case is regarded as the leading case when it comes to modern (in the legal sense of modern, I should say) notions of marriage our system of law.

But what did the case involve?

The case was decided by the House of Lords in 1866 and concerned Mormons who had emigrated from the UK to Utah, and the decision centred on the question of whether polygamous marriage was legally valid in the UK.

(You may want to read that sentence one more time.)

So it’s completely relevant. To everything!

We’re talking 1866. Queen Victoria was still clinging to that throne like a good thing, despite being recently bereaved by the death of her beloved Albert. Perhaps she was consoled by the fact that India had come under her direct rule less than 10 years previously. Meanwhile, State-side, a young gurrier called Jesse James and his pals were about to commence a life of crime. And Ireland was still very much part of the United Kingdom under the Act of Union.

Ah yes, 1866. Those were some good times.

And polygamy. How could we forget polygamy? Of course, it’s important to bear polygamy in mind when we’re talking about Hyde v Hyde; the definition of marriage in the 21st century; and the campaign for marriage equality for same-sex couples.

But back to 1866:

This was a time when the very idea of human sexuality as we understand it probably didn’t exist, let alone sexual identity or notions of gay, lesbian, straight, and so on. (It wasn’t until the likes of Sigmund Freud and Magnus Hirschfeld came along at the turn of the 20th century with their wacky ideas – oh, those crazy Europeans! – that the concepts of sexuality as we would recognise them began to be formulated.)

Image via Wikipedia

Homosexual acts, certainly, were criminalised. (Although it has to be said that it wasn’t until Henry VIII that such acts were criminalised by the secular state in England. This occurred in 1533. The full title of Henry’s legislation is: An Acte for the punysshement of the vice of Buggerie. Before that, it was Ecclesiastic Courts which dealt with issues of “buggerie”. And afterwards, King Henry used his novel legal instrument against monks to prosecute and execute them, and to seize monastic lands and valuables. Ooh, he were a crafty one, that Henry.)

Queen Victoria – there she is again – updated the criminalisation of such acts during her reign, at least twice. You may recall the Offences against the Person Act, 1861 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 from such landmark rulings as Dudgeon v The United Kingdom and Norris v Ireland. On point of fact, however, the 1861 Act removed the death penalty as the sentence to be imposed if found guilty. So that’s a plus from Her Maj.

So the ruling in Hyde v Hyde was handed down less than five years after the abolition of the death penalty for same-sex acts between men. That’s the context we’re talking about.

And get this: as of 1993, homosexual acts are no longer criminal offences in Ireland!

Image via Wikipedia

Yet, a slightly outmoded judicial ruling persists. Given the prevailing attitudes in 1866, however, it’s hardly surprising that Lord Penzance stated that marriage was between a man and a woman, is it? (In “Christendom”, remember.) It wouldn’t – nay, couldn’t – have possibly entered his honourable and learned brain to think otherwise. This was England in 1866, for goodness sake!

So, let’s skip forward in Ireland from 1866 to 1937: Under the 1937 Constitution, all legislation enacted by the Oireachtas enjoys the presumption of constitutionality. (Legislation which precedes that date, does not enjoy such a presumption. ’Cause Ireland’s independent now, don’t you see?) So the laws passed by independent Ireland trump all else.

Hyde v Hyde was a ruling, not legislation, but you might imagine a similar reasoning would apply to the rulings of independent Ireland’s courts. And, although Ireland’s common law tradition is based on that introduced by our former rulers across the Irish Sea, divergence does occur in the legal principles established by the Irish courts as compared with the UK.

So why not now, with marriage equality? Homosexual acts are no longer criminalised. People (usually) understand the nature of human relationships. Come on, Ireland, get with the programme!

Some whine about “constitutional propriety!” or some such (without further elaboration). But as I mentioned earlier, the constitution does not define marriage; caselaw and legislation do.

And who are our legislators? Only the elected representatives of the Irish people.

And what do the Irish people think about marriage equality? 78% support equality for same-sex couples, according to a Red C poll carried out in March 2011.

“Constitutional propriety!” Oh hush! Here’s the latest interpretation from the superior courts: the High Court in Zappone and Gilligan v The Revenue Commissioners bounced the issue of marriage equality back to the legislature. The judge stated:

Dr. Zappone [...] spoke eloquently on this difficulty in the course of her evidence. It is to be hoped that the legislative changes to ameliorate these difficulties will not be long in coming. Ultimately, it is for the legislature to determine the extent to which such changes should be made.

Incidentially, the Zappone case was instituted before the enactment of the 2004 legislation excluding same-sex couples, and the High Court’s ruling was issued in 2006.

“But the Constitution!” Okay, okay. Here’s what the Constitution says in relation to marriage under Article 41:

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.

Article 41 of the Constitution then goes on to describe the circumstances where it is permissible for a marriage to be dissolved. Yes, “dissolved”. That is, divorce.

So then how exactly does allowing more people to marry constitute an attack on marriage? And I mean specifically – technically, legally, socially, logically – how? Not some generalised assertion of “It just is an attack, okay? I mean, gays: ew.”

Look at the absurdities to date:

(a) The Constitution permits the dissolution of marriage through divorce.

(b) The GRAG Report recommends requiring married couples to divorce in order to have a preferred gender recognised. I’ll say that again: requiring married couples to divorce. Even if they don’t want to. Even if they are happy together, have a home, have kids – whatever the circumstances. Mandatory divorce or no cookie.

Some may refer to High Court pronouncements on the definition of marriage, which essentially re-hash the Hyde v Hyde definition. (Including, in déja vu style, the case of B v R which involved what? Bigamy!) The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the matter when it comes to same-sex couples, however. Which is where the Zappone case comes into play. What might that Court rely on? Some of its own landmark rulings, perhaps?

For instance:

“According to the preamble, the people gave themselves the Constitution to promote the common good with due observance of prudence, justice and charity so that the dignity and freedom of the individual might be assured. The judges must, therefore, as best they can from their training and their experience interpret these rights in accordance with their ideas of prudence, justice and charity. It is but natural that from time to time the prevailing ideas of these virtues may be conditioned by the passage of time; no interpretation of the Constitution is intended to be final for all time. It is given in the light of prevailing ideas and concepts.”

- Walsh J. in McGee v The Attorney General (1974)

“[The preamble to the Constitution] makes it clear that rights given by the Constitution must be considered in accordance with concepts of prudence, justice and charity which may gradually change or develop as society changes or develops and which fall to be interpreted from time to time in accordance with prevailing ideas. The preamble envisages a Constitution which can absorb or be adapted to such changes. In other words, the Constitution did not seek to impose for all time the ideas prevalent or accepted with regard to these virtues at the time of its enactment.”

- O’Higgins C.J. in The State (Healy) v Donohue (1976)

“[The comments made by O'Higgins C.J. above] are particularly apposite with regard to the perception of the nature of the rights of parties to marriage and their relationship with one to another.”

and

“[I]n the interpretation of the Constitution regard must be had to the extent to which ideas and values prevailing at one period have been conditioned by the passage of time.”

- Murphy J. in TF v Ireland (1995)

Come on, Alan. You and I both know where this is headed. Between historic anachronisms, Constitutional developments, current public opinion, the ECHR, and the EU and its Charter (not to mention Brussels II bis), it’s inevitable: marriage equality is coming to Ireland. So why not spare everyone the time, energy and heartache and just legislate?

I also hear from the Law Reform Commission that the government is due to publish a Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill. Let me make it easy for you and draft the marriage equality provision:

Section 2(2)(e) of the Civil Registration Act 2004 is hereby deleted.

Ta-dah!

• Elsewhere in pursuit of equality: Zappone & Gilligan case in the Supreme Court – Fri, 21 Oct 2011 at 10:45am

Related posts:

1. Setback in fight for marriage equality in Ireland
2. Preliminary hearing in Zappone & Gilligan appeal tomorrow!
3. California’s Proposition 8 deemed unconstitutional

• This just in from our friends at Marriage Equality:

Senator Katherine Zappone and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan will be in the Supreme Court tomorrow (Friday, 21st October) at 10:45am for a motion to amend their pleadings.

Although the Supreme Court will not be hearing the case tomorrow, it is unlikely the hearing will take place before the end of the year, tomorrow’s decision may provide us with a glimpse of how the Supreme Court are feeling about this case.

We are going to show our support by launching our Just Love? Countdown to KAL (Katherine and Ann Louise) website tomorrow and we are hoping as many people as possible will join us at the Four Courts at 11am to let them know that we are with them – all the way.

If you would like to join us please call us on (01)8734183 and we will organise to bring Just Love? placards for anyone who would like to show their support with us outside the Four Courts and we also hope to make it in to the court if there is enough room for us all.

Hope to see you there and if you can’t make it tomorrow, please log on to our new Just Love? Countdown to KAL website tomorrow to upload your messages of support for Katherine and Ann Louise.

• Details from the Supreme Court diary here:

The Chief Justice
Mrs. Justice Denham
At 10.45 o’clock
For Mention
56/07 Zappone & anor v Revenue Commissioners

• More info here!

Related posts:

1. Zappone and Gilligan receive European honour
2. Setback in fight for marriage equality in Ireland
3. Congratulations, Senator Zappone

(Let me know in the comments what I’ve missed!)

• February (all month)

It’s LGBT History Month at Tallaght Library, the annual event organised by the tireless (and honorary lesbian) Mark Ward. On the 15th at 7pm, there’s the Queer Notions Literary Evening themed around Cork University Press’ recent publication Queer Notions: New Plays and Performances from Ireland, with Phillip McMahon, Rory O’Neill (aka Panti), Una McKevitt, Neil Watkins (aka Heidi Konnt), Verity Alicia-Mavenawitz, and the book’s editor, Fintan Walsh.

And on the 17th also at 7pm there’s an evening on the History of Alternative Miss Ireland with executive producer of the AMI pageant, Noel Sutton, followed by a short documentary. Stay tuned to Gaelick for some special news about this year’s AMI!

There will also be a screening of Tom Ford’s brilliant adaptation of the novel by Christopher Isherwood, A Single Man.

• 4th Feb: Revival

Now in its fifth month, Revival again takes over the Copper Alley Nightclub @ The Arlington Hotel, Dublin.  The night is aimed at women over 30, admission is €5 before 11pm, with drink Promos on the night!  Featuring DJs Claire O’ Regan and Martin Lynch, playing the very best of the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s into the wee hours.

• 6th Feb: Italy v Ireland

The 6 Nations action kicks off on Sunday at 13:30 at Rovigo stadium. What do you mean, “Saturday”? I’m talking about the RBS 6 Nations – not the men’s team, silly.

A little birdie tells me that our match against England will be broadcast on Sky! Stay tuned for more info.

• 9th Feb: Add a splash of ‘Red’ for Ivana
  

Sure she’s only Reid Professor of Criminal Law at Trinners, a member of Seanad Éireann, and was junior counsel on Zappigan‘s legal team in the High Court.  Well, if that’s not enough, now Ivana Bacik is running for the Dáil in Dún Laoghaire.  If she’s your cuppa, head to this fundraiser at Caffe Noto, 79 Thomas Street, Dublin at 6:15pm for canapés, drinks and entertainment.  Suggested minimum donation is €25 and there will be Spot prizes for the most innovative ‘splashes of red’.

Either way – don’t forget you only have DAYS remaining to make sure you’re eligible to vote!  Check the register, and if you’re not on it, fill out the proper forms to be added to the supplemental register.

• 10th Feb: Joan As Police Woman

The awesome Joan As Police Woman returns to TriPod. (Her new album, “The Deep Field” is out this Monday, 24th January).

• 11th Feb: Ireland v France

The rucks continue when Ireland take on the French at home in Ashbourne RFC at 7:30pm. Handball!

• 11th Feb: FaKe Hat-Friday

Taking place at the Academy as usual, FaKe (the club night formerly known as CaKe) is throwing its hat at the recession, offering €7 admission for all, and invites you to wear your best hat – be it bowler, baseball or beanie; just don’t bare your bonce! There could be a prize in it for ya.

• 14th Feb: TASC present Rev. Jesse L. Jackson in conversation with Myles Dungan

It’s the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson.  No more needs to be said.  Liberty Hall, Monday 14th February, 7.00pm

• 15th-19th Feb: The Theatre Machine Turns You On (Vol. II)

Taking place at the Projects Arts Centre, Dublin, (info also on Facebook) The Theatre Machine Turns You On (Vol. II) is a minifestival of new work by new artists, and exists to rage against the recession. Each night is divided into four sides with four unique flavours chose from. (Watch.)

• 19th Feb: Miss-Match

Miss-Match returns, continuing its residency in the Odessa Club, with a mix of sounds for everyone, whether you’re a child of the ’80s or into the modren stuff. Only 5 euro before 11pm 10 euro thereafter.

• 19th to 21st Feb: KT Tunstall

KT Tunstall plays dates in Galway (Radisson), Cork (Cork Opera House), and Dublin (Olympia). (We know you leslies have a thing for her and her rainbow braces.)

• 25th Feb: Sisters’ Boutique

Sisters’ boutique night goes from strength to strength.  Proving popular with the lesbians, Odessa is the venue, and so far the acts line up include: ElaineMai, Siobháin O’ Brien, SweeneyLee, Leanne Harte, Clara Byrne and more!

Sisters’ is a community event celebrating women and showcasing the best talents of our diverse lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer and intersex communities.

And important to note: you can vote at sisters.ie for your preferred community organisation to receive proceeds of the cover charge from the 25th February event.  Bonus!

• 26th Feb: Scotland v Ireland

Clash o’ the Celts at 2pm in Lasswade RFC in fabulous Edinburgh. The Rugby continues until March, with the big game against the Sasanaigh on Paddy’s weekend!

Related posts:

1. Lesbians of leisure: happenings in March
2. Ireland’s first sex festival on 25th February
3. BLT Sandwich (12th & 13th Nov)

As I cast my mind back on my gay days of yore, I recall that Ireland once marked National Coming Out Day. I remember the Keith Haring illustration on the cover of Gay Community News – back then produced in newsprint! It may have been in 1998. I don’t remember the event being marked in Ireland since then.

On Monday, 11th October 2010, National Coming Out Day will be celebrated at various events throughout the United States. Does Ireland need to do the same?

On my way home from work yesterday, I was quietly thrilled to see a happy female couple walk hand-in-hand through Smithfield in Dublin. (A happy couple, and a brave couple!) And I do get a little smile any time I see a couple together like that, in public, in Ireland. But should it really be this way? Do straights get a little buzz of joy when they see other straight couples canoodling in public? It’s unlikely.

It’s unlikely because not only will they not risk their dignity or safety by doing so; moreover it’s just so utterly taken for granted. A peck on the cheek between him and her? You wouldn’t look twice. But the exact same act between two people of the same sex? Why, it’s remarkable! Raunchy! Repugnant! Revolutionary! It’s definitely not normal, though.

Not only is heterosexuality deemed to be the norm, but there’s almost a presumption of heterosexuality: unless you positively come out to every person you meet in your day to day life, it’s quite possible that they will all assume you’re straight. (Unless, of course, you’re making it blindingly obvious, such as doing your weekly shop with a buzz-cut while wrapped in a rainbow flag. Which is okay by me, by the way.)

But perhaps to a point that’s exactly what’s needed: to challenge those assumptions, and to keep challenging those assumptions until they’ve been erased as much as possible. To keep coming out. To say it to friends, colleagues, family (where possible). To tell your local and national representatives: councillors and TDs. To keep doing so until everyone realises that their friends, their neighbours, their colleagues, their children may be LGBT. And that LGBT isn’t “they” but is “we”. We are part of the communities in which we live.

Dr Mel Duffy of DCU’s School of Nursing, and of the University’s new MA in Sexuality Studies, told Gaelick in March about some of the experiences of lesbians in healthcare, be they patients or staff:

[Research conducted by Dr Duffy found that] when lesbian nurses worked abroad they were out, but when they worked in Ireland they were closeted. I think I found one person who was out in their practice, and they were out by default rather than by choice. And that’s what was interesting. What they found was, because they weren’t out, because of the fear of being out – it goes back to what feminists wrote about in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, the notion of “the glass ceiling”: can women get through, and get up the ladder and be the CEO of companies? Lesbians think the same way: if I’m out and open about who I am, does that stop me?

Another thing that became interesting was where those interviewed talked bout break times – tea breaks, lunch breaks. And they found it very difficult with the conversations because they couldn’t be part of those conversations. Those conversations were about family; the younger generation talking about their children. But they couldn’t be part of that [...] So, some of them became “listeners”. They became really good listeners, but they never shared anything about themselves.

This seems to be how it is for some, if not many, gay people in Ireland. But is this how it should be?

In their interview with us in 2008, Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan summed up what perhaps many of us feel:

Katherine Zappone: [...] if everyone in the morning who is lesbian or gay was completely open about that it would be a whole lot easier to change the institutions that are closed to us or the lack of security or the laws that are there.

An Louise Gillgan: It just would! They would have to! See, I think there are distinctions between what people think about homosexuality and what people feel about it homosexuality.

In other words, I think that there are huge numbers now who know in their head that sexuality is a continuum. This is known by medical science. It has been known since the classical Greek period. Plato wrote about it extensively. People are who they are: a minority is homosexual, the majority heterosexual. But there has always been this continuum and there are people who are bisexual. So most people know that [...].

Rationally, I think people have advanced in their consciousness but it’s the affect of – the feeling – that we need to think about, especially among people who are heterosexual. Because I think that discomfort – the failure to change what they feel about homosexuality – allows them to either fail to support in a very active way full equality because there is something in them which continues to feel, “There’s something in this that I’m not comfortable with.”

But maybe that’s their problem that they need to get over. That’s not that there’s something with people being homosexual.

KZ: What helps the transformation of that feeling is being with others, having an engagement or some sort of intimate relationship with people, knowing that those people are gay and lesbian. I’m convinced that’s the only thing that can transform that because the head can’t do it by itself.

ALG: That’s right.

Annie Aura: So unless more people come out, we’re just going to hold ourselves back?

ALG: I think so. The more gay and lesbian people, in relationship with the wider community, well then that affective piece of resistance, of feeling of discomfort around of homosexuality – because, of course people’s minds were held in a mind-clamp for a very long time about this. They really did believe if you were part of the Catholic Church that this was all very wrong – now, intellectually, they’ve moved beyond that but I think the affective bit has to change.

What Katherine says is absolutely accurate, the more ordinary, everyday people they meet who happen to be just different on the scale of sexual identity. Who cares? Really, who cares?

But I do think, yes, it is about people just saying “I’m not hiding it. There’s nothing wrong with me. I’m an ordinary human being.” We all are different. [...]

Come out, come out, whoever you are!

Related posts:

1. Coming out….again and again

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?

At the beginning of December 2008, Ann Louise Gilligan and Katherine Zappone welcomed three lowly Gaelickers for a conversation in Ann Louise’s office at St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra. Despite a hectic schedule for the day, spouse and spouse kingly offered us comfy seats in the warm and softly lit room. I tell ya, it was a far cry from the offices of any faculty staff I’ve had to visit – it was the cosiest Dean’s office I know.

Annie Aura, Click Here and Orange began by discussing the outcome of their legal challenge to have their Canadian marriage recognised by Ireland’s Revenue Commissioners.

click here: Maybe we’ll start with the case, I suppose, because that was the last thing people would have heard about. I don’t know how much you can talk about it, but is that still ongoing, or are you waiting to find out?

Katherine Zappone: Yeah. Well, as you’d know, we lost in the High Court in December 2006, so it’s two years, now. In February of 2007, we put the papers in for an appeal that started that process and I think at the time we were told we would probably have been heard by now at the very latest. But there is a backlog in the hearings for Supreme Court cases because it’s the only appellate court – so it’s the only place you can go for an appeal, whether it’s a Constitutional matter or not. So, the last time we heard from our solicitor, he effectively said in checking with the Supreme Court office, that it could be perhaps anywhere maybe by the end of next year, or even into the end of 2010.

So, it appears over the time, it’s a little bit like a moveable feast during the waiting time, you know?! But we’re not unusual in that regard – I think it’s just a difficulty with the number of cases that are going to that level. So, we just have to wait.

CH: Yeah, it’s a waiting game. It’s almost two years to the day when the court handed down the decision.

KZ: Yeah, you’re right!

CH: I remember being in the court room, and everyone just filed in – there was a lot of kind of anticipation as Judge Dunne sat up on the bench, and everyone waiting to see what she’d say.

KZ: Exactly.

CH: And when she gave her decision, what was your initial reaction? Obviously, it wouldn’t have been good, but how did you respond, and later that day reflect on things?

Ann Louise Gilligan: What we said when we came out of the Four Courts would I think have been an accurate reflection of what we thought – which was that it was deeply, deeply disappointing to hear. And it’s not just about Katherine and I, because obviously we are taking the case so that there would be a recognition in this State of full rights to gay and lesbians to participate in all the institutions of this State. I mean, what other group of adults are told that there is an institution in the State, which is blocked to them?

I mean you do feel a sense of absolute exclusion as a citizen – an adult citizen – from an institution that is open to all other adults, except this minority category. And it’s a bit like – you know, we think back, and we try to imagine when they, up to the ‘50s in the United States, for example, wouldn’t permit a black person to marry a white person. Now, we think back, those forty, fifty years, and we say, “How did they ever work that out, and how did that happen?” And what did those people feel like, if they loved each other, wanted to marry each other? To have, for example, the United States saying, “No, legally you can’t.”

So, my own feelings – and I’m sure Katherine’s feelings – would be no different than a black person or a white person who wanted to marry each other, and couldn’t.

The fact of the matter is that we are married, and so there are states in the western world, thankfully, who recognise and understand that all adults should have the right to choose to participate in all institutions of any given state. And so, we are married – we’re married in Canada. So, one of the things the judge was saying was that the 1937 constitution articulated, although it doesn’t name men and women, the traditional understanding of what is intended as marriage – that was part of her reflection.

So, that would be something of what I would have thought and felt.

Whatever about not being over-hopeful or optimistic about the general ruling on the day, I must say I was utterly taken aback when she ruled that we wouldn’t get costs. And because I think in any democracy, a democracy is advanced by ordinary citizens such as ourselves taking cases to test the constitutionality of a certain provision in light of changing history, in light of changing times. A democracy depends on citizens of the state going and testing whether something is – remains – viable in current history. And there had been huge interest in the case – huge engagement, which hadn’t been there before, in gay and lesbian reflection – both in society in general and between gay and lesbians in particular.

So, it was an issue of public importance, in my book; but, in ruling that we would not get our costs, she, the judge – and it’s in her ruling – said that this is not a matter of public importance. And so, you know, that kind of was a double issue. And, of course, it would also render ordinary people almost paralysed of taking a case to court – that no matter how much public discussion happens around it, that such a person will say, “Jesus,” you know: if you’re not going to get your costs, you’re looking at a quarter of a million bill, and rising. And so, what normal, ordinary person is going to stand down in any court and attempt this? So, those were two thoughts I had at the time.

KZ: Yeah, I suppose it was extremely distressing then, on a personal level, and I think we tried to describe some of that, especially in the last chapter of Our Lives Out Loud. That whole notion, as Ann Louise was describing there. And I am an Irish citizen and both an American citizen. ..Though most people think I’m Canadian – they say, “Oh, Canada!”… [laughter]

ALG: As one leading member of the current government said to me one night, “Why don’t the two of you just go back to Canada?” I said, “What would we do that for?” I said, “Neither of us is Canadian, we’re both Irish citizens.”

KZ: Yeah, exactly. It’s a common misunderstanding. So, as Ann Louise was saying there that, as Irish citizens, we have the right to take the case. And obviously as it is a Constitutional matter, and constitutions can be re-interpreted, as long as people go forward, to maybe look for that.

But I think it was distressing enough the first time when we actually lost the case, we did feel it’s important to consider it, et cetera; but then going back into the courts and losing again on the costs was very distressing and we did actually go on radio that evening ‘cause we were so upset! But we tried to talk about the human experience, that it was one of incredible exclusion – we weren’t trying to reflect on the arguments being put forward at the time.

And I remember saying, you know, it was coming up to Christmas, which is often the time when young people get engaged, even sometimes it’s a time of getting married; and wanting to put out to young people in the country, and also to their parents, what would you feel like if you were told you couldn’t do that, this most extraordinary, wonderful thing? A decision that often for a lot of people, it’s one of the most important decisions that they make?

So, that’s really how we felt. Now, since that time, what’s very heartening for us is that there have been a number of legal changes in other jurisdictions in really the short period of two years, and I think Norway has recently come on board; South Africa did – there had been a judgement in a case in South Africa, for two women, agreeing that to close the institution of marriage to lesbians was discriminatory, but they were still looking to their law-makers to say, “Well now, figure out how to do this.” So, South Africa; and then, of course, California; and then the state of Connecticut most recently. But even in the state of California, what’s so interesting now is, as you’re probably watching it is, is they won in the courts, lost with the people, and now the court has said they’d hear whether or not it was actually, that it should have been allowable to run a potentially discriminatory referendum.

So I think all that’s fascinating, especially what’s going on in California, because a lot of people have the view that perhaps Ireland will need a referendum, as well. But I remember when we met some of the people who were all very active in the state of Massachusetts, and they ran a campaign on the whole method of, “It’s wrong for people to vote on other’s rights.” It’s wrong to vote on rights. Meaning, if you go for a referendum, you are asking the people to judge on my rights.

So here we are, two years later, waiting.

CH: It’s interesting with the changes in constitutions and so on abroad, and also, I think you were mentioning a court case recently, here in Ireland, which might affect things.

orange: Just back into the Irish context, I think there seems perhaps to have been a very small, incremental change in another High Court decision, where a lesbian couple with a child were recognised as a de facto family. I just was wondering – I don’t know if you’re familiar with that decision, I know that context of the challenge was very different, but – it was very interesting that the same court handed out a very different decision, in terms of one court recognising one relationship, and the court in another instance doesn’t. In a very short amount of time, really, no more than eighteen months, I think. And I’m just wondering what your view on that was, or does it carry any water to say that a same-sex couple would form a de facto family.

KZ: I think any of that kind of judgement is helpful because, you know, we are in the larger territory of what does it mean to be family, what families are protected in light of the Constitution. So I think any movement like that to create more space for the consideration of perhaps something – what a lot of people might view as quite radical change of the Constitution, what we’re looking for, although we don’t think it’s that radical. So, it does, and that’s good, and is helpful. I actually have to say that I haven’t read that judgement, but I know that a lot of people are – like yourself, studying or practicing law – reading the judgement and looking at, as you know, not just the outcome, but the reasoning that’s used to get there.

ALG: Well, of course, all case law, building on what Katherine says, builds a foundation towards the next case so there’s no going back. So, if a High Court makes a ruling such as that, when you take a case from the High Court to the Supreme Court, in my understanding, you can’t start into new evidence, or start re-trying the case. But you are permitted to bring in, as you present to them, and we won’t speak in the Supreme Court, but the lawyers who present to the Supreme Court are permitted to bring in any cases that have happened in the interval, that might actually render a more positive or a changing interpretation of law. So, I would see that, yes, it is building.

The second thing that, in Supreme Court level, is vital is what in theology we would call census fidelium – the sense of the people. Now, the Supreme Court, in my understanding, will never make a ruling unless they have a sense that the people are ready; that there has been a shift in readiness among the people for making this change.

And, again, Judge Dunne wouldn’t have thought that there was that readiness. But each of these cases – and that’s where civil society is hugely important, in my book – in the interval between a court case going from the High Court to the Supreme Court – obviously we can’t be out there, trying to try the case on the pavements of Ireland – but if there are people out there, who are, in their own consciousness presuming that the time has come and are doing a lot of work to enable that raising of consciousness, of course that impacts judgments. So, I think that that’s a fairly important point that has happened here.

KZ: Especially that it has happened here. If there is any change in Europe, it is definitely very positive (for us). They look to there, I think, before the United States.

CH: In terms of a generation support within communities and civil society as well, do you think the role of family and friends of gay people or people who are trying to advance their rights is more important than gay people—not so much ghettoised—but on their own trying to fight their battles and it might be, not better, but helpful to bring in the support of friends and family who might not be the “usual suspects”?

KZ: Definitely. I think what we’ve found having published the book is that we’ll get a couple of different reactions, especially from lesbian and gay people. It’s always very positive and also just from people we don’t even know who may not be lesbian or gay, it has been a very positive response to our memoirs.

In terms of lesbian and gay people, sometimes the kinds of the communiqué that we’ve gotten are fantastic and “we’re really so happy that you’re out there” and “what can we do?” And gosh, now, we were just having something to eat with a friends ours yesterday in a restaurant and these two women—beautiful women—and one of them had just had a child. [To AL] What was he? 8 months old? So thrilled. They came up to us because they recognised us and we were chatting. And they asked “Well, what can we do now? It’s a time when we want to go tell our story too!”

We get other responses, like an email AL got. I don’t know if you want to share that? From a young woman studying to be a teacher.

AL G: Yes, I think this is after one of the interviews after Our Lives, Out Loud and she was writing really about her distress coming to the awareness that she is a lesbian, she is training to be a teacher in Limerick and, you know, she is really full of fear. And hasn’t come out—only barely come out to herself but wonders how negatively this will impact her life as a teacher because of course the Catholic Church controls 95% of primary schools and what would happen if she voiced her life out loud.

think that is a very—well, it’s a very poignant story—but it’s a very important story to hear because, I think, prejudice and lack of tolerance in Ireland in relation to gay and lesbian sexual identity issues is alive and well and I think we really need to analyze especially among people who are gay and lesbian. Where are we at by way of continuing to assume an older, discriminatory sense of one’s self?

In other words, to assume and to live out of the prejudices that society hold. I really do wonder what would happen absolutely everyone who is gay and lesbian, in the morning, in Ireland, just stood onto the pavement, gave an interview, just shouted. There would be an absolute diversity.

KZ: A roar!

ALG: What has anybody to be afraid of? I mean I work in a college which is managed by the Archbishop of Dublin. According to every rule in the book, I should have been dismissed years ago. I can tell you this much, nobody is going to dismiss me. And so, I’m in a situation where actually my employer is the Archbishop of Dublin. Now most people aren’t in that situation. Now I know I’m an older person and you might say “Well, you know, you’ve had a job over the years” but on the other hand it is just pulling the plug on this fear. Because I really do feel that those who continue to uphold the power and make people feel fearful actually have no power. There is no power.

KZ: I would say there are two things going on here. On the one hand, we really have empathy for and understand people feeling as if they still need to cover their identity for all sorts of reasons. So we’re absolutely not offering any judgment.

On the other hand, we’re also trying to say: Consider it. Will the sky fall in? Will you lose your job? Will you lose the opportunity for a job?

I can think of just recently I was coming home from New York and one of the flight stewards grabbed me while I was getting a glass of water and he said “Are you who I think you are? The Canadian!” [All laugh] You speak for us! I can’t say anything!” And I was like “Well, yes you can.” But I understand. He felt that way as a flight steward. And then just recently at one of the most well-known hotels in Dublin, one of the head concierges said “Thank you so much. Well done. You speak for us. You know, I’ve to be careful.” And I suppose having lived through that myself, I think what I would say now is, probably there is a lot of fear for financial security or “what my parents will think” and maybe my parents could have said, “We’re turning our backs on you.”

As it happens they don’t and there’s a fantastic exchange of our letters between myself and my parents and Ann Louise in the book as well. There are all those other issues with financial security. And I think as it happens, it probably—whereas there is that great fear—a lot of it I would admit is probably my own lack of or coming to terms with accepting and loving who I am as a lesbian. And so that’s really the challenge and the more I grew into that, and [to Gaelick interviewers] you may experience this yourself or know others, but at this point it is so fantastic to be so free and out and everybody knows.

ALG: Would you all be out in your own lives, may I ask?

Annie Aura: Partly. But I do agree with what you say that it is more the fear of how you think people are going to react and then when you do it and they don’t react the way you expected at all and you realise it was your own fear. You were projecting that on them.

KZ: That’s beautifully put. Well said.

ALG: I think a lot more has to be written and reflected on this. [To orange and click here] Sorry, I didn’t give you time to answer.

Orange: Oh, I’m pretty much out, yeah.

CH: I mean, I wouldn’t make a secret of it, let’s say, but if someone asks me I wouldn’t cover up or I’d acknowledge my sexuality if it arose at any stage but otherwise I’d just treat it like in my workplace so if the others are talking about their boyfriend at the weekend, I’d do more or less the same thing.

ALG: Okay, well done.

KZ: I suppose that’s what we wrote in the book and what we’re also saying and hopefully it’s encouraging people too—as Annie’s saying—that if everyone in the morning who is lesbian or gay was completely open about that it would be a whole lot easier to change the institutions that are closed to us or the lack of security or the laws that are there.

ALG: It just would! They would have to! See, I think there are distinctions between what people think about homosexuality and what people feel about it homosexuality.

In other words, I think that there are huge numbers now who know in their head that sexuality is a continuum. This is known by medical science. It has been known since the classical Greek period. Plato wrote about it extensively. People are who they are: a minority is homosexual, the majority heterosexual. But there has always been this continuum and there are people bisexual. So most people know that and then the kind of fears of teachings and all the rest of it, of the Catholic church, some of which persist, most people think that’s for the birds.

Rationally, I think people have advanced in their consciousness but it’s the affect of—the feeling—that we need to think about, especially among people who are heterosexual. Because I think that discomfort—the failure to change what they feel about homosexuality—allows them to either fail to support in a very active way full equality because there is something in them which continues to feel, “There’s something in this that I’m not comfortable with.”

But maybe that’s their problem that they need to get over. That’s not that there’s something with people being homosexual.

KZ: What helps the transformation of that feeling is being with others, having an engagement or some sort of intimate relationship with people, knowing that those people are gay and lesbian. I’m convinced that’s the only thing that can transform that because the head can’t do it by itself.

ALG: That’s right.

Annie Aura: So unless more people come out, we’re just going to hold ourselves back?

ALG: I think so. The more gay and lesbian people, in relationship with the wider community, well then that affective piece of resistance, of feeling of discomfort around of homosexuality because, of course people’s minds were held in a mind-clamp for a very long time about this.

They really did believe if you were part of the Catholic Church that this was all very wrong. Now, intellectually, they’ve moved beyond that but I think the affective bit has to change.

What Katherine says is absolutely accurate, the more ordinary, everyday people they meet who happen to be just different on the scale of sexual identity. Who cares? Really, who cares?

But I do think, yes, it is about people just saying “I’m not hiding it. There’s nothing wrong with me. I’m an ordinary human being.” We all are different. In our court case, what was argued—and [click here] was there—was just like the difference of hair colour: you’re redhead, you’re fair. It’s as simple as that

KZ: Or you’re right-handed, you’re left-handed.

ALG: So what are we saying? I’m going to hide myself away if I’m red-headed or left-handed because I couldn’t tell anybody about that. So it is about that. Of course, that will happen but it’s how you fast-forward this so that generations or lives, like my young teacher in Limerick, aren’t going to spend the next ten years in trauma. It’s dreadful.

Annie Aura: Would you get a lot of correspondence from people around the world?

KZ: A fair amount.

Annie Aura: Or mostly Ireland?

KZ: Mostly Ireland. We got some around the world when this case first broke. We do get a fair amount from people we haven’t met before and it has all been positive. And thank you so much for that. And then they tell us their story. Some of them are still closed. Others aren’t, you know? Um, yeah. There’s definitely a story after the story. So many people are telling us their stories which is wonderful. You could just put a piece together on a collection. They’re beautiful stories, tough stories.

ALG: I was saying the other night, we were chatting with somebody, I, if I was out there trying to do something, and we can’t be out there, and we can’t engage in every kind of advocacy, but I think it would be a wonderful piece of work to so address, what I call, the last acceptable prejudice, the last acceptable intolerance, which is the intolerance and lack of acceptance of homosexuality in this society.

To so address that that people and there are very sophisticated people, especially white, middle-class men, who continue to be persisting in their homophobia. Now it would be wonderful to so address this that they would suddenly get it and say “Jesus, I’m not going to be down there making racial comments. I’m not going to be down there making these comments either.” But there are still people who feel “Well it’s okay if you’re gay but don’t demonstrate that you’re gay. Keep that all away” And why? You know?

So it would wonderful if people, especially young people, could really address that question: how can we make people utterly uncomfortable if they’re homophobic? And push them to feel “I really have to address this.” It’s a bit like if you or I or any of the rest of us felt racial intolerance today, you would be addressing it. You’d be saying to yourself “I can’t mouth off about people. That’s completely inappropriate.”

KZ: I think that if a few Africans walk across O’Connell Street, you wouldn’t hear “Get out of here, n–g-rs!” You just wouldn’t do that. Even if there are still a few people who would think that.

ALG: And yet young people, heterosexuals say [derisively] “Oh, that’s very gay!” It’s appalling. They still do that. And it is time they were told to stop. Who gives them that permission? I would feel very, very strongly about that.

That happens in schools, especially among young boys who are gay. They suffer absolute intolerance. Schools should lead and say: “That is a form of bullying, get out. When you understand that we’re all human, that we’re all different, come back. Talk to your parents. I don’t know where you get these attitudes from but they are not tolerated in here and you need to address the fact that it is not he who’s gay who has the problem, it’s you.” So I feel there’s still a lot of work in Ireland to be done.

CH: It seems there are two attitudes at the same time in Ireland: there are people who like their cappuccinos and their nice lives and they’re very liberal in one sense but maybe, if faced with a question like that, they’ll revert back to their learned ways of their Catholic upbringing or their prejudices of their own or family members.

Annie Aura: Do you think there need to be more role models? Irish role models?

KZ: Role models as in people visible in the mainstream acknowledging their sexual identity?

AA: Yes.

KZ: [laughing] I think we could use a few more!

[laughter]

KZ: And also there are many people in various sectors or industries who we all know are and who aren’t claiming that. I think that must be just-I find that very frustrating.

AA: Do you think when you’re in that position and that people can hear your voice, do you think that people should use that position?

KZ: Well, I guess you could conclude that maybe from what we are saying. At the same, I really, I personally wouldn’t want to sit here offering a judgment on anyone. I don’t know absolutely every or all aspects of their circumstances and why they do or they don’t.

But I certainly think if somebody’s ready and feel themselves moving in that direction, we would want to encourage that. Because what does it do? It normalises. It normalises who we are. We are not so different and freaky because I mean, I’m an absolute firm believer of this 10% figure which, do you women know where that comes from? The Kinsey Report on sexuality.

ALG: 1976.

KZ: The late seventies. It was 50 years ago and it was a guess. It was a guess! They didn’t have people ticking the boxes as you can imagine then [laughter] so I actually think it is much higher than 10% and that someday, maybe in another, I don’t know, even 5 years, probably if they did another survey you’d have a whole lot more because the freer people feel freer to say “Yes, this is who I am”. It’s going to go up. It’s not that we don’t have them—people like us. It’s just that they’re not willing to claim that.

ALG: I think that what Katherine says is correct. I think one would have to be very careful not to be very prescriptive because once you get into prescription, you’re into judgment. But I think it would be helpful if more and more people were informative on the point. Both young people and older people saying, “if more people who are gay and hold more positions in life where they can speak up and speak out. If they do that, it will help the rest of us.”

To put it in a general way like that, I think one is entitled to do that. But I also feel it is kind of chicken and egg. You know, if people who hold important positions in society and who don’t speak out, they may be converted if actually there was a groundswell of absolute naturalness. And I think more and more young people are saying “To hell with this, I’m not denying any bit of myself to anybody. Get over yourself. If you have a difficulty, just start dealing with it.”

If they then were leading a trade union, or whatever they may be leading, and the whole base of the union are quite natural and talking as you are. Well, I think they may be saying to themselves, “Well I’m being a complete hypocrite here. I think I better stand up and use my power in a way that is supportive of all human identity.”

KL [to Gaelick interviewers]: Have you been to any [LGBT] Noise events? Do you know Noise? Have you heard of them?

All: Yes.

CH: I’ve been to one I think this year, at the top of Grafton Street opposing civil partnership—the proposed bill—and saying that equality and marriage is the only way to go. They’re quite good.

KZ: Yeah, they’re a group of young intellectuals. Actually they, and other groups who formed, actually we’ve met several of them are still PhD students in Trinity. But they’re super creative and very aerticulate and they’re only new. In fact, one of our colleagues is looking at what is going on in the civic sector and the mobilising of any advocacy. As you know there’s KAL, which stays close to our case. There’s MarriagEquality which is probably more serious in terms of policy and negotiation and this kind of thing. And then Noise, which can do things very creatively with a lot of boldness or brashness that MarriagEquality can’t because they would have to hold back, perhaps be more sophisticated. So it’s great that there are all different types of characteristics of actors, I think. I just think they are so much fun.

ALG: I think the power of fun and irony and humour is hugely important in changing people’s awareness around anything.

CH: I think they are undermining those attitudes and poking fun to demonstrate the flawed logic or the flawed arguments of some people.

ALG: They did another one where they stood at the top of Grafton Street and they went up to somebody and they asked “Are you married? Were you allowed marry that person?” And you know people were completely startled. So it’s that kind of raising of consciousness.

I think, is very important across the whole of society that we don’t set up oppositional camps around things that are utterly different. I mean, there are heterosexuals in our society who wish to live in partnership, and have some legal recognitions related to their arrangements; and, I think, homosexual people who don’t wish to marry should have that right also to have partnership rights.

Where the problem arises is that heterosexuals can choose marriage whereas same sex couples can’t. So, they’re actually completely separate issues. I think it’s a kind of classic among people who are oppressed, that you’ll start setting up opposition – they want marriage, they want partnership – they’re completely different. Look at the heterosexual community: there are heterosexuals who don’t wish to choose marriage. They could in the morning if they wished. We actually are married, and we want that recognised in the Irish State.

So, we’re not confrontative: those who wish to choose partnership, choose it; but don’t say well, that’s enough: if you get partnership, goodnight. I mean, that’s a South African apartheid system, which will lead to further negative understandings of what it means to be gay and lesbian. Because people will say, “What’s wrong with them, that they can’t enter this institution?”

CH: So, would you think that the civil partnership proposals wouldn’t be sufficient, say, good enough just to stop at that level..?

KZ: I suppose we would – and actually we’ve said this to the Green Party convention there, last year – that we believe that if the government establishes civil partnership only for same-sex couples, while not at the same time opening marriage to same-sex couples, they are creating, you know, effectively a discriminatory institution.

ALG: It’s nothing to do with marriage, and people need to be very clear about that.

O: Just look at the experience of the United Kingdom and France, where this other category was established. In France, it was the PACS for same-sex couples, but it was a completely limited, stripped down version of recognition, and the cap on the head is that that’s as far as you get.

ALG: And that’s dangerous.

KZ: As we move into 2009, this is where the incremental argument – I’m not sure if I would agree with it, but let’s say we agree it was needed at some point, and it happened. It is still the case in France, it happened in Canada, it happened in California, it happened in Massachusetts, so they established civil partnership first, and then they moved to marriage.

Why do we need to do that now? We’re a global community. We don’t need to do the same steps, and argue for incremental changes ‘cause people aren’t ready for it. It’s ridiculous!

ALG: Who isn’t ready for it?

KZ: We’re married now for five years. That’s like – I mean, we’ve been married for five years. Like, that’s a long time! It’s not as long as we’ve been life partners – we’ve been life partners for twenty-seven years – but, it’s amazing, isn’t it? I mean, time is just passing.

ALG: Exactly, we have to keep on the vitamin C! [laughter] I often think of a good way to look at a lot of these things is, you know there will come a time, and whenever the time comes, where people will look back and say, “Jees, how did they? How did they segregate people like that?” You know?

KZ: And if then, why not now?

ALG: Yeah! Why do we have to suffer discrimination in the interval, while these heterosexuals figure this out? [laughter] I mean, this is unbelievable. You know, it just really is unbelievable how people use their power.

There is no harm to society in opening up the institution of marriage which is an institution of love. There can be absolutely no harm to society. Canada has marriage now, over five years. Nothing has impacted the common good. In fact, they would say they’ve a much more peaceful, more tolerant, better society – for couples, but also for the children that are in the marriages where people have chosen marriage. One can keep going.

What do they think will happen here? Nothing. So, what are we holding on to? This is about love. It’s choosing to marry the person you love and be with them. What are they holding on to?

Every time homosexuals are told, “That’s enough,” just say, “Well, now, you’re heterosexual. If I am the majority here – say, suddenly, I am the majority, and I said to you, ‘No, no. No marriage for you, pal,’ you know, ‘We’re homosexuals, we’re keeping that to ourselves. But I’m sorry – here, we’ll give you something..’” I mean, it’s unbelievable. I mean, I don’t know whether you think – I just think this is outrageous. It’s utterly outrageous.

CH: It’s absurd, yeah. For example, like, my sister got engaged, I think, this year, with a view to getting married the following year. But, there are two of us, raised by the same parents, in the same house –

ALG: Yeah!

KZ: Exactly.

CH: We’re only a few years apart. And yet, she can have that option, legally. Whereas, legally, I don’t have that option. You know, and she can go – he’s from abroad – so, she can go to that country, or to this country, or to any country in the world to marry.

ALG: Yeah. It’s heterosexual privilege.

KZ: That’s a good way of talking about it, your sister.

ALG: And, I think there should be more and more of that, because I think with that kind of narrative, you touch into people’s empathy. You know, you really have to try, and it’s that affective bit, where people think, God, yes this is not right.

O: I’ve one final question – I’ve always wanted to know, where did you go on your honeymoon?!

[laughter]

KZ: I guess we could say we had a few days in Canada! And Seattle, we went back to Seattle. I don’t think, did we really have one, did we?

ALG: I don’t think so..!

KZ: I think that we might be due one!

[laughter]

ALG: I think that’s a good idea.

KZ: My parents came up with us. They actually drove up with us, to Canada, for the event, and stayed in the same hotel. And then, they were there that evening, and they went off. We had one more night at that hotel and I think that was it!

ALG: This is the other thing, you know. It’s kind of expensive. If you really believe, and you are entitled to get married – you see, this is not possible in Spain or Belgium or the Netherlands, because you need to be both a resident and a citizen of those countries.

KZ: And that’s why people are going off to Canada, because you don’t need to be a resident or a citizen.

ALG: You have to conjure up the four grand, to get there and to stay somewhere, and to get your notary, and have a legal marriage.

KZ: There actually are a growing number of people in Ireland who were married in Canada, but there are also people obviously who have been married in Spain, or Belgium, or the Netherlands, and who now live in Ireland. We have no idea how many couples are married in other jurisdictions, and are living in Ireland. We’ve met different numbers along the way, and it is growing, too. Tell somebody to do a poll on that one..!

CH: It’s inevitable something must happen, though, because, you know – not to put a downer on things – but relationships don’t always last, and there’s a law in the EU, where basically European marriage separation agreements have to be recognised, irrelevant of where you are.

So, a Spanish marriage, if that separates or breaks down, that should be recognised by an Irish court. So, if a court is obliged to do that, and they do recognise it – so, they recognise maybe a separation, but not the marriage – well, that again is an absurdity.

ALG: And this PACS thing in France is causing endless problems, because people are working just over the border, and they have a house this side of the border – it is fraught. And while this, in relation to separations – I’m interested to hear that – but in relation to marriage and civil partnership recognitions, it’s absolutely bounded by each country. And so, with inter-country, European country allegiances, it’s utterly fraught!

You know, the only way to go here is to say, “Look, all the institutions are open. You know what marriage is.” And we’re not talking patriarchal marriage!

Related posts:

1. Preliminary hearing in Zappone & Gilligan appeal tomorrow!
2. My marriage is equal
3. Setback in fight for marriage equality in Ireland

For those who may not be familiar, Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan have taken Ireland’s Revenue Commissioners and others to the courts seeking to have their Canadian marriage recognised in this jurisdiction. Judge Elizabeth Dunne of the High Court rejected their claim, and the case is now the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court. As yet there has been no indication of when the case will be heard. [You can read the High Court's decision here: Katherine and Ann Louise then spoke of how they came to write the book, and how their reflection on their lives, family and loves seemed to unite apparently seperate strands and events of their lives, and revealed to them how interconnected everyone’s experiences really are. In fact, they recommended that everyone write their own memoirs – perhaps it’s a meditative and therapeutic exercise; cathartic, even!

Katherine’s parents were also present, having travelled all the way from Seattle, and they each spoke of the joy that Zappigan’s relationship has generated – although, of course, neither of them used the word “Zappigan”: on the contrary, they simply referred to “our daughters”. They also described the importance of having supportive family members – parents, siblings, etc. – and the role they play in the natural evolution of social justice.

It was evident that the crowd was moved by everything they heard last night. My girlfriend’s mother was at one point welling up, at the sheer honesty and bravery of the accounts, in particular I think by Mr and Mrs Zappone’s words as parents of a gay child.

But now, I must leave you with this image: me, a new book, a day off work, a couch and a hangover. Buy yourself a copy and do likewise. Bliss..

- marriagEquality.ie
- Parents’ Support (01) 872 1055
- Our Lives Out Loud at Amazon.co.uk

Related posts:

1. Preliminary hearing in Zappone & Gilligan appeal tomorrow!
2. Setback in fight for marriage equality in Ireland
3. Congratulations, Senator Zappone