The second part of the question should be “and do we care?”

You have an alternative answer to the question “Who was Terry Keane”? Fascinating.

Yes john you can the defamation act 2009 specifically deals with defaming the dead.

People are daft. Its amazing the number who *think* the law says something that it does not. This week’s examples:

- The Iona “Institute” (Lolek Ltd) were on radio railing against “changing the definition of marriage in the Constitution”. The Constitution does NOT currently define marriage.

- On Liveline a caller was expressing concerns about Polygamy becoming legal in a couple of years. If YES wins in May, there will be a Constitutional BAN on Polygamy (civil marriage being “between two persons”). Currently there is NO BAN on Polygamy in the Constitution. So after May the People would have to vote to allow polygamy, instead of just the Oireachtas as is the situation at present!

Wow, didn’t know that. So technically, there is currently no ban on same sex marriage, would that be right?

@Sharon: 100% correct.

The Referendum is being held as the better of two openings. The other would be a Act of the Oireachtas which could be constitutionally challenged by interest groups (think Iona). That alternative would result in a protracted and expensive legal battle (paid for by the State) all the way to the Supreme Court.

Having a Referendum to definitively express the views of the People on Marriage Equality immunises against any legal challenges since the People are sovereign and what we say goes.

@Sharon: To be totally clear, in 2004 the FF Government introduced a ban on same gender civil marriage. It had not existed in any Act between 1922 and 2004. That part of the 2004 Act will fall away automatically if the People vote Yes in May.

But the over point still stands:

Marriage is NOT defined in the Irish Constitution. So this Referendum will define marriage in our Constitution for the first time.

The constitution is not law. It does however provide a framework for the law. If the constitution bans gay marriage but there is no law against it, you cannot be prosecuted for it. However if somebody brings it to the Supreme court, then the Dail can be compelled into bringing the law in to line with the constitution.
As it currently stands, gay marriage is a grey area. If the Dail were to allow it through legislation, it could be challenged in the Supreme court and the outcome of such a case would not be clear. The constitution puts an obligation on the state to protect the family and it could be argued that the spirit of such a clause was/is restricted to a traditional/hetero definition.
Even when we say “yes” to amend the constitution, it does not make it legal. It only allows the Dail to pass laws without fear of challenge in the Supreme court as possibly unconstitutional.

@Alan:

Your first paragraph: “The Constitution is not law” statement is factually incorrect. There are parts of the Constitution which provide a framework for laws to be enacted, but much of it IS law.

Your second para simply states the argument Iona (Lolek Ltd) would put forth if it tried to challenge an Act introducing single sex marriage. Hence the Referendum to save everybody the bother and expense.

Your last paragraph is incorrect. This Referendum is self-executing. There will be no need for the Oireachtas to bring in a law to provide for same sex marriage after a Yes vote.

Other Referendums in the past were not self-executing. This one is self-executing because of its wording. The “in accordance with law” bit in the Amendment is simply there so that all of the existing usual rules apply, e.g. grandmother canNOT marry her daughter/son. (Breda: Don’t even try this – We the People and our Courts shall all be watching in disgust if you do and we won’t let you away with it!)

@Alan: You confused reply is the perfect reason why we set to a Referendum Commission in advance of each vote to separate fact from fiction.

It’s also an indication as to why Lolek Ltd (Iona) should continue to be challenged on every misleading point they make in this debate so that they don’t win the Referendum by wilfully misstating legal fact.

@All: So many typos. So sorry.

Winding_Down,
I must hail your reasoning and knowledge on this issue and others in the past – your input here is excellent and I enjoy it immensely .
Keep writing out loud

@winding down: I think you are misinterpreting what I am implying: We need a constitutional amendment (I.e a yes vote) to protect us from Rte-funded Iona legal challenges.
Say yes!

It will censor many of the first words that spring to mind, but hopefully will let me say that she was a vain, narcissistic trollop with whom Charlie Haughey was perfectly matched.

Surely if a civil marriage bill was passed and sent by the President to the Supreme Court and they said it was constitutional then it would be pointless to challenge and there’d be no need for a referendum, no?

@Daniel:

Yes, you’re right – Article 26 of the Constitution gives the President that discretionary power and, *if* deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, that Bill – in its entirety – would then be immunised from further constitutional challenge by Iona or whoever else.

In practice though, the Government wouldn’t voluntarily go this route since the decision to refer is the President’s to make, and they cannot force him to do that because they’d be overstepping their powers. Besides, if he cooperated and referred it and it *was* deemed unconstitutional, a Referendum would then be both legally necessary and politically divisive. So you see the predicament, they’re rather let the People definitively decide rather than drag things out!

@Alan Lawlor: Fair enough, sorry for implying that you’re a supporter of Lolek Ltd stance on civil marriage!

@Mike Howard: I really appreciate that, thank you!

@winding_down Well played sir , well played. ;)

@ Sinead Hannley

” I cant understand why women have affairs with married men anyway”

Reason: They can enjoy the company of a man a few evenings a week, have a drink, go to the theatre etc … and do other things as well! … and then go straight back home again, a free woman

There is no washing of his underwear, no cooking his meals and no putting down the toilet seat lid every minute of the day!

Big willy..

That romantic part only lasts a few weeks.

But what about the broken dates, the “i’ll leave my wife and children” promise, the last on his list, the guilt, the fact that your presence is hurting his wife and children.

Its so wrong.

Poor Maureen? For a woman that had a great pedigree via her father but all the charisma of a dishcloth she did pretty well out of the deal. She got her kids, and in the latter years of her marriage, a lifestyle with comforts she could never have dared dream of. And if she wasn’t happy with the way things were she could have spoken out but she well knew who buttered her bread and kept quiet. It’s hardly surprising then that when Terry Keane, a glamorous, vivacious, highly intelligent and politically clued in woman crossed his path, Charlie was drawn to her like a moth to a flame. She was his equal if not superior in many ways and I’m sure his political rise was due,at least in part, if not entirely to her wise counsel. People on here who have had no contact with any of the people mentioned have eagerly jumped to the conclusion that SHE was the on one who had something to gain from their relationship when, in reality,the reverse was true. Prior to Charlie, Terry Keane had a very nice, upper middle class lifestyle. When they started their affair in the early 1970′s he was a TD who had been Minister for finance and due to the arms crisis had been relegated to the back benches with future prospects seeming increasingly unlikely. Hardly a hot prospect for a harlot on the make as some people seem willing to label her. It was only after they began their affair that things turned around for him and perhaps all the brovado and personal belief that seems to charachterise the man at that time in fact came from having someone to spark political ideas off and with a strong enough personality to stand up to him and tell him when he was about to make a mistake. And it is true that as he rose up, Terry rose up too, but then, so did “poor Maureen”. As Garret Fitzgerald said, Haughey could have been great, had preoccupation with wealth and power not clouded his judgement but that wasn’t down to Terry Keane, He had already bought Abbyville in Kinselaly before they started their affair.

Far too much writing for journal comments colm . Ah prob hard leave your husband in those days don’t forget ,

Very good comment Colm and very true!

You hit the nail on the head there Willy! Men need to be responsible for their own marriage! Sick of the woman always been to blame. All adults here……

Shinead, I think that’s the whole point! He had to woo her constantly, so the romance lasted decades instead of weeks and if he wanted to keep seeing her and she was never last on the list. She didn’t want him to leave his wife and kids for her, in fact if he had she would have probably ended things there and then if he had. I doubt if there was any hurting his wife and children considering it seems the she and Maureen got on quite well, does that sound like a hurt wife to you? And the children probably didn’t know untill much later… Why, when a married man strays it’s always assumed that it’s the “other” womans fault. It’s the man that is married. Conversly, When a married woman has an affair with a single man, she’s always seen as the one in the wrong because she strayed. Double standards much?