I’ve taken a little blogging break here for the last ten days or so, but it’s not been completely quiet. You may have noted the post exploring the campaign for marriage and the change in how marriage is interpreted which I wrote earlier this week on The (Fabulous) AntiRoom.
I think some of the point of my post got a bit lost in some of the 77 (!) comments which followed but it’s probably one of the more interesting online debates on the rationale some have adopted in their campaign strategies and the perspectives of those who feel alienated.
I’ll be continuing the debate (or trying anyway) on Global Voices on Newstalk tonight with a representative from LGBT Noise.
Also this week I was invited to speak on a panel at a seminar held by Humanrights.ie and the Public Interest Law Alliance which marked the first anniversary of Humanrights.ie It was a very enjoyable afternoon where I was permitted to rant a little about human rights and medias. I believe there will be video and audio available in the next few weeks. Congratulations to Humanrights.ie for their first very successful year and continued good wishes for the future. (Note to other blogs – this crew had had a birthday cake and bubbly to mark their first birthday – lawyers do it in style!)
In other news
- Ivor, Ann, Labhras and Rónán all sent their excuse notes into the Seanad Members Interests committee, (note that Rónán’s name is separated from the other three in this RTE report.
– Ivor has been spotted brunching in Clontarf,
– Rónán Mullen and the Iona Institute have been moaning about Marriage Equality’s forthcoming conference on Children in Same Sex families and the EU funding that has been awarded for the conference. Where do Iona get their money again?
I’m not sure if your ‘point was lost’ – it just subject to reasoning and what I saw as logical disembowelment!
I think it illustrated that that anti-marriage is a separate debate and issue to anti-marriage equality for gays and lesbians. It is quite reasonable to separate the two. Reformation within marriage to include gays and lesbians is likely to happen (with sufficient effort and lobbying) long before transformation (or if you prefer – destruction) of marriage. Gays should not wait. The outcome, namely acquisition of all the rights left out of CP and the equality of status/visibility that will be derived is invaluable (with, I believe, new levels of ‘trickle down’ tolerance).
Personally, I agree that opening up marriage to same sex couples will reform it drastically and will aid it in shedding the unpalatable elements of it’s historical past.
Christine’s point that ‘looking to be part of a privileged group that excludes others from privileges is not an equality campaign’ is a different issue and one that will be interesting to see publicly debated if there is the energy and drive to bring it to debate (outside of the gay marriage debate!). Personally, I believe there is enough social science data to show the State benefits from mutually dependent couples to justify the rights (and I don’t believe they are privileges given that they mainly relate to the two individuals involved) that accompany civil marriage.