View Full Version : Bertie and Gay Rights
Anyone see the interview with Bertie last night saying that he thinks gay couples should have the same tax and inheritance rights as married couples? I totally agree with the point, but he's the thing Bertie - you've been in fookin power since 1997 so do something about it you untc. Takes a couple to go to court in a bid to get those rights, then the weekend after Bertie plays his pink card :rolleyes:
And while I'm on an anti-Government rant, can we please put down the PD's. Every contentious issue they're on TV and Radio acting if though they're in opposition. You're not, you're in the fookin Government along with FF. Government policy is your policy, so stop polluting the airwaves with a different line to FF. Prop them up, share the blame.
Éanna
15/11/2004, 11:27 AM
impossible to argue with any of that. they're some shower :rolleyes:
max power
15/11/2004, 11:34 AM
but its not just gay couples but hetrosexual couple in long term realationships living together.....some people don't believe in marraige but have to get married to obtain the rights of a married couple even if they have been living together for a number of years.
liamon
15/11/2004, 11:52 AM
I'm married, so I think I should get loads of tax breaks and every one else should sod off and live in poverty. :)
But seriously, I think the reason that married people get tax breaks is to help maintain the family structure, as this is the centre of society. Family units offer social support, care for the elderly, etc. So it makes some sort of sense to help out married people.
If you're not willing to get married and commit to each other, then don't expect the government to commit to helping you out. All this "not believing in marriage" stuff is nonsense. Either you're in it for the long haul or you're not.
Which brings me back to gay rights. IMO, gay coupes should be able to marry and get the same rights as hetero couples.
eoinh
15/11/2004, 11:55 AM
but its not just gay couples but hetrosexual couple in long term realationships living together.....some people don't believe in marraige but have to get married to obtain the rights of a married couple even if they have been living together for a number of years.
Correct!
Ive been living with my partner for seven years and we have a better relationship than most married couples. Marraige is just a religious ceremony. Were supposed to live in a republic for gods sake.
So your logic is that he shouldn't do or say anything from now until the end of their tenure, because it could have been done before now?
Or that the government bizarrely shouldn't react to High Court judgments - we would have been spared that whole messy X Case business too...
BTW, exactly what did the opposition do for gay rights when they were in power. And in your world, how was that 'not doing anything at all' so much better than doing something now?
Since our nation was founded the government has reacted to decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court. I know people have a particular dislike of Bertie, to the point of bending logic, but I really don't see why this government is expected to react differently...
Should a Government be reactionary or proactive? Gay rights has been an issue for many years, Bertie could've come out many times supporting Gay marriage/union in terms of tax and inheritance. He has the power to change the law to recognise them, if he thinks that's right. Instead of waiting till it's a more promenient news story.
How long can you continue to use the "What did the opposition do" line? The main opposition party have a published policy, and it was a manifesto pledge of the second opposition policy where am I likely to find the main Government parties policy? (seriously, I have looked and can find nothing).
Better link to the opposition parties policies....
Labour (2002 Manifesto) (http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/manifesto_4_disability.pdf) and Fine Gael (http://www.finegael.ie/newsuploads/CivilPartnership.pdf)
How long can you continue to use the "What did the opposition do" line? ALl FFers use the "what about the speck in the oppositions eye, while ignoring the mountain in my own" argument.
They conviently ignore the fact that FF has been in Government for the majority of the life of this state, but yet you can count on one hand the number of new ideas/genuinely innovative policies they have brought forward.
I can think of free secondary school education, certain rights for old age pensioners, entry to the EEC andthe plastic bag tax and.....?
To be fair though, gay rights has hardly been a pressing issue in this country up to now, outside of David Norris's case, no party ever really needed to do anything, so it will be interesting to see if Ahern really does something about it, not simply mouthed off about whatever happens to be topical.
The real issue here is about non-married couples, and we should'nt get allow this to be turned into a "gay" issue.
IF Ahern actually does something, fair play to him, and his government.
The real issue here is about non-married couples, and we should'nt get allow this to be turned into a "gay" issue.
Well I actually disagree, as non-married hetrosexual couples could get married and enjoy these rights. Gay couples cannot.
Any solution is going to be some kind of civil union, based around a civil marriage i.e. people are going to have to display some committment above living with someone. The FG proposal is basically the same as a civil marriage, without conferring the same adoption rights as marriage. Similarly, on the breakdown of the relationship there would be a divorce type process. It would apply to both gay and hetrosexual couples however.
Well I actually disagree, as non-married hetrosexual couples could get married and enjoy these rights. Gay couples cannot.
Why should i be coerced into getting married by the state? I agree that its ridiculous that gay people cant get married under civil law
Why should i be coerced into getting married by the state? I agree that its ridiculous that gay people cant get married under civil law
You're not, but you're going to have to prove a committment to get the tax breaks, and that's going to be through some form of civil union (i.e. basically marriage by another name).
Well I actually disagree, as non-married hetrosexual couples could get married and enjoy these rights.They could, but suppose one person is married and seperated?
They would have to pay a fair amount of money to get a divorce, the other spouse may not be too accomodating, and some couples simply don't want to go the marriage route.
A lot of people are happy to be together, and don't need official Church/State confirmation of that.
They could, but suppose one person is married and seperated?
They would have to pay a fair amount of money to get a divorce, the other spouse may not be too accomodating, and some couples simply don't want to go the marriage route.
A lot of people are happy to be together, and don't need official Church/State confirmation of that.
I totally appreciate that, but frankly if there isn't some kind of civil union it will just be abused by friends taking advantage of it. There will have to be some bit of paper to qualify... Marriage Lite, is the way some commentators have described the proposal.
I totally appreciate that, but frankly if there isn't some kind of civil union it will just be abused by friends taking advantage of it. There will have to be some bit of paper to qualify... Marriage Lite, is the way some commentators have described the proposal.OK. I see what you are getting at.
There would have to be some sort of qualification process, the most basic term being they live at the same address, but not necessarily some type of marriage contract, or one that involves some sort of exchange of vows. If the contract is then broken later on, the terms will be no longer available to either party.
OK. I see what you are getting at.
There would have to be some sort of qualification process, the most basic term being they live at the same address, but not necessarily some type of marriage contract, or one that involves some sort of exchange of vows. If the contract is then broken later on, the terms will be no longer available to either party.
So some way of making a commitment, without actually making a commitment? :)
liamon
15/11/2004, 4:42 PM
Ive been living with my partner for seven years and we have a better relationship than most married couples. Marraige is just a religious ceremony. Were supposed to live in a republic for gods sake.
It doesn't have to be a religious ceremony. That's why we have registry office weddings. If you want legal rights to tax breaks, then you have to legally commit to form some form of civil union. I don't think that's unreasonable.
I'm married, so I think I should get loads of tax breaks and every one else should sod off and live in poverty. :)
But seriously, I think the reason that married people get tax breaks is to help maintain the family structure, as this is the centre of society. Family units offer social support, care for the elderly, etc. So it makes some sort of sense to help out married people.
If you're not willing to get married and commit to each other, then don't expect the government to commit to helping you out. All this "not believing in marriage" stuff is nonsense. Either you're in it for the long haul or you're not.
Which brings me back to gay rights. IMO, gay coupes should be able to marry and get the same rights as hetero couples.
nonsense. people can be a family without getting married. IMO this idea of Civil ceremonies is a joke too- marriage is a religious thing and while I have no interest in it (or any religious institution for that matter) i think it should be preserved as such. there should be some way for couples (hetero/homo, who cares) who do not want to or cannot get married to make a legal committment to each other and get the same tax rights etc
It must also be remembered that for the purposes of Social Welfare payments, co-habiting couples are classed as a family unit, but considered seperate for tax purposes. This is patently unfair, and as far as I know, a result of McCreevy's tax individualisation scheme.
If your partner is unemployed and you become unemployed, you will get a reduced sw rate. If you then get a job, you only get a single person's allowance, even though you have children.
anto eile
16/11/2004, 2:36 PM
liamon
thats rubbish.you dont have to believe in some stupid religion to want to spend your life with someone.fianna fáil catholic church discrimating against the rest
liamon
17/11/2004, 10:22 AM
liamon
thats rubbish.you dont have to believe in some stupid religion to want to spend your life with someone.fianna fáil catholic church discrimating against the rest
Go back and read my post again. I never said you had to believe in any religion. That's why you can have a civil ceremony.
.... IMO this idea of Civil ceremonies is a joke too- .... there should be some way for couples (hetero/homo, who cares) who do not want to or cannot get married to make a legal committment to each other and get the same tax rights etc
Why is a civil ceremony a joke? I've got friends who are atheists, yet they wanted to get married as a sign of long term commitment to each other. For them, a civil ceremony was the obvious option. Or is there marriage a joke? I don't think so. It's an option for couples (hetero/homo, who cares) who do not want to or cannot get married (in a church) to make a legal committment to each other and get the same tax rights etc.
Ok, it's not yet a legal option for gay couples, but it should be.
Why is a civil ceremony a joke? I've got friends who are atheists, yet they wanted to get married as a sign of long term commitment to each other. For them, a civil ceremony was the obvious option. Or is there marriage a joke? I don't think so. It's an option for couples (hetero/homo, who cares) who do not want to or cannot get married (in a church) to make a legal committment to each other and get the same tax rights etc.
but marriage is a religious thing really isn't it. I think there should be some form of civil ceremony for people to commit to each other, who don't want to do so in a church. I myself am an atheist and would be totally opposed to the idea of getting married in a church. I just think that it should be called something other than "marriage", because that is a religious thing. thats all.
but marriage is a religious thing really isn't it.
I doubt it is Eanna. I would say it predates organised religion. Defo predates christianity.
I doubt it is Eanna. I would say it predates organised religion. Defo predates christianity.I would think the concept of "marriage" goes back to the time of the first social groupings of people, when the idea of an exclusive relationship between a man and woman was seen as a good way to avoid fighting over partners within the group and also that children would be cared for properly by it's own mother and father.
liamon
18/11/2004, 5:49 PM
.... I just think that it should be called something other than "marriage", because that is a religious thing. thats all.
So your only problem is with the word "marriage".
Get over it.
So your only problem is with the word "marriage".
Get over it.
Believe me, its not something I'm losing any sleep over. I just think its a way that a solution can be found to suit everyone.
- marriage remains a church thing, churches decide who is/isn't eligible.
- all other couples can avail of a civil ceremony, and legal rights pertaining to it, whether hetero/homsexual.
Just think its a good solution, thats all
Aberdonian Stu
19/11/2004, 9:21 AM
With regards to all this first of all the state my case point
Registry office marriage should be available to all (homo/hetero)
Civil Unions are an interesting concept but the legislation will have to be well written, which let's face it is never a guarantee no matter who is in governemnt. The reason being that when a marriage breaks up there is the option of divorce available, but in this country that process takes four years. All legislation so far for support payments etc cover the concepts of divorce and separation (bit of a ronseal this, separating without the legal end to the marriage). WIth Civil Unions the form of the cessation of relationship will have to be clarifed before they could be introduced.
WIth Civil Unions the form of the cessation of relationship will have to be clarifed before they could be introduced.
Well the FG proposal is a "divorce" process as well....
Aberdonian Stu
19/11/2004, 10:42 AM
Is it still the same four year malarkey. That's what was brought in in 1994, bit of a sham. I understand the logistical logic of having some form of delay, although this delay's reasons for exisiting have sweet fa to do with logisitcs, but surely we should be able to sort out the process in period more like 18 months to 2 years. I think that the very first divorce granted in the history of the state was within the four year period. But that was an emergency act as the husband/ex-husband was near death (he died within days of remarriage from what I recall) and the ex-wife, I assume, must have co-operated but I think the legislation is still murky on this area.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.