On that Constitutional point
There’s been a lot of discussion on Irish blogs about the civil partnership of Grainne Close and Shannon Sickels in Belfast yesterday with most commenters being very supportive of the couple and the move. In almost all cases, however, there have been references to whether anything analogous would be introduced here in (southern) Ireland. We know that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice are in favour of the introduction of something to protect queer couples in Ireland but there are constant references to the fact that anything analogous to marriage would require constitutional amendment. It ain’t necessarily so.
It is open to the Supreme Court to reinterpret marriage as between any two adults as opposed to being between a man and a woman. The Constitution merely lays down he importance of marriage from which a right to marry was extrapolated (Ryan v Attorney General) which was then defined as being between a man and a woman. Therefore it’s a case of judicial interpretation laid down at a time when the prospect of same-sex marriages was slight and the campaigns were for decriminalization as a first step in equal recognition and equal rights. If the Supreme Court chose to do so it could revise its definition of marriage to take into account contemporary social morality and force the repeal of s. 2(2)(e) Civil Registration Act 2004 which provides that marriage is between a man and a woman only:
It is open to the Supreme Court to reinterpret marriage as between any two adults as opposed to being between a man and a woman. The Constitution merely lays down he importance of marriage from which a right to marry was extrapolated (Ryan v Attorney General) which was then defined as being between a man and a woman. Therefore it’s a case of judicial interpretation laid down at a time when the prospect of same-sex marriages was slight and the campaigns were for decriminalization as a first step in equal recognition and equal rights. If the Supreme Court chose to do so it could revise its definition of marriage to take into account contemporary social morality and force the repeal of s. 2(2)(e) Civil Registration Act 2004 which provides that marriage is between a man and a woman only:
(2) For the purposes of this Act there is an impediment to a marriage if........(e) both parties are of the same sex.
Just a quick note to clarify that a constitutional referendum isn’t strictly necessary, although the likelihood of the Supreme Court following Canadian and South African examples is, probably, relatively low.
Blogs talking about this: Slugger O’Toole, Maman Poulet, United Irelander, Babblogue Blog, The Levee Breaks, BlankPaige , Voiced Thoughts, Letter to America, Wulfbeorn Watching, Rinceoir
Figured you'd be interested in my contribution
Posted by
Steven |
2:30 PM
I've added you
Posted by
F |
4:20 PM