Author
|
Topic: Ireland: talks underway to allow legal recognition of gay unions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795
|
posted 03 April 2006 07:49 PM
Ireland to move forward on gay civil partner bill
quote: Ireland will legalize civil partnerships for gay couples, Prime Minister Bertie Ahern pledged Monday as he opened new offices for the country's main homosexual rights pressure group.
Civil partnerships allow gay couples the same rights to inheritance, state benefits and other financial rights as held by married heterosexual couples.
"Sexual orientation cannot, and must not, be the basis of a second-class citizenship. Our laws have changed, and will continue to change, to reflect this principle," Ahern told an audience at Ireland's Gay and Lesbian Equality Network.
Ahern said it would be more difficult to legalize gay marriage in Ireland than it was in the United Kingdom, which approved the civil unions in December. Ireland's constitution has a clause requiring the predominantly Roman Catholic state to protect the institution of marriage, whereas the UK, which includes neighboring Northern Ireland, has no written constitution.
"This challenge, however, is one that the government is determined to meet. We are committed to legislating on this issue," said Ahern, who noted that a government-appointed group of experts would recommend several possible options in a report expected in November.
"Ahern said it would be more difficult to legalize gay marriage in Ireland than it was in the United Kingdom, which approved the civil unions in December."
*ahem*, Bertie... "gay marriage" is not recognized in the UK either -- it's "civil unions", which IS "the basis of a second-class citizenship". Sorry, thanks for trying, (really!), but you're not finished YET.
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 03 April 2006 08:31 PM
quote: Makwa:'Course there was that little thing called a civil war for four years.
It's not clear to me that the US President, Lincoln, started with the perspective of ending slavery but rather came around to that point of view during the course of the US Civil War. I think you will find that slavery was weakening as an institution in the years leading up to the war. Serfdom ended in Russia, for example, in 1861. The times, they were a' changing. I used the example or metaphor of slavery to make the point that jurisdictions with more just laws have a "subversive" effect on jurisdictions with more repressive laws. And if these matters involve income and revenue for governments ...well, we all know that governments, like the corporations they are modelled on, will more likely change unjust laws when those laws cause financial problems and cut into their revenue ....Edited to add: ....and disorganize property law, which is virtually sacred in our current world... [ 03 April 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795
|
posted 03 April 2006 09:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Not all slaves were allowed to marry. I'd be curious about sources on your claim.
It appears you are correct, to a large degree. I must have only been thinking of the more "civilized" slave-owners...
The American Slave Code in Theory and Practice: Its Distinctive Features Shown by Its Statutes, Judicial Decisions, and Illustrative Facts
quote: CHAPTER VII.
SLAVES CANNOT MARRY.
Being held as Property, and incapable of making any Contract, they cannot contract Marriage recognized by Law.
[...]
The slave has no rights. Of course he, or she, cannot have the rights of a husband, a wife. The slave is a chattel, and chattels do not marry.
The slave is not ranked among sentient beings, but among things, and things are not married.
Slaves are not people, in the eye of the law.
Freedmen's Bureau
quote: Marriage between slaves was not legally recognized. Slaves requested permission from their masters to be allowed to marry and the recognition of the union only came from within the slave community. The slave marriage ceremony, if one was held at all, varied from the couple jumping over a broomstick together to exchanging vows in front of a white minister. Whatever the nature of the wedding ceremony, slave marriages ultimately depended on the will of the masters. Some slaves were forced into "marriage" for breeding purposes. (King 64, Owens 93, Unwritten 1) Husbands, wives, and children were often separated when sold. To many whites, the slave family consisted of transient members who could be easily exchanged emotionally by the slave as they could physically by the master. Because of this, slaves obtained a reputation among whites as being immoral and devoid of family values.
[ 03 April 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|