Here's the top of the bottom

[Leslie]

of the slippery slope.


I hope it flies.

A lesbian couple who wed in Canada can seek to have their union legally recognised in Ireland, a judge ruled on Tuesday in a case he predicted would have deep consequences for this predominantly Catholic country.


High Court Justice Liam McKechnie said lawyers representing Ann Louise Gilligan and Katherine Zappone had presented an arguable case that merited a full hearing, likely to take place next year.

The couple - who were married in British Columbia in September 2003 within months of the legalisation of same-sex marriage there - are the first gay couple in Ireland to go to court to seek state recognition of a foreign marriage.

They are demanding that Ireland's tax collection agency, the Revenue Commissioners, allow them to file as a married couple rather than as two single people, which involves paying more tax.

More than just tax

But the judge noted that the case "isn't simply about tax bands." He noted that in a country where homosexuality itself was outlawed until 1993, any move to accord gay couples the same legal rights as husbands and wives would have "profound ethical, cultural and religious" ramifications.

He also cautioned that his ruling offered no indication as to whether the couple's complaint would be upheld or rejected, merely that it contained sufficient merit to be heard.

Zappone, a member of Ireland's government-appointed Human Rights Commission, and Gilligan, a Dublin philosophy lecturer, have been partners for 23 years and live together in Brittas, a beachside resort south of Dublin. They have worked together on poverty research and feminist rights projects since the early 1980s.

Their lead lawyer, Gerard Hogan, argued on Monday that neither Ireland's 1937 constitution nor its more recent tax laws explicitly defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman.

Hogan, one of Ireland's most prominent experts on constitutional law, said the Revenue Commissioners "have discriminated against them in an unjust and invidious manner, in breach of their constitutional rights and the European Convention on Human Rights."

He conceded that the Irish Constitution drafted 67 years ago by then-Prime Minister Eamon de Valera undoubtedly presumed that "marriage" meant between a husband and wife, but argued that constitutional law should not be trapped within "the permafrost of 1937."

The case, if granted a full hearing on Tuesday, could have major implications for Ireland's unmarried couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, in this predominantly Catholic country of 3.9 million. The 2001 census identified 77 600 households involving unmarried partners, among them 1 300 homosexual couples. Under Irish law, married couples enjoy advantages over unmarried couples, who pay higher income and inheritance taxes.

linkie

 

[Gato_Solo]

of the slippery slope.


I hope it flies.


linkie

One question...If they knew that what they are doing is illegal in Ireland, then why are they doing it? I think they should be booted out of Ireland, and sent back to whence they came.

 

[Leslie]

It doesn't seem illegal. There is no man/woman designation anywhere. Just 'unheard of'

neither Ireland's 1937 constitution nor its more recent tax laws explicitly defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman.

 

[Gonz]

Which is precisely where the left & right seperate. You (personally & liberals in general) believe there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage. We (me & conservatives in general) think that thousands of years of tradition should not be treated so lightly & throwen away because somebody has a whim.

Marriage has, traditionally & historically, been between a man & a woman.

 

[Leslie]

There are many traditions which have turned out to be utter crap.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

oh this isn't the first try.

This has been refuted over the ages, we just forget. It seems that everytime a vote comes up it get trounced.

It's nothing new, just more forcing of an issue.

 

[Leslie]

Didn't get trounced here last time it came up.

and the "legally married in another country" is gonna put a whole new spin on it.

 

[Gonz]

It's 0/(about)16 here.

 

[Leslie]

That's to get married.

Has an already legally married elsewhere situation come up yet?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

We not need to recognize that marraige here.

Italy has just said "No" too.

Whats so intersting about it?

 

[Leslie]

Italy said no to marrying them.

Recognizing or not recognizing valid marriages is something else altogether.

 

[Gonz]

I'd have to imagine that if the government won't marry 'em, it won't recognize the marriage either.

 

[Leslie]

What about marriages where the age restriction differs? Do those not get recognized?

I'm thinking on the flipside...that it just might end up slipping through...unless they're gonna ban all marriages done outside the country.

 

[Gonz]

If, say, a 12yo girl & her 30 yo husband come to the US, I'm not sure if that would be recognized. Extremes sometimes aren't.

 

[Leslie]

It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out over time.

Canada - spreading our virtues one country at a time.

 

[A.B.Normal]

Canada - spreading our virtues one country at a time.

niiiiice

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

neither Ireland's 1937 constitution nor its more recent tax laws explicitly defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman.

I would imagine that the reason for this is, in 1937, the thought of men marrying men and women marrying women was considered ridiculous.

Some of us still think it is...

 

[Leslie]

and some of us think that continuing to consider it ridiculous is ridiculous.

 

[Gonz]

Liberal.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Not a problem with me. You say potato, I say tater...

Differences of opinion, different moral values, different priorities in life...whatever the case may be, differences are fine. I most likely won't change yourmind on it, and you most assuredly won't change mine.