Legal status as unmarried partners

[Purple]

What's happened to this site - once upon a time you wouldn't just post a stat off the top of your head willy nilly or you'd have to run for cover. Standards lads, standards Rebecca

Rubbish! 45% of the statistics posted 3 years ago were not backed up with source material...
Ah no, ClubMan has less time to police these things since the sprog came along. Those darn children, we'd all be better off without them!

 

[MissRibena]

Just because it's in the Constitution, doesn't mean it's the best anything. That's a cop out answer. All it means is that our forbears thought it was the way to go. It is a reflection of their opinion. If they were always right, we wouldn't have referenda to change it when necessary.

Times have changed, we have changed and it's only a matter of time before we get around to sorting out the Constitution to reflect this.

Article 41 is a bit of a mess anyway. Apart from the whole "woman in the home" thing (grrr). There's a fair bit of waffle; one minute the state is protecting marriage from "attack" and next sentence lays out the grounds for divorce.

Rebecca
Me nerves!

 

[Purple]

It may not be right in absolute terms but the state must legislate within the framework of the constitution. In this context it is right to encourage marriage. If the constitution is changed and it views marriage as a bad thing then it will be right, within that framework, to legislate to discourage marriage.
Artical 41 should be amended to "Women: know your place!"

 

[michaelm]

Well seeing as you're not casting aspersions on my maths, I won't cast them on your English

I use Hiberno-English rather than Queens English. If people understand what I mean then the job's oxo. I won't lose any sleep over my grammatical or punctuational faux pas.

 

[Sol28]

Just because it's in the Constitution, doesn't mean it's the best anything. That's a cop out answer. All it means is that our forbears thought it was the way to go. It is a reflection of their opinion. If they were always right, we wouldn't have referenda to change it when necessary.

Times have changed, we have changed and it's only a matter of time before we get around to sorting out the Constitution to reflect this.

Lots of items were protected in constitutions around the world, slavery, the right to bear arms. Doesnt ever mean they are right, and that they never can be changed. The constitution as mentioned earlier should be fluid and reflect the current society. Not what was perceived to be best practice 100 years ago.

Science has progressed - It's now believed by the majority of scientists (of which I am one) that sexuality is not a choice. The debate is still raging based on genetics/development environment but it is agreed that a person does not choose their sexuality. One can hide it (I did for years and was very successful at it) - but its still there.

On the basis of discrimination in our Equality act (the 7 classes of discrimination) - Only religion is a true choice - and can be changed multiple times. Yet it is religion that causes the most forms of discrimination in my opinion, and is protected so heartily by our constitution and by the series of governments since the state's formation.

 

[MissRibena]

Fair enough michaelm, so are you going to clarify from earlier posts? Is it only familes where the parents are married that you think the state should give tax breaks or all the different types of familes we have? That's the crux of our disagreement and I'm still not clear on what your stance is.

I just cannot get my head around Purple's assertion that married couples should get greater tax breaks to unmarried ones. At the end of the day, it's the kids' upbringing that you are using as a carrot (or stick) to influence their parents' decision to marry or not.

Rebecca

 

[Sol28]

Also, Michaelm (or Purple or..), You never answered whether the married couple who remain childless by their own choice or by nature/circumstance have as equal a marriage as those that have kids. Since marriage is for raising families.

 

[Purple]

Also, Michaelm (or Purple or..), You never answered whether the married couple who remain childless by their own choice or by nature/circumstance have as equal a marriage as those that have kids. Since marriage is for raising families.

The thread is about why the state should discriminate in favour of married couples from a taxation stand point. This was answered when michaelm said;As to the 'why', the state has discriminated in terms of tax in favour of married couples as the Family based on marriage is seen as the best model for raising children and underpinning society in general
The thread then went off topic and got into a discussion about the rights and wrongs of the constitutional position that leads the state to act this way.

The issue of whether a childless married couple is equal to a married couple with children is a completely different topic but to answer the question, in my opinion they are and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

 

[MissRibena]

That's not really the issue I was raising Purple.

Firstly, the issue I really have a problem with is the one raised (and subsequently contradicted/confused) by michaelm, that only married parents should get tax breaks for having children. According to you and possibly michaelm unmarried parents (and therefore their children) shouldn't get them. I don't really agree with the tax breaks in the first place (see below), but if they are there then I believe that all parents should get them regardless of their sexual persuasion or marrital status because they are intended for rearing children.

Other issues are;
Should the state give anything to parents (of any family type) who can afford to raise their own children?
I say no because a) the state should not be trying to shape society and b) children are not necessarily always a positive contribution to society in themselves.
You and michaelm say yes because you believe the Constitution is correct as it is in this regard. I believe that the majority would agree to a change in it to allow for a broader definition of families (i.e. to get rid of the restriction to married couples in the description of the family).

Rebecca

 

[Purple]

That's not really the issue I was raising Purple.

Firstly, the issue I really have a problem with is the one raise (and subsequently contradicted/confused) by michaelm, that only married parents should get tax breaks for having children. According to you and possibly michaelm unmarried parents (and therefore their children) shouldn't get them

I think that the state is correct to have a slight bias towards married parents from a taxation point of view. The government funds all children through children’s allowance. This is paid to all mothers (inquality?) regardless of their marital status. Do I think that same sex marriage should be allowed in order to remove that discrimination? Yes. Then the same options will be available to all so it becomes a matter of choice but I maintain that, in general and on balance, it is better for children if their parents have a legal union.

Other issues are;
- Should the state give anything to parents (of any family type) who can afford to raise their own children?

I think it should give more to those children who need it most and none to high earners.
Ms Purple and I get around €500 a month in children’s allowance. While it helps it is not necessary and it would be better if it went to lower income children.

I say no because a) the state should not be trying to shape society and b) children are not necessarily always a positive contribution to society in themselves.

The state should be trying to shape society and it does so by enacting laws and redistributing wealth. Banning paedophilia is shaping society. Paying social welfare is shaping society.

 

[michaelm]

The constitution as mentioned earlier should be fluid and reflect the current society. Not what was perceived to be best practice 100 years ago.

I believe that the majority would agree to a change in it(The Constitution) to allow for a broader definition of families (i.e. to get rid of the restriction to married couples in the description of the family).

Lads, the APOCC has already been down this road and were swamped by submissions urging them not to tinker with the definition of the family. There is no appetite for changing Article 41, the only possible change I could see made is the word 'woman' being changed to 'parent'. MissRibena: to clear up any confusion, when I suggest that the State should discriminate in favour of families I am talking about a married male/female couple with children.

 

[MissRibena]

Using the law to protect children from paedophiles is not shaping society. There is a clear danger, there is clear harm and there is clear reason for the state to intervene on behalf of society and prevent the paedophile from action.

Caring for the sick/young/elderly/infirm/unemployed by way of redistribution of wealth while not as clear is still not shaping society. The alternative of leaving them to die (or suffer or starve to death exposed to the elements), while we prosper is not very far away (in cruelty terms) from allowing an active paedophile roam the streets.

Marriage or no marriage; there is no clear harm or danger. No one can prove that there is any tangible suffering caused whether the parents of children choose to marry or not. There is no reason for the state to intervene and encourage it one way or another. That is the type of shaping of society that I'm against.

Rebecca

 

[Sol28]

Lads, the APOCC has already been down this road and were swamped by submissions urging them not to tinker with the definition of the family. There is no appetite for changing Article 41, the only possible change I could see made is the word 'woman' being changed to 'parent'. MissRibena: to clear up any confusion, when I suggest that the State should discriminate in favour of families I am talking about a married male/female couple with children.

Submissions from the vocal minority is not the same as a consensus from all people. I know so many people who would be in favour of changing the current constitution. But they would not have the moral outrage that would prompt them to write in. However in a referendum they would vote for change. The church(s) is instrumental in getting their hard core elements to express their disgust and outrage at such changes - this is not the same as public perception.

More polls have been conducted by national organisations/newspapers concerning this issue - and the trend has been rising upwards over the past 5-10 years so that at the moment there seems to be a 50/50 split, from a zero standpoint a few years ago. Let the people decide not the religious zealots.

 

[Purple]

Caring for the sick/young/elderly/infirm/unemployed by way of redistribution of wealth while not as clear is still not shaping society.

So the introduction of a welfare state did not change society? We'll have to disagree on that one.

Marriage or no marriage; there is no clear harm or danger. No one can prove that there is any tangible suffering caused whether the parents of children choose to marry or not. There is no reason for the state to intervene and encourage it one way or another. That is the type of shaping of society that I'm against.

That's your opinion and it may well be valid. The states view is informed by the constitution and while that constitution is as it is the state is correct, within that framework, to do as it does.

 

[michaelm]

Hey Sol28, everyone has an equal opportunity to make such submissions be they Homo, Hetro, Metro, or indeed as you put it, religious zealots. Had there been a huge wave of submissions in line with your wants then I suspect you might have trumpeted the fact in this thread.

 

[Sol28]

Hey Sol28, everyone has an equal opportunity to make such submissions be they Homo, Hetro, Metro, or indeed as you put it, religious zealots. Had there been a huge wave of submissions in line with your wants then I suspect you might have trumpeted the fact in this thread.

That's what we had GLEN for. Its harder to change something than to leave as is - hence submissions that support the current regime get greater weight. It may not be stated as such -but its a natural bias.

One way or other, civil partnerships are on their way in. The Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan case, The Good Friday agreement guaranteeing the same civil liberties north and south, Bertie opening the offices of GLEN (the key proponents of gay Marriage), the EU recognising partnerships in Denmark, Spain, UK etc... It may not come in in the form of Marriage in the first instance - but that too will change.

As more and more people see that gay partnerships can be as loving and as natural as straight ones and once validated and in the open as equal couples there will be less opposition. That is as long as the Pope doesn't get his way.

 

[MissRibena]

Purple, I know what the law is. I'm just presenting a case against it. And I'm arguing that the state's current view is not reflected in the law, that the law needs to be updated. Whether you agree or not is separate.

We, as a state, may have taken actions to protect some citizens and thereby changed society in the process, but the intent of the action was to provent suffering (death, poverty, pain etc). The case with marriage is different as I outlined in my earlier post (no. 32) as marriage neither harms nore protects it should therefore be non of the state's business.

Again, I don't care if people want to get married. I just think that their status as parents (and that of their children) should be take precedence in the eyes of the state and that their marital status should be disregarded.

Rebecca