On December 10th, the court gave judgment in a case concerning a lesbian couple, a gay man and a child. The man, a friend of the couple, had provided the sperm necessary to conceive a child to be raised by the couple. He agreed to become a sort of “favourite uncle”, but after the child was born, became attached to such an extent that he sought increased and regular access. After the couple rejected this as inappropriate, he went to the courts looking for his rights as a father to be upheld. On appeal, the Supreme Court sided with him.

In fact, there is no denying that the court was correctly applying the law (Irish law does not recognise “de facto” families like lesbian couples, and the Constitution reflects 1930s Ireland’s attachment to the traditional family unit based on marriage). But I disagree with Ms. O’Brien’s thinking that this is cause for celebration.

Her argument is that this is what’s best for the child. A child needs parents, and since “children come into being because of mothers and fathers”, it follows that “it is in a child’s best interests to know and have contact with his or her father”. This is supposed to be “a triumph for common sense and human decency”.

What garbage. Children come into the world because of men and women, not mothers and fathers. The original High Court judgment, in favour of the couple, emphasised that “there is no real relationship between [the child] and [the father] other than a biological one”. Yet in the Supreme Court’s analysis, the partner of the biological mother here – her longterm partner, with whom she concluded a civil partnership in London several years ago, and who obviously shares in the upbringing of the child – has less rights than the man. In fact, she has no more legal status in relation to the child than that of a grandparent or foster parent.

Ms. O’Brien makes the point that it’s not about sexuality, since the law would do the same to any unmarried couple in this scenario. But of course, in this situation, the women would marry – giving themselves full legal protection – like a shot, but they’re not allowed. It’s not their fault they’re not allowed – it’s the fault of people like Ms. O’Brien who don’t think two people of the same gender can be in love like a man and a woman. (And, all right, that pesky constitution again).

This is the law; so be it, although it’s unjust. But to applaud the notion that the guy who donated sperm has a bigger place in the child’s life than the woman who raises it is outrageous. It defines “parenthood” in purely biological terms, which take no account of social reality.

You might say, all right, but all they’re doing is giving the poor chap access to this child to whom he obviously feels attached. True – but there are practical consequences to this conceptual approach to family life. In law, the man’s rights outweigh those of the “other mother”. So if, say, the member of the couple who gave birth were to pass away, the partner would lose custody of the child to the man, were he inclined to insist. And in the Baby Anne case, this exact same preference for “natural” parents led to the removal of a child from her adoptive parents of some 24 months.

I accept that it’s a hard case, and have every sympathy for the man’s “powerful paternal instincts”, which he couldn’t have foreseen before making the agreement. Still, you’d have to wonder why giving this kid two loving parents and a guy who comes by every second Sunday is seen as less harmful, less confusing, less damaging, than leaving him with two loving parents. Even if they are both chicks.

According to the notice, the decision to set up a school was taken at a meeting in Dublin late last month. The meeting was attended by members of the education committee of the Saudi Shura Council, an unelected body whose members advise the Kingdom’s government, and Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Ireland, Abdulaziz Aldriss.

“It was decided in the meeting to establish a Saudi school to teach the children of Saudi citizens and students residing in Ireland,” the website says.

The Saudi embassy insists the plans are at a very early stage, and a spokesperson yesterday declined to give further details. In a statement, the Department of Education said the Saudi government had not been in contact with the department regarding the matter.

Speculation has mounted within Ireland’s 40,000-strong Muslim community over how big the school might be, and whether it will cater for non-Saudi Muslims.

According to the embassy, less than 15 Saudi families live and work in Ireland, and more than 400 Saudi nationals study here, though the latter number is expected to rise in coming years following the Saudi ministry for education’s recognition of more Irish third-level institutions.

Ali Selim, a theologian based at the Islamic Cultural Centre in Clonskeagh, Dublin, welcomed the plans. Asked about speculation within the Muslim community that the school may incorporate secondary education, he said that if this proved correct it would “achieve a long cherished Muslim ambition” in Ireland.

The same “Islamic Cultural Centre” that is the permanent headquarters of the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) whose President, Yusuf Qaradawi (known as the “Sheikh of Death) has reportedly called for suicide operations against military and civilian targets in Iraq and Israel, praised child-martyrs, and has instructed that homosexuals should be burned or stoned to keep Islamic society “clean of perverted elements”. Qaradawi also headed the International Association of Muslim Scholars (IAMS) (again based in Ireland) and was a founding member of the Muslim Brotherhood. In that context we should be wary of an education-system endorsed by Clonskeagh.

Returning to the question of a Saudi school in Ireland:

The plans were welcomed by the parents of Shekinah Egan, the teenage girl whose request to wear the hijab at her school in Gorey, Co Wexford, last year prompted the principal to call for official guidelines to be issued on the wearing of the hijab in State schools. Ms Egan’s father, Liam, who lived with his family for several years in Saudi Arabia, praised what he described as the Kingdom’s “strong commitment” to education both domestically and overseas.“An Islamic secondary school is vital and should be a priority for the community,” he said.

The news will raise concern on a number of fronts. Following 911, the Saudi government came under pressure from the Bush administration to remove alleged incitement to hatred against Jews and Christians from school textbooks. A 2004 Saudi royal study group found that the kingdom’s religious studies curriculum “encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the ‘other.’ ” Since then, the Saudi government has claimed repeatedly that it has revised its educational texts. The former Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, lauded the supposed moderation of the revised textbooks/ But as the Washington Post reported in 2006, Saudi textbooks continue to villify non-Muslims – even referring to Christians and Jews as “apes” and “swine”. The quotes below are derived from a 74-page review of the supposedly sanitised Saudi curriculum distributed by the Saudi Embassy in Washington:

FIRST GRADE

” Every religion other than Islam is false.”

“Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________.”

FOURTH GRADE

“True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly.”

FIFTH GRADE

“Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives.”

“It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam.”

“A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion.”

SIXTH GRADE

“Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God’s power.”

EIGHTH GRADE

“As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus.”

“God told His Prophet, Muhammad, about the Jews, who learned from parts of God’s book [the Torah and the Gospels] that God alone is worthy of worship. Despite this, they espouse falsehood through idol-worship, soothsaying, and sorcery. In doing so, they obey the devil. They prefer the people of falsehood to the people of the truth out of envy and hostility. This earns them condemnation and is a warning to us not to do as they did.”
“They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied [with them].”
“Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God.”
“Activity: The student writes a composition on the danger of imitating the infidels.”

NINTH GRADE
“The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills.”
“It is part of God’s wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment].”

“Muslims will triumph because they are right. He who is right is always victorious, even if most people are against him.”

TENTH GRADE
The 10th-grade text on jurisprudence teaches that life for non-Muslims (as well as women, and, by implication, slaves) is worth a fraction of that of a “free Muslim male.” Blood money is retribution paid to the victim or the victim’s heirs for murder or injury:
“Blood money for a free infidel. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, whether or not he is ‘of the book’ or not ‘of the book’ (such as a pagan, Zoroastrian, etc.).
“Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, and the blood money for an infidel woman is half of the blood money for a male infidel.”

ELEVENTH GRADE
“The greeting ‘Peace be upon you’ is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others.”
“If one comes to a place where there is a mixture of Muslims and infidels, one should offer a greeting intended for the Muslims.”
“Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect.”

TWELFTH GRADE
“Jihad in the path of God — which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it — is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God.”

We must ask – as a society – if we are prepared to allow the promotion of hatred of non-Muslims (referred to as Dhimmis in Sharia law), women and homosexuals into our education system ? We cannot have two-standards – one for Catholicism’s role in our education-system and another for that of Islam. If – as Fintan O’Toole claims in the Irish Times – “agents of foreign state should not control our schools” – then that equally ought to apply with respect to the Kingdom’s attempts to export its borderline interpretation of Islam into our Repubic. Taking account of the horrors of the Ryan and Murphy reports exposing decades of rampant abuse of Irish children at the hands of the Catholic Church, as well as the rampant incitement to hatred promoted in the Saudi education-system, it is difficult for an objective person to come to any other conclusion than that it is time for the dangerous-liason between religion and education to come to an end. In the context of an increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-faith Ireland, the continued segregation of children on the basis of religion – which increasingly constitutes a de-facto segregation on the basis of nationality – must come to an end. The taxpayer and the State have no stake in perpetuating division, , anti-semitism and anti-Westernism in this Western, Christian country. I speak as an atheist – but one who recognises the comparative tolerance of Christian culture relative to much of the Muslim world – notably with respect to the rights of women and homosexuals. Tolerance is a two-way street.

Last year, a Federal investigation in the US found that a textbooks at a private Islamic school in northern Virginia taught students that killing adulterers and converts from Islam was permissible:

Textbooks at a private Islamic school in northern Virginia teach students that it is permissible for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts from Islam, according to a federal investigation released Wednesday.

Other passages in the school’s textbooks state that “the Jews conspired against Islam and its people” and that Muslims are permitted to take the lives and property of those deemed “polytheists.”

The passages were found in selected textbooks used during the 2007-08 school year by the Islamic Saudi Academy, which teaches 900 students in grades K-12 at two campuses in Alexandria and Fairfax and receives much of its funding from the Saudi government…..The commission said it obtained 17 of the academy’s textbooks through a variety of channels, including from members of Congress. The texts did appear to contain numerous revisions, including pages that were removed or passages that were whited out, but numerous troubling passages remained, according to the panel:
* The authors of a 12th-grade text on Quranic interpretation state that apostates (those who convert from Islam), adulterers and people who murder Muslims can be permissibly killed.
* The authors of a 12th-grade text on monotheism write that “(m)ajor polytheism makes blood and wealth permissible,” meaning that a Muslim can take with impunity the life and property of someone believed guilty of polytheism. According to the panel, the strict Saudi interpretation of polytheism includes Shiite and Sufi Muslims as well as Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists.
* A social studies text offers the view that Jews were responsible for the split between Sunni and Shiite Muslims: “The cause of the discord: The Jews conspired against Islam and its people. A sly, wicked person who sinfully and deceitfully professed Islam infiltrated (the Muslims).”

This question is another moment of truth for the Irish Left, many of whom have campaigned tirelessly for the rights of persons historically disenfranchised or downtrodden in Irish society – such as women and gay people. They face an inherent contradiction between their belief in “multiculturalism” (which promotes diversity for its own sake) on the one hand – and the rights of those who would lose those rights if the Saudi system of Sharia Law were to be introduced into this country. It is impossible to separate an education system from the culture it supports. If we allow the seed of Saudi Wahhabism to be sown in our schools, we can wave goodbye to women’s rights, gay rights, and freedom of religion as the political system of Saudi Arabia shows. That country outlaws homosexuality and conversion of Muslims to another faith on punishment of death. Premarital-sex is punishable by up to 100 lashes, with adultery punishable by stoning to death. If the Irish Left mean what they say when they call for a more pluralist Ireland, then here is their opportunity to prove it. They should oppose the establishment of this school – and all schools which undermine the cohesion and mutual respect upon which pluralism and tolerance depends.

–

In a decision sure to spark furious condemnation from “no” campaigners, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland has announced new regulations on airtime set to grant the political-parties the vast majority of airtime during the campaign.

Broadcasters are not required to allocate exactly the same amount of time to both the Yes and No campaign when it comes to editorial coverage.

However, they must ensure that the total airtime given over to political party broadcasts is equal.

The guidelines come into effect from Friday, ahead of polling on October 2.

Willie O’Reilly, chairman of the Independent Broadcasters of Ireland, said the Coughlan case meant broadcasters were strait-jacketed into dividing time equally, regardless of the merits of any argument.

“The perversity of this is that weak arguments gain traction with repetition, and charismatic leaders of doubtful representation are feted by the media,” he said.

“It is a cranks’ charter….Fine Gael TD Jim O’Keeffe said the forthcoming referendum on children’s rights had cross-party support, but the policy of giving equal airtime to both sides in a referendum debate could result in a group such as “a paedophile association” being given 50 per cent coverage”.

Article 40.1 of the Bunreacht na h-Eireann – largely the basis of the Supreme Court judgements – states:

1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern proposes to insert a new section into the Defamation Bill, stating: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000.”

“Blasphemous matter” is defined as matter “that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises where the member of the force has reasonable grounds for believing there are copies of the blasphemous statements in order to seize them.

What is interesting so far is the relative silence of the Left on the fundamental question of there being a blasphemy-ban. Even Labour Justice spokesman Pat Rabbitte, who wants the fine reduced to €1,000, and to exempt from the definition of blasphemy:

any matter that had any literary, artistic, social or academic merit.

…does not appear to call into question the wisdom of introducing such an offence into law in the first place.

It has to be asked where the impetus for this legislation is coming from. Is it from the Catholic Right, which has been fighting a losing battle for political-influence since 1992 (when the Irish people voted to legalise travel and information related to abortion), including the defeat of the 2002 Abortion-referendum, or is it from what the Left like to call “the new communities” i.e. particularly foreign-nationals of the Islamic faith in particular? In that respect, we would do well to bear in mind research across Europe on the attitudes of Muslim communities to questions pertaining to traditional Western freedoms, notably freedom of the press and of speech – and in particular, the question of blasphemy.

With respect to British Muslims, an ICM opinion poll in 2006 revealed an astonishing 40% of them want Islamic Sharia law to be introduced in Muslim parts of the country. In relation to the Danish cartoons:

The full figures on ICM’s website reveal some interesting bits and pieces that weren’t reported in the Sunday Telegraph. British Muslims surveyed by ICM were almost unaminous (97%) in thinking that the publication of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed was wrong, 77% said they personally were very offended by the cartoons, 9% said they were a little offended and 11% said they were not offended. Moreover:

Regarding reactions to the cartoons, 14% of British Muslims thought it was right for protesters in Muslim countries to attack Danish embassies and 12% thought it was right for “demonstrators to carry placards calling for the killing of those who insult Islam”. 13% said it was right “to exercise violence against those who are deemed by religious leaders to have insulted them”.

The Left were at the forefront of dismantling decades of theocracy in this State, notably in the struggle against the bans on divorce and homosexuality. It would surely be ironic then, if in the name of Political-Correctness and a wish to appeal to a minority of newcomers to our shores, they were to take a step backwards from Enlightenment ideals of Western freedom in order to get us to a place at least as bad as where we started in the first place. All true liberals and democrats should oppose this bill, and make their views on it known to the powers that be – particularly on the Green benches in Leinster House. They forced Fianna Fáil’s hand on the by-elections – maybe they can do the same with the Defamation Bill. We should not have to walk on eggshells by an unholy-alliance of religious-fanatics on the one hand and the PC-brigade on the other. For contact-details of your TDs, see here.

You might have seen Mr. Ganley on the Late Late Show on Friday night last, he has also been in Brussels recently. He’s getting ready for Lisbon the remix or the European Parliament elections which ever comes first.

It seems he shares a lot in common with Sarah Palin regarding issues of choice and homosexuality.

‘There is no harm being done to anybody (with homosexuality) – that’s something you choose to do yourself’

And no doubt some of his best friends are gay and a few of his employees/members (we’re everywhere!). I wonder what they think about their boss’s thoughts on the harm gays are not doing choosing their sexuality! Then again John McCain’s chief of staff is one of those ‘choosers’. It must take a special set of skills to work for campaigns which cast such assertions on one’s life.

(Green Ink – Irish blogging Cartoonist extraordinaire)

A version of this post can also be found on Mamanpoulet.com

Ahern’s argument in 1993 was essentially that you cant put this sort of thing on the statute book, heaven knows what will follow it and how far society will fall (done in far different language). Well the place hasn’t caved in but we still have those debates being deployed as a means around accusations of discrimination;

“I don’t see any great need to legislate in this area. I have my own views on it. Let people do what they want, but I don’t see the need to be putting things into the statute book,” said another, who equally would not be quoted by name.

With 30 mooted supporters of a motion – being discussed at the Parliamentary Party meeting – it will be very interesting to see the effect it has. The Greens have a lot riding on this issue as it is one of the few they have pushed outside of their “core policy” policy. It is not to wantonly put pressure on them for the sheer fun of it simply to point out the task they face getting this through resistance from conservative side of Fianna Fail

Fianna Fail likewise surprised my by bringing forward the heads of the bill at all, now that it is out however the next step awaits and getting it on the statute book is the ultimate test.

Head 123: Cohabitant and qualified cohabitant
Provide that:
“(1) For the purposes of this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, ‘cohabitants’ means two adults (whether they are of the same sex or the opposite sex) who live together as a couple in an intimate relationship, and who are not married to each other or related to each other within a prohibited degree of relationship; and ‘cohabitant’ means one of two such adults.

Civil partnerships between qualifying cohabitants is one step closer to the statute book – wonder what the comment will be from Minister Dermot Ahern – also read Future Taoiseach’s post on this from some days ago.

Green Party TD Ciaran Cuffe admits it is not the full equality that the Green Party remain committed to but it is a step in the right direction. He is right on both counts but fair play – didn’t think they would get this far with Fianna Fail. Still gotta get it on the statute books though.

The flagship event is the Dublin Pride Parade itself, which takes place the second last weekend of June. Last year, over 5,000 people turned out for the parade and the outdoor show that followed in the amphitheatre of the civic offices. This year even greater numbers are expected at this years’ parade, so be sure to come along to this fantastic event. In that context it seems a good a time as any to focus on the thorny question of whether same-sex couples should be granted the right to conduct civil-partnerships or same-sex marriage.

As a member of the gay community I have a special interest in this matter and in countering the often outdated and inconsistent arguments against partnership rights for homosexuals. This is the primary purpose of this post, and I hope my readers will draw the same conclusions I do on this matter – though that of course is up to you. I can only do my best. 3 years of experience in fortright debate on politics.ie does not leave me under any illusions that I have a monopoly on reasoned argument and persuasiveness, but neither do I consider myself deficient in this regard. But each to his own.

A measured perusal of the politics.ie pages would not leave a moderate visitor of that hallowed forum unfamiliar with the arguments on both sides – perhaps most vocally – and sometimes controversially – on the side of the argument against same-sex unions. Milton Fine is perhaps the most vocal among those holding to this line. The basis of his arguments stem from the traditional Abrahamic theist dogma that regards marriage as inextricably linked to the rearing of children. Milton states “What about the rights of married people? By opening up marriage to all and sundry you have to devalue the institution. I’m not advocating prejudice against “gay people”…I’m advocating prejudice against homsexual relationship because they are inferior. And I would like to reiterate that I support civil partnerships for homosexuals…although ironically, given the promiscuous nature of homosexuals, if civil partnerships or indeed marriage are permitted down the line, the take up will probably be negligible.”. One could be forgiven – if only through ignorance of the blindingly obvious – for inferring from Milton’s rationale that all married couples have children or intend to do so, and that all same-sex couples have no intention of becoming parents. But if that is true, then why does society and the State facilitate the marriage of elderly and infertile couples? How does Milton and those of his/her mind reconcile this apparent inconsistency in their arguments?

For his part, he does so as follows: “Because there’s a few people who choose not to have have children or a few unfortunate couples who cannot, the homosexual lobby feel this legitimises their activities.Because a few unfortunate women have a physical ailment which requires the use of artificial lubricant during intercourse, the homosexual lobby feel it’s wrong to argue that because their vile activities require artificial lubricant they are therefore unnatural.Because a rare species of mountain goat in darkest Peru was seen mounting a fellow goat last Thursday it’s wrong to suggest homosexuality is unnatural.Because some unfortunate people are incontinent, it’s wrong to suggest homsexuality results in incontinence despite the fact that practicing homosexuals will end up having to wear nappies in later life.Sensibly look at the correlation between homosexuality and being a victim of child abuse and you’ll be attacked.I’ve seen all the arguments of the homosexual lobby…they think they’re very smart.And finally the most vile and offensive…anyone who disagrees with their vile and dangerous way of life is a closet homosexual.I disagree with zoophilia and think it’s an abomination…does that mean I subconsciously want to sleep with my dog?!”.

I always try to look at both sides of almost every argument in politics – even where I myself have a conflict of interest in that I am a party whose rights are under dispute in this debate. I am trying really hard to keep my “rational” hat on, despite the odd gnashing of teeth reading such pronouncements provokes in me and many other members of the gay community. Milton and his like simply dodge the question of how they can reconcile allowing marriage for those who cannot produce children arising from their relationships with their opposition to similar recognition by the State of the non-reproductive relationships of gay couples. He and his like then resort to offensive analogies with zoophilia. This is profoundly disturbing and utterly devoid of an acknowledgement that the growing propensity of scientific evidence points to a biological basis for homosexuality. For example, In 1993, Dean Hamer published findings from a linkage analysis of a sample of 76 gay brothers and their families, finding that the gay men had more gay male uncles and cousins on the maternal side of the family than on the paternal side. Gay brothers who showed this maternal pedigree were then tested for X chromosome linkage, using twenty-two markers on the X chromosome to test for similar alleles. Thirty-three of the forty sibling pairs tested were found to have similar alleles in the distal region of Xq28, which was significantly higher than the expected rates of 50% for fraternal brothers. A later analysis by Hu et al. revealed that 67% of gay brothers in a new saturated sample shared a marker on the X chromosome at Xq28. Sanders et al. (1998) replicated the study, finding 66% Xq28 marker sharing in 54 pairs of gay brothers. Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%.This is now “one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation.”To explain this finding, it has been proposed that male fetuses provoke a maternal immune reaction that becomes stronger with each successive male fetus. Male fetuses produce HY antigens which are “almost certainly involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates.” It is this antigen which maternal H-Y antibodies are proposed to both react to and ‘remember’. Successive male fetuses are then attacked by H-Y antibodies which somehow decrease the ability of H-Y antigens to perform their usual function in brain masculinisation. Bocklandt, Horvath, Vilain and Hamer (2006) reported that some mothers of gay babies have extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation. Using a sample of 97 mothers of homosexual men and 103 mothers of heterosexual men, the pattern of X inactivation was ascertained from blood assays. 4% of the mothers of straight men showed extreme skewing compared to 13% of the mothers of gay men. Mothers of two or more gay babies had extreme skewing of X inactivation of 23%. This extreme skewing may influence male sexual orientation through the fraternal birth order effect.

As such, people like Milton Fine – whether they would concede this point or not – are effectively arguing for discrimination by the State against those who happen to be born with differing DNA from perhaps 90% of the remainder of the human population. As a homosexual adult myself, I believe that not only myself but also society at large can benefit from the legalisation of same-sex unions. Indeed I would prefer these take the form of marriage, even if this might not in practice entail the exact same provisions as heterosexual marriage. Even within the gay community, there are many who acknowledge that as heterosexual marriage is more likely to result in the rearing of children, that certain tax-benefits that accrue to marriage as currently constituted in Ireland might not need to apply to a same-sex form of marriage. But the terminology is important to me. While civil-unions would be a major step forward, I have one problem with them – by not calling them “marriage”, the State is arguably implying that same-sex relationships are not equal in moral terms to heterosexual relationships. I dispute this thesis. Society has a common interest in social-stability, and in turn the evidence would seem to suggest that children benefit from their parents being married, because of the greater stability parental marriage gives to the child’s emotional development. Many children suffer emotional pain from the breakup of their parents, and it seems such breakups are more likely to occur outside the context of marriage. While I have argued that children are best brought up by a mother and father, I acknowledge that in the real world, some gay couples are in practice rearing children. In that respect I found a story on the Late Late Show some months ago about the sad case of the lack of legal rights afforded to the surviving partner of a lesbian relationship when her partner died, including in terms of parenting rights. Despite what might be ideal in life, the world is more complicated than that, and one size – despite what Milton and co. feel – will not always fit all. It is in the context of the above then that I call on the Government to legalise same-sex marriages, and to assign to the parties to such partnerships inheritance, property, and guardianship rights as apply in heterosexual marriages. In a world where America may be about to elect its first African-American president and where a woman came close to being the first of her gender to breach that glass ceiling, we need to remember we have a few of our own to breach in this country.

Readers of MP will know I have been vocal on the issue of the Green Party policy in government regarding same sex partnership, particularly their response to the Labour Party Civil Union Bill. The meeting was held in Government Buildings yesterday evening.

In attendance were representatives from LGBT groups, individuals and commentators. I was invited because of my commentary on the issue of late on this blog and elsewhere. I have also experience on the issue from the perspective of providing online resources and support to lesbian and bisexual women in Ireland.

The Green Party were represented by John Gormley, T.D, Ciaran Cuffe, T.D., Senator Dan Boyle, Roderic O’Gorman and several party and private office officials. The meeting was well chaired by Dan Boyle and I think the phrase full and frank exchange of views could be attributed in a more positive sense of the term

After introductions from the Green Party on their history of policy on the matter of legislating for same sex partnerships and discussing the nature of the discussions on the forthcoming bill promised by the Minister for Justice, the discussion was opened to the floor.

The heads of the bill are due for publication in March. The Green Party (led by Roderic O’Gorman) have been meeting with Departmental officials to discuss the bill and will continue to do so. There seems to be a twin track approach – in terms of party members and party policy and then the efforts and inputs of ministers at and around the Cabinet.
The following clarifications were made by the Green Party representatives regarding the forthcoming bill and I think these are important to highlight.

• The legislation will provide for a scheme which will be regulated in the same way as other significant life events – i.e. through the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

• It will provide for Civil Partnerships for same sex conjugal relationships, not elderly brothers or friends who have lived together for years.

• There will also be provision for a scheme of dealing with those relationships which are not currently or subsequently recognised through marriage or a civil partnership – particularly in terms of dissolution/ending of those relationships (through break up or death etc.)

The issues of children’s rights and parental rights are the most difficult in terms of the negotiations. More visibility of lesbian and gay families and couples in the public discourse and contact with TD’s was identified as being of most help in highlighting the issue.

Very little other specific detail is available on the bill and it’s contents as this is a matter for the Minister for Justice. There were a lot of ‘don’t knows’ and a few ‘we hadn’t thought of that’s’ which was healthy in terms of the dialogue but alarming in terms of the impact and content of any lobbying done to date. That’s the news as such from the meeting – for more on what happened and some general opinion/commentary I’ll continue below.

There was also discussion of what is full equality – and why the Green Party was not calling for Marriage. John Gormley said that they had tried to include this in the discussions on the programme for government but had not succeeded and that in this programme for government they wanted movement on the issue and that this was the best option. There was as always discussion of the Constitution and the Attorney General’s advice – someday, somehow, somewhere we’ll know I suppose.

I won’t go into specific interjections from the floor as I did not have permission to quote but there were several inputs from people arguing that if full marriage were not offered then this was not good enough.

My personal perspective on the forthcoming legislation is that I would like to see a scheme introduced for the full recognition of same sex relationships by the state. The mechanism for this recognition by partnership/union is far far more important to me that the title of it. If it is the same as marriage in all ways as per the UK Civil Partnerships Act then that’s equality with other recognised conjugal relationships as far as I’m concerned.

But I have to ask why are most lobbyists now only looking for equality with a framework developed for heterosexual relationships?? Why are we not looking for recognition of our relationships and their life events and develop the discourses of our lives rather than continue to hide behind marriage? I don’t mean in terms of seeking special rights either – we have long moved away from special rights. I wonder when and how the rights of non marital conjugal same-sex relationships were dumped on the road to Matrimony?

I think that the investment of energies by community organisations into calling for marriage and marriage alone disenfranchises many many couples who need full protection and recognition and don’t care what it is called and also those who don’t want to marry but do more than cohabit.

The other problem I see with a strategy which concentrates on marriage only is that it’s clear the framework that will be developed come what may – I made the point at the meeting that it was very important that it was done right the first time and for me what it was called was not important. The detail and inclusion of children’s rights and those of parents was pivotal.

Gender proofing of any forthcoming legislation was also important for me.. actually that’s an understatement. Just because I love someone of the same gender does not make my experience of life the same as that of a gay male who loves another gay man. Many more lesbians currently have caring responsibilities than gay men. The access to legislative schemes in other countries is interesting to look at – men use same sex partnership/marriage to protect financial and inheritance rights at a far greater level than lesbian women.

When women turn to the law for recognition it’s far more likely for protection of their family unit. Women still experience poverty and social and economic disadvantage at greater rates than men, they are less likely to own property, have pensions for transfer and other inheritances and legacies. There are women who don’t have children, own 3 houses and have pensions that they wish to transfer, next of kin rights to seek and they need protection and want recognition also. However it’s those who have the weakest voices who often have the most pressing needs and their voices are not at the table for a whole myriad of reasons.

Whilst LGBT organisations and individuals talking to other partners in government is pivotal I do hope that the Green Party continue to dialogue with a broad range of people on the matter and actually learn themselves what the issues are.

This means the Green Party
• framing our rights in terms of equality and human rights,
• realising that there are same sex couple led families and families to be out there – and that our families occur, exsist and are at risk
• and realising that number crunching and making campaign targets out of them won’t make them any more real.

Wanting same sex poster couples and families to do the campaign work removes the onus that I and others expect of legislators to ensure human rights for all of their citizens. Yes let’s educate politicians on what the issues are – why legislation is needed and what is needed. But this is a matter that must be legislated for because it’s the right thing to do, it has to be done, and not just because a group of citizens are calling by T.D’s clinics looking for it.

I am but one individual in all of this, I had my chance to make my views on the matter known and to highlight some of the deficits I felt in the current debate based on my experience of talking to women in same sex relationships in both urban and rural locations in Ireland. Coming away from the meeting I think we’d be extremely naïve to think that the Green Party in government are going to make it perfect but they need to feel the heat of the cooker whilst putting their ingredients into the recipe.

The expectations of the lesbian and gay community in the ability of the Green Party to introduce full equality have probably all but disappeared after the responses to the Labour Party private members bill. They have a lot of work to do in terms of gaining trust and knowledge of the situations that face same sex partnerships and families in this state. That might not be considered by them to be the job of a party in Government (gaining our trust and using the expertise) – it is expected nonetheless by their queer electorate.

A whole lot more happened at that meeting but that’s enough for now. Other reports will appear elsewhere in the coming days no doubt and indeed as we have 3 blogging politicians amongst those in attendance it will be great to hear of their perspectives.

Your comments/questions on my longest. blog post. ever! as always are welcome.

Corrib gas vigil mounted Members of the Shell to Sea campaign began an all-night candelit vigil at the Corrib gas refinery gates in north Mayo last night to mark a year since deployment of extra gardaí to the area.

So I looked back a year and saw this headline.Landmark case by lesbian couple under way. Ah yes the KalCase who remembers that. It seems Gay rights have totally disappeared off the countries agenda. The parties in opposition seem more intent on challenging the government on everything else but on this issue they are totally silent. No  lambasting of the Greens for not pushing it. Labour who like to think themselves the liberal party. Yet they talk about Questions arise over Eircom security, as 250,000 at risk from hackers.  The last time it was mentioned seems to be back in July is that good enough? Is it good enough for the party to tries to tell us that they are the guardians of liberal Ireland to ignore possibly the biggest social liberal issue in Ireland at the moment?