22 Jul 2009
The M word
I believe that there may be many paths
towards full marriage. In this entry, I hope to attempt to think
outside of the box so to speak.
The following represents a layman's
view of the law. I fully expect, nay, I fully invite others
especially people of a legal background to react and tell me where I
am wrong and where I am right.
First of all, what's the deal with all
this unconstitutional business? I recall a case that was brought
before the courts shortly before the 1997 Presidential Election where
someone claimed that both the entire Robinson presidency and indeed
the candidacy of the four females seeking the highest office in the
land was invalid as the 1937 constitution refers to the president as
a “he”. It says “he” shall sit for a maximum of two seven
year terms etc. The courts ruled that the 1937 constitution was
written in the language of an age where women rarely contemplated
running for office and the prospect of a female president was up
there with science fiction. Thus the case was thrown out. Bearing
this in mind, couldn't a silver tongued gay friendly solicitor easily
argue that the impact of any references to the family on gay marriage
legislation is irrelevant as it harks from an ages where gay
visibility was microscopic?
Am I right or am I right?
I'll introduce my second idea with a
question. Where has most of the progress in social legislation in
Ireland come from since the 1970s? From our friend's on the mainland
in Brussels mostly. It's because of the Norris V Ireland case that
we're legally allowed be naughty at all and it's due to the Treaty of
Amsterdam that we have equal employment rights. Would it not be
possible for the same aforementioned silver tongued gay friendly
solicitor to retrieve some uber egalitarian clause of Treaty law that
could be inferred to mean that prohibition of marriage is a big no
no. I'll concede that a ruling from Europe that would effectively
push gay marriage throughout the whole continent would open massive
cultural divides in Europe. Not so much in terms of LGBT issues but
more so in terms of attitudes in varying member states with regard to
how far European integration should go. The EU interfering in social
policy sets off alarm bells for many and this method has the seeds of
derailing the whole European project. It opens a debate for another
entry in another blog.
My final argument is perhaps the most
up in the air. Let's go to the people. Let's have a referendum and
see what people thing about same sex marriage. Many if not all
current opinion polls would say that public opinion is in favour of
civil marriage. It is, of course the nature of political campaigns
that public opinion flips and turns as time goes by but I think that
the organisations that have been involved with the campaign for
marriage so far, such as LGBT noise and Marriage Equality have shown
themselves to be formidable organisations and could cope with the
conservatives that inevitably pop out of the wood work against the
motion.
As you can see these are back-of-the
envelope style arguments that need, but also illicit, I feel, further
consideration. So I would really appreciate user comments on this
one.