Why don’t women who suffered the ‘Marriage Ban’ sue the State?

Well, just as the thread title suggests, why not?

These women were stitched-up by Catholic Ireland and are, in all likelihood, poorer than they might otherwise be.

Here is what I know of the scheme from talking to two elderly relatives who were impacted by it.

1. They were obliged to resign civil service jobs when they got married but they got their accrued pension rights paid out immediately. For some this was a 25% deposit on a house in Dublin;
2. They probably had more kids than they would have if they'd held on to their jobs;
3. Some took up work post-1974 when the kids were raised and built up contributory pension rights that way.

Neither of these two women were particularly bothered by it either at the time or afterwards. It was just "the way it was" and they got on with their lives.

Gordon Gekko said:

Well, just as the thread title suggests, why not?

These women were stitched-up by Catholic Ireland and are, in all likelihood, poorer than they might otherwise be.

Click to expand...

Nothing much to do with Catholicism. Most secular western countries did likewise and some a lot worse.

Gordon Gekko said:

Well, just as the thread title suggests, why not?

These women .... are, in all likelihood, poorer than they might otherwise be.

Click to expand...

Are you offering to stump up the legal fees?

Who would they sue? The state- sorry it was the law of the land put in place by a democratically elected government. The Church, why? They didn't write the laws. Lets not forget as well that a lot of women may not have wanted their female colleagues working outside the home with men, taking a mans job etc etc.

I'm not agreeing with the Ban, but it wasn't illegal and as another poster put it, in line with a lot of other countries around the world (eg the UK) who were not as influenced by the Church

I was watching an episode of the Good Life last night where Margo couldn't buy something because Jerry (Husband) wouldn't sign a cheque for it. that was dated I think from 77 and after the ban had been lifted. Times were different. Not right but different

Of course, back in those dark days, a woman couldn't identify as a man which would have solved that problem!

And what about those chaps who wanted to identify as a woman but couldn't. Maybe they should sue too?

Lots of things were legal in the past but have given rise to compensation.

Slavery being one.

(I’m not comparing the two)

In hindsight I think my mother deliberately didn't get married until her late 20s due to marriage ban, she was a teacher and it was lifted for teachers in 1958, lo and behold she got married late that year. She was the independent type and it had taken a lot to qualify as a teacher at that time, oil rations from neighbours used to do lessons to get scholarship to local Irish boarding school and onwards to Carysfort, eldest and only one who got that sort of education, wouldn't have been giving that up for any man!

She had been previously engaged to a German and would have been moving there where there was no ban which I'm sure influenced her decision to marry him but she changed her mind! Met my father shortly afterwards and they were married within the year. Can't ask her unfortunately as she died nearly 40 yrs ago but looking back now I'd be fairly sure this was the case.

Gordon Gekko said:

Lots of things were legal in the past but have given rise to compensation.

Click to expand...

Tell me something that was an explicitly, indubitably legal policy in the history of the state but which subsequently gave rise to compensation to individuals. Not something where the state was negligent or where there was legal ambiguity. Just the state implementing the law in a non-discriminatory way.

It's not a trick question. I'd be keen to hear examples

On a related note - one group of people I feel are currently being discriminated against are unmarried fathers. They don't get automatic guardianship of their children whereas a married father does.

For reference.

Is this not discrimination based on civil status?

Páid said:

On a related note - one group of people I feel are currently being discriminated against are unmarried fathers. They don't get automatic guardianship of their children whereas a married father does.

For reference.

Is this not discrimination based on civil status?

Click to expand...

The reason is pretty simple - it's easy to validate who the mother is since there are (generally) multiple witness to the birth.

I grant you that making the automatic assumption that a married man is in fact the biological parent is something of a patriarchal hangover.

Given the increase in AI and surrogacy, it's likely only a matter of time before we all carry a 'DNA' card attached to our birth certificate.

Agreed.

Every child has a biological father but if the father is unmarried his rights are not guaranteed. In my view it is actually gender and civil status based discrimination.

1. I can remember when the ‘marriage ban’ was in full swing. It started when women had to give up work immediately on marriage. It was later extended to two years after marriage. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the situation. It was the way things were.
2. In the mid seventies Ireland was surviving from real recession after real recession and catastrophic unemployment was the rule rather than the exception. Men were seen as the breadwinner of the family even if it were husband and wife only family. Newspapers were denuded of jobs availability.
3. A gratuity was paid to married women on becoming unemployed. My opinion is this was put towards a deposit on a house or paid for the furniture etc. Many women just aspired to the gratuity without question. Even as a union rep I cannot remember one case of anybody (male or female) challenging.
4. Back then not too many couples had a car, later some couples could buy a car and the male member generally drove it. Most wives did not drive. Some gratuities paid for the car. Even the prams resembled canoes on wheels.
5. The general belief back then was women were mainly responsible for rearing children while “he” remained as sole earner. Have a look at some of the women’s’ magazines back then which contained articles that wouldn’t see the light of day in the 21st century.
6. I can remember a full Late Late Show being devoted to the appalling unemployment situation and male university students screaming for all women to give up their jobs on marriage to assist “Ireland.” That particular show was a shambles.
7. On giving up work many women became paid childminders back then and for little remuneration.
8. Incidentally, women who ran an account with the major shopping outlets needed the signature of her husband.

The OP is asking for monetary compensation for what occurred; best of luck with that. It’s part of what was extensively expected at the time.

Please note I am not supporting what happened and I’m merely reporting what went on.

I, like thousands of others am affected by the marriage bar having worked in the civil service and resigned on marriage prior to 1974 when the bar was lifted. Like many of my colleagues we received what was known as the "Gratuity" on exit. This was one months pay for every year worked.

The main problem was the effect this had on State pension and there were no Homemakers credits in those days for stay-at-home Mums

Black Sheep said:

I, like thousands of others am affected by the marriage bar having worked in the civil service and resigned on marriage prior to 1974 when the bar was lifted. Like many of my colleagues we received what was known as the "Gratuity" on exit. This was one months pay for every year worked.

The main problem was the effect this had on State pension and there were no Homemakers credits in those days for stay-at-home Mums

Click to expand...

Some female civil/public servants who received the “gratuity” returned to civil/public work later had to repay “the grat” at compound interest rate. Some had it deducted from their retirement lump sum.

Páid said:

Agreed.

Every child has a biological father but if the father is unmarried his rights are not guaranteed. In my view it is actually gender and civil status based discrimination.

Click to expand...

I think you are proposing that a man not married or in civil partnership with the mother can be granted automatic guardianship?

I'd go the other direction and remove the automatic assumption that a married man is the biological parent.

DNA tests all round before birth cert is issued.

To return to topic - who's going to put up the money for the legal fees?

I am amused at Lepers comment about buying a car. Yes we did that too but when we went to have it insured the man in the insurance office told us that if "she" was not included the premium would be cheaper, to which I replied "We did not buy half a car"
BTW at that time one could walk into Dublin corporation office with 1Pound and walk out with a driving license for all categories

However the pension thing still bugs me especially as they refused to give me a statement of my class D payments

Leper said:

2. In the mid seventies Ireland was surviving from real recession after real recession and catastrophic unemployment was the rule rather than the exception.

Click to expand...

Off-topic, but this is false. There was no recession in the 70s. There was a bad recession in early 1980s, and very bad until 1986/87.

See table 6 here:

Did the marriage ban apply only in the public service?

In fifty years time, somebody will be asking, why don't the people who suffered homelessness during 2023 sue the state for being deprived of their right to a roof over their heads.
The way things are going they will probably be typing their post from their tent.