Zappone/Gilligan Supreme Court Appeal Date Set

M

MrFunkyBoogaloo

Irish Times said:
A five judge Supreme Court will next February hear an appeal by a lesbian couple against a High Court ruling that they do not have the right to marry here under the Constitution.

[...]

The Chief Justice said the appeal should be ready to proceed on a date in February and it would be allocated two days.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1021/breaking35.html

Finally this case comes before the Supreme Court. I wish them the best of luck. The supreme will rule on the definition of marriage in the constitution and whether it is unlawful for the state to withold the civil institution from homosexual couples.
 


ne0ica

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
8,140
Date set for lesbian marriage case - The Irish Times - Thu, Oct 21, 2010

Finally this case comes before the Supreme Court. I wish them the best of luck. The supreme will rule on the definition of marriage in the constitution and whether it is unlawful for the state to withold the civil institution from homosexual couples.
Thats why we elect representatives to make laws not judges. Gay marriage is not legal under Irish law. For the left to try and legislate through the courts will only be a travesty of justice. If homosexuals are serious about gay marriage then they should lobby the Labour party which will more than likely be in government after the next election. Thats democracy.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,921
Who do you think should interpret what's legal under Irish Law? You seem to be missing the point of the action.
 

Newsy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
910

ne0ica

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
8,140
Who do you think should interpret what's legal under Irish Law? You seem to be missing the point of the action.
The point of the action is that some liberal activist judge to create law. America appears to be the example to follow for the left

A judge should interpet the constitution and laws and not make law. However judges appear to be a law unto themselves and are quite happy to massage their egos and sence self improtance and redefine an interpetation of a law and thus create law. However compared to the High Court the Supreme Court appears more sensible so I doubt this case will suceed.
 
M

MrFunkyBoogaloo

Thats why we elect representatives to make laws not judges. Gay marriage is not legal under Irish law. For the left to try and legislate through the courts will only be a travesty of justice. If homosexuals are serious about gay marriage then they should lobby the Labour party which will more than likely be in government after the next election. Thats democracy.
The courts interpret the law, not the legislature. That is also democracy.

No-one is trying to legislate through the courts. They, I imagine, are seeking clarification on what the law says, as per Bunreacht.

That position (emboldened) is about to be tested.
 

ne0ica

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
8,140
The courts interpret the law, not the legislature. That is also democracy.

No-one is trying to legislate through the courts. They, I imagine, are seeking clarification on what the law says, as per Bunreacht.

That position (emboldened) is about to be tested.
Look. The left/liberals want gay marriage. Why not lobby politicans to put a bill trough the Daíl, where the elected representatives of the Irish people can vote on it. Same for abortion, euthanasia or legalisation of drugs. Labour claims to the a 'progressive' party. Why do no Labour party members put private members bills trough the Daíl.
 
M

MrFunkyBoogaloo

Look. The left/liberals want gay marriage. Why not lobby politicans to put a bill trough the Daíl, where the elected representatives of the Irish people can vote on it. Same for abortion, euthanasia or legalisation of drugs. Labour claims to the a 'progressive' party. Why do no Labour party members put private members bills trough the Daíl.
They have. The Civil Unions proposal by Brendan Howlin was defeated by Fianna Fáil and the Green Party who voted it down because of their Civil Partnership legislation.

Even were such a bill to pass and become functioning law that still wouldn't/couldn't prevent someone from taking a case to the Supreme Court to test it's constitutionality.
 

evercloserunion

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
804
Look. The left/liberals want gay marriage. Why not lobby politicans to put a bill trough the Daíl, where the elected representatives of the Irish people can vote on it. Same for abortion, euthanasia or legalisation of drugs. Labour claims to the a 'progressive' party. Why do no Labour party members put private members bills trough the Daíl.
But why would they do that if gay marriage was already legal under Bunreacht? Which is what they're trying to find out.
 

mickdotcom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
818
Look. The left/liberals want gay marriage. Daíl.
It way to easy to dismiss this important matter as a mere lefty / liberal

thing- I am no lefty but I really hope these 2 ladies succeed with the case.

For far too long we have as a Nation treated gay people as somewhat less

than equal.
 

borntorum

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
12,633
The point of the action is that some liberal activist judge to create law. America appears to be the example to follow for the left
'Liberal activist judges?' We need that Fox News-style nonsense talk like we need a hole in the head. I like American politics, but I can't stand it when people (and it usually seems to be the right) try to introduce Americanisms into our political discourse.

Anyway, if you know anything about the current Supreme Court you won't be describing them as liberal activists
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,921
The point of the action is that some liberal activist judge to create law. America appears to be the example to follow for the left

A judge should interpet the constitution and laws and not make law. However judges appear to be a law unto themselves and are quite happy to massage their egos and sence self improtance and redefine an interpetation of a law and thus create law. However compared to the High Court the Supreme Court appears more sensible so I doubt this case will suceed.
Ah. So basically if the Judges come back and says the constitution doesn't allow it, you'll think the judge is acting correctly, if they say it does allow it, he's an activist hippy.

So if they agree with you, they're fine, if they disagree with you, they're an activist hippy. Perfectly rational thinking.
 
M

MrFunkyBoogaloo

The point of the action is that some liberal activist judge to create law. America appears to be the example to follow for the left

A judge should interpet the constitution and laws and not make law. However judges appear to be a law unto themselves and are quite happy to massage their egos and sence self improtance and redefine an interpetation of a law and thus create law. However compared to the High Court the Supreme Court appears more sensible so I doubt this case will suceed.
The High Court declared that marriage within the Constitution was interpreted as between a man and a woman at the time it was written. Hence Zappone/Gilligan appealing to the Supreme Court.

The High Court got it wrong in the X Case in 1992, a decision that was overturned in the Supreme Court by a 4 to 1 majority. That's not to say that the Supreme Court will overturn the HC's decision this time though.

We can speculate all we like but we won't know anything until the decision is made.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,472
The point of the action is that some liberal activist judge to create law. America appears to be the example to follow for the left

A judge should interpet the constitution and laws and not make law. However judges appear to be a law unto themselves and are quite happy to massage their egos and sence self improtance and redefine an interpetation of a law and thus create law. However compared to the High Court the Supreme Court appears more sensible so I doubt this case will suceed.
Thats utter nonsense, and akin to what Justice Scalia would say, where he refuses to accept that the American constitution should be applied to the present day, given that it was written two hundred years ago. For that reason he refuses gun control as the American constitution says it's permissible in terms of the militia, which was pertinent, TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO. The Irish courts, whilst not legislating, which is a separate matter, have for fifty years at this stage said that it is, without doubt, proper to apply the Constitituion to todays circumstances, particularly where the constitution is silent on many issues.

However, it's not silent on marriage and the historical and, still to a lesser degree, definition of marriage is man + woman. Therefore, I cannot see them allowing the appeal.
On another point, their main claim will be moot by then, as they will be able to be taxed as a married couple after the new year.
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
best of luck to them. But what I'm wondering is what will them winning mean for Ireland will it mean that gay people married in Canada may have their marriage recognized here, or any gay couple with a foreign marriage license can have their marriage recognized here or that gay marriages may be performed here?

I know that in Israel, they recognize foreign gay marriages but don't allow for them to be performed in Israel, would there be a similar situation in Ireland?
 
M

MrFunkyBoogaloo

best of luck to them. But what I'm wondering is what will them winning mean for Ireland will it mean that gay people married in Canada may have their marriage recognized here, or any gay couple with a foreign marriage license can have their marriage recognized here or that gay marriages may be performed here?

I know that in Israel, they recognize foreign gay marriages but don't allow for them to be performed in Israel, would there be a similar situation in Ireland?
I imagine that all depends on the legislature and how they respond to the ruling (if it were to go against them).

Look to the X Case for an example. Abortion is legal, in certain circumstances, on this Island but the legislature has never put forward any legislation to that effect.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,472
'Liberal activist judges?' We need that Fox News-style nonsense talk like we need a hole in the head. I like American politics, but I can't stand it when people (and it usually seems to be the right) try to introduce Americanisms into our political discourse.

Anyway, if you know anything about the current Supreme Court you won't be describing them as liberal activists
Hardiman would be very insulted if he heard people did not think him a liberal! :)
 

borntorum

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
12,633
Hardiman would be very insulted if he heard people did not think him a liberal! :)
Well, I'll give him classical liberal, but I don't think that's what ne0ica meant.

I'd guess he'd be even more insulted if he thought people considered him activist!
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,472
Well, I'll give him classical liberal, but I don't think that's what ne0ica meant.

I'd guess he'd be even more insulted if he thought people considered him activist!
He would faint clean away!!

There is rumour doing the rounds that, as the present Chief Justice has to go back to being a pleb judge next year, Hardiman is willing to move as President of the High Court, as Nicky Kearns wants the top job. Pity the PD's are extinct and FF won't be about for it. Not a hope of it happening of course. Sob sob...NOT.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top