Civil Partnership

Suddenly, everyone’s equal. That can’t be right, can it?

The Civil Partnership Bill was tonight passed into law, despite protests outside the Dáil.

I’m glad.

It isn’t an ideal solution for the many people I know who needed to have their lives regularised, but it’s a step forward from where they were.  A big step.

I could live with it.

In time, our society will move forward again, and will understand better that how you live your life is your business, as long as you don’t try to live anyone else’s, but for now, this is as good as it gets, and I’ll have to admit something I never thought I’d be saying.

Even though I detest everything this government stand for, they have stood up to the bishops and the crazies, and they have brought this legislation home.  For that, they deserve credit.

What a strange country.

What an extraordinary thing that we needed a law making everyone equal.

Wasn’t that obvious already?

20 thoughts on “Civil Partnership

  1. Been waiting for this day for a long time Bock. Very happy. Great scenes in the public gallery this evening. And yes they are a shower of cunts but fair dues on this one

  2. I had written a draft blog but blogger is being an arse, so here, for what it is worth is what I think…..

    The Civil Partnership Bill was passed through this evening, giving rights to unmarried and same-sex couples. Another step on the road to proper equality. An FG senator asked for a “Conscience Clause” allowing people to opt out of performing certain ceremonies if they were offended. Fuck them, let’s not legislate for mindless bigotry parading as “conscience”

    If they had any conscience they would realise that there is too much fucking hate in the world already and any opportunity to celebrate love, outside of marriage or between men or between women, should be welcomed and encouraged. Oh and finally, and once again, remember that most gay people have straight parents, so that’s another argument you can shove up your arse, pardon the pun

  3. That conscience clause talk is dishonest horseshit. Public servants have to do their job or be sacked. The only time you hear of conscience clauses is when some fucker wants to do down some other fucker. Nonsense.

  4. Will they change the definition of a ” Family ” in the constitution ? Because it needs to be changed.

  5. And it seems that it was passed by unanimous acclaim not requiring a vote. I was surprised I would have thought that the loonies would have got at least some of the T.D.‘s .Some people just do not have €50,000 to piss up on one day and a piece of paper.

  6. Let’s see if the ‘conscience’ brigade has the courage of its convictions and actually defied the law. I suspect not. It’s one thing to be an armchair bigot; another thing to go to court and oublicly defend your bigotry.

  7. It just goes to show that the loony end of Catholic conservatism is loud but with very little support.

    I guess this …. government …. is ….. to be ….. applauded …. for pushing this …. through. Jeez, that was difficult to type.

    So we’re at about 1980 by the rest of Europe’s standards. Now can we let gay couples get married and adopt children if they want to? That would bring us into the 21st century, by gum!

  8. Sorry Bock off topic but this may be of interest to you.
    Those scrutinizing the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court might want to pay some attention to the recent decision of her office—the office of the solicitor general of the United States—to take the side of the Vatican in the continuing scandal of child rape and the associated scandal of a coordinated obstruction of justice.

  9. There is something about all of this that I don’t get. If its all about preventing discrimination in terms of tax, pensions inheritance etc for people who live together, then what has sexuality got to do with it? Why does the bill restrict (I’m assuming here, I havent read it) these rights to couples of one kind or another? Why does not it just allow people to designate someone as their “significant other” for tax, inheritance purposes etc., a brother, a sister, a friend? Why should they have to live together even (many married couples dont live together)? Why even limit it to two people? I cant see the logic.

  10. As far as know, the bill allows for cohabiting people in non-sexual relationships to form a civil partnership as well.

  11. The full text of the bill is available on Jurist legal news. written of course in “legal speak” . However as far as I understand it Brothers and Sisters or Brother and Brother are precluded from entering into a Civil Partnership. Having everyone in the neighbourhood as a Civil Partner is not allowed either. As always open to correction.

  12. Everyone in the neighbourhood you say? That’s a shame, could have been interesting to see what the tax implications of that would have been.

  13. Dan Boyle is on newstalk right now claiming that this Bill was pushed by the Greens – only saw light of day due to the insistence of the Greens!
    No kudos to FF afterall then?

  14. Mairéad it seems from reports that at least three F,F, Senators will either abstain or vote against the Bill. It does seem that there is a lot of confusion about this Bill. As I understand it , perhaps a form of marriage? If a cohabitating couple of ,whatever sexual persuasion , wish to declare their relationship they may now do so. However it is not allowed to “Marry” a sibling or Parent or any other close relative and therefore not allowed to enter into a Civil Partnership with them. .As I understand the current Law, incest, polygamy and any form of sexual relationship with under eighteen year olds is illegal and shall remain so under this Bill.

  15. All attention is focussed on same sex couples, and fair play to them if they want to get married, let them. It’s also good to see the church get put in it’s place.

    But I wouldn’t be too quick dishing out the praise just yet. This bill has a number of flaws that will affect all unmarried couples, whether they want to be affected or not. It automatically puts property rights on an equal footing with marrriage with marriage for cohabiting couples of five years or more. Now if people want to do that then it’s their choice, not one that the state automatically takes the right upon itself to make for them.

    As one letter writer put it in yesterdays independent:

    “Non-marriage will become pseudo-marriage and with pseudo-marriage comes pseudo-divorce and massive transfer of wealth from hard-working men to hardly working women.

    Gold-diggers used to have to get a man up the aisle in order to steal his kids, house and money.

    The Government has helpfully removed that obstacle.”

    The only winners will be lawyers – quelle surprise!

  16. I take it that polygamous hetero- or same-sex partnerships won’t be accepted. Tough luck for Mormons and some people from African and Arabian societies where polygamy is tolerated. Tough luck for Inuits (Eskimos to you) and Himalayan nomads who enjoy polyandry for geographical and economic reasons. The slow steam roller of ‘equality’ will continue to chug chug along.

  17. Mark as I understand it Civil Partnership, like Marriage, has to be entered into by two consenting adults. Therefore be very careful who you choose.

    Benno you are not even allowed have a Civil Partnership with your mistress while still married. Spoilsports!
    As always open to correction.

  18. I wasn’t demanding equality for partnerships with mistresses, Gary. In law mistresses can’t have the same rights as persons in registered partnerships. Nevertheless on compassionate grounds I think there could be a state clandestine registration scheme, MCRS, for mistresses and a voluntary insurance scheme – MVI possibly on an analogy with VHI – in case the male master dies and leaves everything to family members.

    What I implied was that the bigamy laws be eventually repealed so that men and women could register polygamous or polyandrous lawful hetero- and same-sex partnerships. This would facilitate the integration of traditional Mormons, Inuits and Himalayan nomads into an inclusive, multicultural Ireland that some future lesbian President of Ireland can publicly celebrate on Diversity Day. I’d be willing to lay a long ante post bet that Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium will head the rest of the world on this one.

  19. Benno an interesting idea. However I am not sure how this would work out in practice. For the sake of argument suppose a seventy year old man entered into Civil Partnership with six twenty year old people of either sex. On his passing are they all entitled to a state and company pension? How would his estate be divided? An equal share? Or should the state give each “spouse” the full value of the estate? I feel your proposal requires some serious thought.

  20. I’m with you on the need for serious thought on the property and other implications for hetero- and same-sex multi-spouse, multicultural partnerships, Gary. I think serious thought needs to be applied to the social logic of Equality of Cohabitation laws. My proposal anticipates the logic of jurisprudential and human rights development that, admittedly, lies way way down the track for Ireland. Vanguard thinking eventually becomes outmoded and is ultimately ditched as ‘reactionary’. This applies in politics, economics, the arts, urban planning and social morality.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.