Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Oliver Callan: Back in his box
Elaine Byrne: Lacking moral courage to name names Anthony
Real democracies and referendums Anthony
Public Services Card: Some still forced to comply Anthony
Catholic Church: Dark influence still active Anthony
Public Inquiry >>
A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Russians Reopen Chunk Of M4 Highway In Northeastern Syria Wed May 27, 2020 02:06 | amarynth
South Front A part of the M4 highway between the towns of Ayn Issa and Tell Tamir in northeastern Syria has been reopened for civilian traffic. This chunk of the
Educated Immigrants ? The Active Ingredient! Tue May 26, 2020 23:33 | mod editor
This comment was chosen by moderator ZZ from the post ?The new cold war; The Industrial Dependence War:” The moderator felt it was very informative and an excellent well thought
Why the Empire?s media arm must lie about Syria?s allies Tue May 26, 2020 20:34 | The Saker
By Aram Mirzaei for the Saker blog In recent weeks, Western and Empire-aligned media outlets have been launching a misinformation offensive over an alleged agreement between Tehran and Moscow to
I was wrong on corona ? by not pushing for a US Cultural Revolution immediately Tue May 26, 2020 20:32 | The Saker
by Ramin Mazaheri for The Saker Blog Since the West?s Great Lockdown started I?ve been warning the West that they can?t do it – a capitalist-imperialist system cannot do an
The Saker Blog needs more moderators! Tue May 26, 2020 03:24 | The Saker
Dear friends, In a recent Facebook post Pepe Escobar wrote the following: The low down – on the economic measures, on the Hong Kong question, and on The Big Picture.
The Saker >>
A Blog About Human Rights
Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights
Turkish President Calls On Greece To Comply With Human Rights on Syrian Refugee Issues Wed Mar 04, 2020 17:58 | Human Rights
US Holds China To Account For Human Rights Violations Sun Oct 13, 2019 19:12 | Human Rights
UN Human Rights Council Should Address Human Rights Crisis in Cambodia Sat Aug 31, 2019 13:41 | Human Rights
Fijian women still face Human Rights violations Mon Aug 26, 2019 18:49 | Human Rights
Human Rights in Ireland >>
"A flaky website that purports to be ?leftist,? The Cedar Lounge Revolution, occasionally makes a relevant point or two."
What you want to say ? 27 May 2020 06:11 Wed May 27, 2020 | WorldbyStorm
This new pacific Trump foreign policy world! Number 5 in a continuing series. 12:46 Tue May 26, 2020 | WorldbyStorm
Realism? 10:10 Tue May 26, 2020 | WorldbyStorm
Trotskyists Géry Lawless wedding photgraph. 09:40 Tue May 26, 2020 | irishelectionliterature
Work is hard? 08:41 Tue May 26, 2020 | WorldbyStorm
Cedar Lounge >>
Secular Reasons for 'No' in Marriage Referendum
Here are some secular reasons to vote No in the upcoming referendum on same-sex marriage.
Whatever one personally thinks of marriage, just like religion, it should be consigned to the private sphere: I). on philosophical grounds; and ii). because State support for marriage directly contributes to inequality of the treatment of families, and directly discriminates against unmarried parents and their children - regardless of whether the parents are 'straight' or same-sex.
I am not alone in thinking that all marriage is an unnecessary fetish which is the legacy of religious ritual. Where private ceremonies are concerned, it is none of my business; and if invited, I can go along for the party and wish the couple well (within our closed circle of wedding-invitees, or a personal announcement in Social Media etc.). However, as a citizen, the State’s involvement in marriage is my business; and I object on two grounds:
Firstly, State involvement with marriage custom is as archaic as mentions of god in the Constitution or Statute books of any State. If there were to be a referendum on extending the definition of ‘god’ in the Constitution to include all deities, I, as an atheist, would be conscience-bound to vote No, because no god has any place in a Constitution. Concomitantly, when an extension of the legitimisation of marriage is proposed, I am also duty-bound to vote No – because I am against State involvement in marriage.
Despite my personal opinion on marriage, I cannot, and do not, have objections to what people wish to do in their own private ceremonies; or in their campaigns within respective cultural or religious groups to achieve equality within those contexts (including equal access to religious rites). But the State has no business in legislating for, or interfering in, the intimate relationships of consenting adults.
The second reason, is that, because the State’s involvement with marriage is intrinsically bound up with its definitions and redefinitions of the family, it is necessarily directly discriminatory against unmarried families. The following examples are based on the traditional unmarried vs. married family models, for illustrative purposes; but if the referendum is carried, the institutionalised discriminatory divide will merely be maintained across all family types (straight and gay parents alike).
a). Current state involvement with marriage is discriminatory against unmarried fathers, because even after the new family legislation, they do not have automatic rights of guardianship, joint custody, or even access to their children. Conversely, children do not have automatic rights of access to their unmarried fathers. This state of affairs is absurd, and deeply sexist (i.e., discriminatory on grounds of gender).
Marriage, of course, guarantees automatic rights of guardianship, joint custody, and access, to both married partners (whether or not both of them happen to be the biological parents).
Whether or not the referendum is passed, a complete stranger can come along and marry the ‘primary’ parent, and regardless of the wishes of the excluded parent (who may be the biological parent), have all of those automatic rights; and the children have no say.
b). unmarried primary parents are expected to do impossible time-juggling with the back-to-work pressure from when the youngest child turns seven.
c). The State discourages unmarried fathers from having an active family life – thus perpetuating the stereotype of the feckless unmarried father. There should be no difference between how a married or unmarried family is treated.
d). currently, parents need to be married for children to have automatic rights of inheritance.
The welfare of children must be looked to outside of the institution of marriage, because to do otherwise would be to discriminate against the 33% of children born outside wedlock in this country. If Britain and France are ahead of us in social trends, we can expect even more children outside of marriage (UK 48%, and France 52%). We need to work with this social fact, and not against it by bestowing benefits on those who marry.
This country has a legacy of putting unmarried families at a disadvantage – a shameful legacy which should be reversed immediately and completely. This referendum, if not a red herring, is reinforcing this legacy, as well as legitimising and strengthening a discriminatory, unhealthy, and decaying institution.
In sum, the State should treat all children and families equally, and stop discriminating against them on the grounds of marriage. Like religion, any marriage is a personal and private matter which does not belong in a modern or postmodern, secular Civic Sphere. The proposal masks the real inequalities in an increasing number of families, resulting from the State’s heavy support for an archaic fetish; and encouraging such irrational support should be seen in times to come, as a retrograde statement by the Irish electorate.