Why Would Gays Want To Marry?
ireland / britain |
gender |
interview
Friday October 14, 2005 00:10 by Tobie - WSM
The situation in Ireland
The issue of gay marriage has come to the fore again recently with both Canada and Spain approving bills to make it legal. In this Workers Solidarity talks to Judy Walsh, from the Equality Studies department in UCD about how marriage and partnership rights are currently constructed in Ireland.
Why Would Gays Want To Marry?
The issue of gay marriage has come to the fore again recently with
both Canada and Spain approving bills to make it legal. In this
interview we talk to Judy Walsh, from the Equality Studies department
in UCD about how marriage and partnership rights are currently
constructed in Ireland.
WSM: Can you explain how marriage and
partnership rights stand at the moment in Ireland?
JW: There is a very clear hierarchy in the Irish legal
system. Marriage is the very privileged family form and that is
confined to straight people. At the moment it excludes people who
have a different gender identity that hasn't been recognised. In
terms of what this contract involves, once you sign up for marriage
you take on fairly extensive obligations towards your partner but you
also have a range of benefits confirmed on you largely around tax,
social welfare, employment benefits.
WSM: Do the policies around partnership rights
have a negative impact for all relationships outside of marriage or
is it just same sex couples?
JW: Anything outside the marital family unit is treated
less favourably; so solo parents, people who are heterosexual but are
cohabiting or not and are not married are all treated as lesser forms
of family then the martial family, the courts have made that very
clear. The constitution prescribes special protection for the married
family.
In relation to social welfare last year the government introduced
legislation to say that gay or lesbian co-habiting couples are not to
be treated as couples for the purpose of social welfare.
In most area you find that married couples are benefiting and have
the most defined set of rights. If you own a property and if you are
married your spouse has an automatic share in the property, moreover
married couples don't have to pay inheritance tax. If you are not
married and you are in the same situation and your partner dies it
depends whether you have written a will or not. Your partner is a
stranger to the law.
WSM: Are there other ways in which people who
can't legally get married lose out?
JW: Sure, children are probably the one is most acute in
people's actual lives.
In terms of parent child relationships, if you are married both
parents are automatically the legal guardians of their children.
Where the parents of the kid are not married to each other the mother
is automatically given custody and rights over the child.
Married fathers are presumed to be automatically good parents and
unmarried fathers are seen as having a lesser status. The real
problem here is not discrimination based on gender but on martial
status.
WSM: How does this effect same sex couples that
have a child?
JW: The biological parent, whether they be a man or women
is the guardian. The partner would fall outside the parental unit.
There is no provision at the moment to have a gay or lesbian partner
to be appointed as guardian.
WSM: Do you see these laws changing so that
same sex couples will be able to get married?
JW: Marriage is somewhere off in the distant future. The
gay and lesbian lobby have various positions, which is not
necessarily a bad thing. Many groups that have put in proposals are
saying they don't want marriage per se; they just want some form of
recognition. For example GLUE who are concerned mostly with people
whose partner is outside the EU want some form of recognition; for
them it's an urgent issue of being able to be with their partner in
the one place.
David Norris drew up a bill to put gay and lesbian relationships
on some sort of legal footing with opposite sex non-married couples.
This was introduced last year but it has been deferred. The
government indicated that it would draw up its own proposals. The
issue is gaining some political momentum and I can image there will
be a larger debate around this fairly soon.
WSM: Do you think that state should be
regulating interpersonal relationships?
JW: There needs to be some form of ground rules to protect
people from being exploited, from violence and abuse. Traditionally
the state has used marriage for the base of many things, basically
maintaining inequalities, privatising responsibility and care.
Basically the state subsidises marriage, we give it financial
benefits, we need to ask why don't we subsidise solo parents. At the
moment children are inheriting the poverty of there parents. People
talk about meritocracy and I think it's a joke.
WSM: What is your utopian vision of
relationship formation and regulation?
JW: Autonomy and equality as the two core values, where
every individual would have autonomy and the right to
self-determination, to freely choose the type of relationships they
want to form with whom, when etc. Subject to their not being able to
exploit or abuse someone else. If each individual had a basic
standard of living regardless of gender or martial status, the
questions about what happens when you cohabitate or get marriedbecome
more or less lrrelevant.
by Tobie*
From Workers Solidarity 88
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (1 of 1)
Jump To Comment: 1While I agree that all people should have the right to marry, I find that in my position, it is demeaning that I should have to get married to enjoy the rights of 'security' 'health benefits of my partner' and so on.
I feel like if we made not only marriage equal for all, but also made it such that things like health and finance security didn't have to depend on marriage, and that even as single people, we'd get paid a living wage (everywhere) and were treated like a whole person.
In my situation, as a bisexual polyamorist, it just isn't practical for me to get married. Which partner would I marry, and which ones wouldn't I? It seems that if I were to get married, for example, certain people may not be allowed to get information from the hospital, whereas getting married may allow only one person to have that access.