Log in

No account? Create an account
01 November 2007 @ 11:42 am
but what about the cost? Won't somebody think of the taxpayer?  

The emphasis in this article is pissing me off. There's a hell of a lot more straight couples than gay couples, so the majority of the "anything up to €2bn a year" cost would not be due to "gay 'marriages'".
lazy_hoorlazy_hoor on November 1st, 2007 12:06 pm (UTC)
It's an utterly ridiculous argument. It's like 'Free education will cost the taxpayer €€€€'
'Health service will cost the taxpayer €€€'

Well yeah. I don't mind paying tax for education and health and equal rights. I do mind paying tax so Bertie and co can give themselves a pay rise, and a rise that is more than my annual gross salary.

But anyway, cheer yourself up by coming to my blog and reading about a Scottish perv.
a very caring potatomollydot on November 1st, 2007 01:55 pm (UTC)
*heads over*
(Deleted comment)
a very caring potato: wedding bearsmollydot on November 1st, 2007 01:54 pm (UTC)
It's from iconomicon. Free to do whatever you like with it.

Ah... that's their cunning plan - civil partnership now, so all the gay couples who want to get married will settle for this halfway house for now, spending lots of money on the trimmings. Then, introduce gay marriage or a proper equivalent, and they'll all get married again! Double the profit!
kristamm: havemercykristamm on November 1st, 2007 05:30 pm (UTC)
That's an appallingly poorly written article. For starters:

'The move will have implication for a "myriad" of people in other co-habiting relationships.'

WTF is with the quotations marks around myriad?
a very caring potatomollydot on November 1st, 2007 09:44 pm (UTC)
Oh yeah. I hadn't really noticed that.
Doriandorianegray on November 1st, 2007 08:19 pm (UTC)
What I want to know is why anyone thinks gay marriage is unconstitutional. There is not one damn' thing in the constitution that says a marriage must be composed of one man and one woman.
a very caring potatomollydot on November 1st, 2007 09:47 pm (UTC)
Is there not? I'd started to get the impression there was, but now that you say it, I remember that it's assumed to have meant that.
Doriandorianegray on November 1st, 2007 10:55 pm (UTC)
There is not. The last time the Civil Unions bill came up, I went and read the Constitution very carefully with an eye to just that. Nowhere does it explicitly state what the composition of a marriage should be.
(Anonymous) on November 1st, 2007 10:50 pm (UTC)
Did anyone notice the line:

“The Government will now have to decide what tax advantages to give to gay and, by extension, co-habiting couples.”
Why would they automatically have to give rights to co-habiting couples as an automatic extension of providing civil unions to gay couples?

If a hetro couple want the tax (and whatever) rights/responsibilities they can do that now. The introduction of a civil-contract to each other for gays/other couples doesn’t change this. Consider the hetro-couple who opt for a civil union rather than a marriage. How, aside from some religious connotations (that the state cares nothing for) is that different from being married?
Here in Australia, if a couple are cohabiting for a year or more they are in a “de facto” marriage. Couples start living together to save on rent and ’cause it seemed like a good/fun idea at the time and without ever signing a contract, you suddenly find that you have combined tax rights and own half of each other’s stuff. Imagine the break-up rows?

The article appears to be suggesting that the new legislation will automatically confer such rights on co-habiting couples in Ireland. I doubt that is the case. If a cohabiting couple sign a civil union contract how is that different from them getting married? At least as far as the state is concerned.

Perhaps the author thinks every co-habiting couple in the country will rush out and sign one of these as a sort of marriage-lite. “We’re just doing it for tax purposes. We’re not really ‘married’.” I doubt that people would do this as the commitment to each other would be the same as for marriage. In particular the property rights (which, frankly, are all a marriage is about from a legislative perspective) would be the same.

A more interesting question is whether other economically co-dependent “couples” will be able to avail of the contract. I’m thinking of the sort of elderly bachelor brothers, or spinster sisters that we all know. They share everything and are completely reliant on one another. But when one dies the other loses a great deal in inheritance tax. Why should they not be allowed to have a civil-union?

a very caring potatomollydot on November 1st, 2007 11:26 pm (UTC)
Re: Nonsequitur
I don't really know the difference, but this is civil partnership, not civil union. How much are you following Irish news? Labour put forward a Civil Union bill in Feb, which the government tabled for 6 months, knowing that there would be an election before then. Labour re-introduced it yesterday, which prompted the government to move on civil partnership. Civil union would be marriage by a different name. I'm not quite sure what this is, but it is not specifically for gay couples. It's much broader. And it's not out of the blue. They did talk about it last year.

So, in term of the article, it's not so much bad facts, as bad writing again. It should have been something like “The Government will now have to decide what tax advantages to give to gay and other co-habiting couples.” Or leave out the "gay and other".

I must see what the difference is between this and marriage. And between this and Labour's bill. I know Labour's was to be like marriage in everything but name.