Ireland KAL case: Same-sex pair 'have no right to marriage'
13/10/2006
By
ILGA-Europe
SAME sex couples do not have the right to marry under the Irish Constitution, lawyers for the State told
the High Court yesterday.
State Counsel Paul Gallagher SC said the wording in the Constitution that deals with marriage "clearly
relates to a union between a man and a woman" and it was impossible to conclude that the term referred to relationships between people of the same sex.
Mr Gallagher was making submissions on behalf of the State in the continuing action, being heard by Ms
Justice Elizabeth Dunne, by Dr Katherine Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan,
an academic, against the Revenue Commissioners and the State.
The couple claim the failure by the authorities here to recognise their Canadian marriage as valid here
breaches their right to marry under the Irish Constitution, European Convention on Human Rights and
the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms.
They also argue that if their Canadian marriage, obtained in the Province of British Columbia in 2003, is
not recognised they should have the right to marry within the State.
The State denies the alleged breaches of rights.
Mr Gallagher said the wording of the Constitution in relation to marriage was "plain and unambiguous".
There was nothing that "would alter the natural meaning of those words".
When it came to interpreting the Constitution "plain words must be given a plain meaning".
He said that any interpretation the Constitution allows same-sex couples the right to marry is incorrect.
Marriage is an institution between two people of the opposite sex, which was given "special protection," under the Constitution, he said.
Counsel said the State had not breached the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms, as the respective European Courts had also defined marriage as
something between a man and woman.
He said that the Tax code had not unfairly discriminated against them.
Donal O'Donnell SC, also representing the State, said that plaintiffs were making a "bold claim", which, if upheld by the court, would have a range of consequences.
He rejected the claim that there was a social change or public consensus that would allow the courts
redefine what is meant by marriage.
The plaintiff's claim, he said, was "unsustainable".
The hearing, which is now in it second week, resumes today.
Ann O'Loughlin
Irish Independent 12 October 2006
the High Court yesterday.
State Counsel Paul Gallagher SC said the wording in the Constitution that deals with marriage "clearly
relates to a union between a man and a woman" and it was impossible to conclude that the term referred to relationships between people of the same sex.
Mr Gallagher was making submissions on behalf of the State in the continuing action, being heard by Ms
Justice Elizabeth Dunne, by Dr Katherine Zappone, a public policy consultant, and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan,
an academic, against the Revenue Commissioners and the State.
The couple claim the failure by the authorities here to recognise their Canadian marriage as valid here
breaches their right to marry under the Irish Constitution, European Convention on Human Rights and
the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms.
They also argue that if their Canadian marriage, obtained in the Province of British Columbia in 2003, is
not recognised they should have the right to marry within the State.
The State denies the alleged breaches of rights.
Mr Gallagher said the wording of the Constitution in relation to marriage was "plain and unambiguous".
There was nothing that "would alter the natural meaning of those words".
When it came to interpreting the Constitution "plain words must be given a plain meaning".
He said that any interpretation the Constitution allows same-sex couples the right to marry is incorrect.
Marriage is an institution between two people of the opposite sex, which was given "special protection," under the Constitution, he said.
Counsel said the State had not breached the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Freedoms, as the respective European Courts had also defined marriage as
something between a man and woman.
He said that the Tax code had not unfairly discriminated against them.
Donal O'Donnell SC, also representing the State, said that plaintiffs were making a "bold claim", which, if upheld by the court, would have a range of consequences.
He rejected the claim that there was a social change or public consensus that would allow the courts
redefine what is meant by marriage.
The plaintiff's claim, he said, was "unsustainable".
The hearing, which is now in it second week, resumes today.
Ann O'Loughlin
Irish Independent 12 October 2006
