The Marriage Equality initiative was launched yesterday, I’ll have more later in the week on the issues raised by the campaign but I have some immediate thoughts and questions. The Civil Registration Act amendment move is one that has been called for before and it would be good to get an answer from Government that did not mention Attorney General’s unpublished advice that has not been tested in the courts.
So back to the burning issues for me so far – The definition of equality and the matters of dissolution.
1. Let’s think about the impact that marriage might have on cohabitants in terms of the social welfare system. No sign of anything on this in Marriage Equality’s documentation either.
I would welcome an accompanying campaign from Marriage Equality for the individualisation of the system so that those who don’t marry do not lose social welfare entitlements or medical cards because they live together. In fact in all the campaigning for equality there seems to be no consideration in this campaign for other family forms/ cohabitants/ relationship forms and an active discouragement of their mention. Ever feel like you might be smacked down? Marriage seems to be the only form of relationship worth consideration or acknowledgement.
Evidence from the UK suggests that lower income lesbian and gay couples have not been thought about there either. But sure aren’t we all supposed to be economic talents or something. Poverty? Double or triple discrimination?
Disabled and lesbian or gay? Ah sure you live with your partner and should marry them and then you’ll be looked after or if you don’t marry them and they are better off than you they can mind you (even get a carers allowance and take away your independence completely!) and you’ll lose all your entitlements after the means test. Just a little bit of potential for abuse here. I have seen it happen in heterosexual land. It’s not pretty!
I don’t want to hear the mantra about ‘with rights come responsibilities’. These are people’s lives we are playing with here and social justice comes in many forms. Oh what’s that?? Ah I might run a seminar on it one day to remind people about that as I think many of the former leaders in that movement seem to have forgotten.
2. If the campaign succeeded are the group proposing a 4 year wait for divorce? With litigation, high costs, in camera and all the other injustices that come with a system critiqued so well by Carol Coulter amongst others?
Not a word mentioned about dissolution of marriages etc. in any of the stuff from Marriage Equality I have read so far. Except how the divorce rate in Massachusetts was not effected by the introduction of equality. Ah yes these relationships that we are looking for parity with for never fail.
Again I suppose I feel bound to point out I support full equality, I’m just not prepared to dump on everyone (and my principles) in the rush to the registry office.
All that said look at Ciaran Cuffe leading the campaign of the 6 versus the 78!
Deputy Ciarán Cuffe said he and his party backed marriage equality but did not have the support in Government of the majority partner. “At the end of the day politically it boils down to six versus 78,” he said.
Poor man. Someone should give him a hand!
Interesting stuff, MP.
I watched the coverage of gay marriage on Primetime tonight, and found it vapid, as there are still no concrete proposals to talk about. Iona guy seemed to allow for civil partnership but not marriage, but I did enjoy how he seemed to feel hijacked by the granny…
From what I’ve read of the marriage equality paper, I’m concerned how there are no references to the document. Also, and I’m open to correction, but there seems to be an error of fact. On page 27, it claims Bertie made his statement on sexual orientation not being incidental in January 2006, whereas I noted it as part of his speech to the (re) opening of GLEN’s offices in April 2006 which can be re-read at:
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=200&docID=2542
I’ve read it too and its a rehashing of parts of the ICCL document. That document did cover the other situations were marriage could and would disadvantage certain types of family forms and partnerships including social welfare recepients etc. I find it interesting that this is a charge towards marriage being led by self-professed feminists at least one of whom was writing and speaking in opposition to gay marriage from a feminist standpoint until quite recently.
As I have said elsewhere, I think the “You’re not out till you’re out to your TD” slogan is unfortunately weighted against those who are without the privileges and supports available to middle class urban queers. It would appear that despite the wealth of knowledge amongst many in the campaign on the need for poverty-proofing of initiatives, that has not been a priority here. There’s an interesting treatise on class just waiting to be expounded on this one.
I took you at your word Marie and emailed a letter to all my TD’s (Wicklow) and a number of Senators (including the wonderful David Norris). I actually cc’d the Marriage Equality email address for info. The idiot from IONA on Primetime last night seemed to think that allowing same sex marriage (as opposed to CP’s) would STOP the state protecting families and children, which is COMPLETE nonsense. If anything it’s not that difficult to accept that gay-marriage would if anything reinforce the institution of marriage. Further people should be aware article 40 in the constitution guarantees that ALL citizens be treated equally in law, and art 40.3.1 in it’s defence of marriage against attack nowhere defines marriage as that between a man or a woman. This BS that TDs are moaning on about there being a constitutional issue is complete rubbish. I was very impressed by that elderly lady who lost her daughter recently. However, RTE do these kind of topics so badly, and no-one actually made any points of substance either for or against the issue. I believe that we need to actively and urgently lobby our TDs and senators as seriously I believe that they don’t really care either way whether it’s marriage or CPs, and if CP (civil partnerships) is what’s put infront of them that’s what they’ll vote for. I don’t honestly believe there is any opposition of any merit against full marriage. Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada and South Africa haven’t imploded, I don’t we will either. If we stay silent we only have ourselves to blame.
Green Party failing children in lesbian/gay headed families? | Maman Poulet // Apr 1, 2008 at 01:09
[...] is to be believed. However FF never promised us a rose garden! Remember I’m one of the ones not obsessed by marriage (I’ve already been preached at about this – pardon me for seeking [...]