Bertie and Gay Rights

[Éanna]

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.

[eoinh]

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.

[patsh]

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]

.... 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.

[Éanna]

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]

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.

[Macy]

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]

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.