Referendum time again! This time, it's divorce

robindch

Seems that the government has decided to hold two new referendums in May of next year.

The first referendum proposes to extend voting in elections for the President of Ireland to Irish citizens in other countries. The second referendum proposes to ease or remove the constitutional restrictions on divorce.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-to-ease-restrictions-on-divorce-to-be-held-next-year-1.3720120

Irish Times wrote:

A referendum to ease the constitutional restrictions on divorce is to be held next year on the same day as the local and European elections in late May, the Government has decided. At present, the Constitution only permits divorce where certain conditions are met, including that the spouses have lived apart for four of the previous five years.

Now the Government proposes to either reduce the four year requirement or take it out of the constitution altogether, depending on consultations with the opposition parties which are to begin immediately. The move comes after the Government accepted a private members bill in 2016 by the Fine Gael TD Josepha Madigan, then a backbencher but now Cabinet minister, which proposed a liberalisation of the law.

Ms Madigan’s bill was supported by all parties and Leinster House sources say that it is unlikely to be a contentious political issue. However, a Government spokesman said on Tuesday that the question of whether the separation period should be reduced from four years to two, or taken out of the Constitution entirely, would be decided over the coming weeks. It is intended to begin discussions with the other parties and independents immediately.

Earlier this year, following the passage of the abortion referendum, Ms Madigan suggested that divorce could be removed from the Constitution entirely, leaving the responsibility to the Oireachtas to legislate for any conditions. The stringent restrictions on divorce in the Constitution were inserted in place of the blanket ban which was removed in the 1995 referendum. At the time, after the experience of the 1986 divorce referendum defeat, it was believed that a constitutionally restrictive form of divorce would be endorsed by voters. In the event, the 1995 referendum was passed by a wafer-thin majority.

Following consultations with the opposition and further work by officials in the Department of Justice, the Government will bring forward a bill in January to provide for a referendum on a constitutional amendment to take place on May 24th, on the same day as the local and European elections. The decision to hold the referendum next year was made by the Government at Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting.

The Government also intends to propose another referendum on the same day, which would allow Irish citizens resident abroad to vote in presidential elections on the same day, a spokesman confirmed.

UsBus

Finally a referendum that will really benefit me. I'm separated a year and a half. Having to wait another 2.5 years to make it legal is bonkers.
In Australia, everything gets sorted within the year if you wish. I do think that is a bit too quick, however 2 years is appropriate. As anyone who has gone through this will know, once a couple decide to live apart, the relationship has gone south long before that.

Keeping people in limbo for 4 years is not right.

magicbastarder

if the referendum on divorce is passed, we'll have to wait 4 years for the actual implementation of it.

Dial Hard

UsBus wrote: »

Finally a referendum that will really benefit me. I'm separated a year and a half. Having to wait another 2.5 years to make it legal is bonkers.
In Australia, everything gets sorted within the year if you wish. I do think that is a bit too quick, however 2 years is appropriate. As anyone who has gone through this will know, once a couple decide to live apart, the relationship has gone south long before that.

Keeping people in limbo for 4 years is not right.

I suspect that even if the referendum is passed, it won't help you, unfortunately. It'll either take so long for the legislation to be enacted that your 2.5 years will have been and gone, or it will only apply to couples who separate after the law is changed.

seamus

Take it out altogether.

I like the idea of a cooling-off period in principle, but the way we've implemented it has left too many people in a stupid limbo state "waiting" for a relationship to legally end, when it actually ended half a decade ago. Shackled legally and financially to someone that you haven't spoken to in years and you may not even be able to get a hold of. It's crazy.

Allow the Oireachtas to set the cooling off period in law, as well as provide more exemptions to cooling off. Don't be codifying more stuff into the constitution that will need revision again in two decades.

UsBus

Dial Hard wrote: »

I suspect that even if the referendum is passed, it won't help you, unfortunately. It'll either take so long for the legislation to be enacted that your 2.5 years will have been and gone, or it will only apply to couples who separate after the law is changed.

Ya you're right, it probably will drag on for a while. I'm not overly concerned as I'm legally separated & I don't intend to jump off the deep end again any time soon..
If people knew the legalities marriage throws up, they'd never go through with it. Unfortunately you only start researching this when it falls apart..

loyatemu

shouldn't be in the constitution at all. The orginal clause was part of Dev's "catholic Ireland" vision, I guess when it was changed a replacement article was inserted to make it more likely to pass but now that we've had 20 years of divorce without Ireland turning into a polygamous free-for-all surely the simplest thing is to just delete the article and legislate for a simpler system.

If 2 people want to get divorced and there's no dispute, they should be able to do so with the minimum of fuss - this is what they're looking at in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/sep/15/no-fault-divorce-rule-mooted-to-end-blame-game-in-break-ups

nozzferrahhtoo

Ah the "NO" camp should have it easy. They just have to take all the "Dont deny children a mother and a father" posters and arguments out of storage following the Gay Marriage Referendum.... and half their campaign is ready to go already.

robindch

loyatemu wrote: »

shouldn't be in the constitution at all. The orginal clause was part of Dev's "catholic Ireland" vision, I guess when it was changed a replacement article was inserted to make it more likely to pass but now that we've had 20 years of divorce without Ireland turning into a polygamous free-for-all surely the simplest thing is to just delete the article and legislate for a simpler system.

That's about it - the constitution should define broad societal rights and responsibilities while legislation enacted by the Dail should determine how these rights are responsibilities play out in practice.

Would be nice to see marriage laws updated as part of this overhaul. And specifically, for prenuptial agreements given the full legal support.

UsBus

robindch wrote: »

And specifically, for prenuptial agreements given the full legal support.

When I was younger, I thought prenuptial agreements were an American thing and very cold and calculated to be thinking about..

Now that I've come to my senses, prenuptial agreements should be the first thing a couple sort out. Marriages that break down are just to messy to not have these in place. They should be a legal requirement to have in place and not your rubbish pre marital course you have to sign up to..

seamus

robindch wrote: »

And specifically, for prenuptial agreements given the full legal support.

It's a different issue, but I'd rather they were left unrecognised.

If you feel the need to have a prenup, then marriage isn't for you. IMHO.

I'd rather the conditions were made explicit in law, e.g. everything earned before and after the marriage belongs to the individual, everything earned inside the marriage is divided 50:50.

loyatemu

The Government also intends to propose another referendum on the same day, which would allow Irish citizens resident abroad to vote in presidential elections on the same day, a spokesman confirmed.

unless this is very restricted I predict it will be well defeated.

robindch

seamus wrote: »

I'd rather the conditions were made explicit in law, e.g. everything earned before and after the marriage belongs to the individual, everything earned inside the marriage is divided 50:50.

That can lead to trouble - what if somebody sets up a company, then gets married, then sells the company, then divorces? Would the proceeds of the sale be split 50:50, or would they be first split according to the proportion of time married over time since setup, then split? At the moment, I believe divorce law works the first way while the principal private residence tax relief works the second way. A prenup would sort that kind of thing out, assuming it wasn't part of a default prenup provided for by marriage law.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

If you feel the need to have a prenup, then marriage isn't for you. IMHO.

+1

seamus wrote: »

I'd rather the conditions were made explicit in law, e.g. everything earned before and after the marriage belongs to the individual, everything earned inside the marriage is divided 50:50.

Everything earned after, but not everything before. If you're not willing to share your stuff at the start, its not really a marriage is it.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

If you're not willing to share your stuff at the start, its not really a marriage is it.

And if it may not be permanent, then it's not really marriage either, is it?

Don't want to sound too dumb here, but marriage looks to me like a fully legal life-long contract which people can subsequently choose to default upon (for good or bad reasons).

Which is it - life-long or only potentially life-long?

Peregrinus

loyatemu wrote: »

shouldn't be in the constitution at all. The orginal clause was part of Dev's "catholic Ireland" vision, I guess when it was changed a replacement article was inserted to make it more likely to pass but now that we've had 20 years of divorce without Ireland turning into a polygamous free-for-all surely the simplest thing is to just delete the article and legislate for a simpler system.

If 2 people want to get divorced and there's no dispute, they should be able to do so with the minimum of fuss - this is what they're looking at in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/sep/15/no-fault-divorce-rule-mooted-to-end-blame-game-in-break-ups

Well, on a nitpick, no. If two people want to get divorced in the UK they can already do so with a minimum of fuss. The issue they are currently grappling with is how much fuss there has to be if only one of them wants to get divorced.

smacl

seamus wrote: »

It's a different issue, but I'd rather they were left unrecognised.

If you feel the need to have a prenup, then marriage isn't for you. IMHO.

I'd rather the conditions were made explicit in law, e.g. everything earned before and after the marriage belongs to the individual, everything earned inside the marriage is divided 50:50.

Why? Once you have two consenting adults agreeing in advance of what exactly they want their marriage to mean why should your preconceived notions of what a marriage should mean take precedent? Marriage can mean very different things to different people. Myself and my OH for example got married on the advice of our solicitor for example to look after the best interests of our kids, should one of us predecease the other. Neither of us particularly wanted to get married, having already been together for 17 years, it was an act of simple pragmatism. A prenup might be perfectly reasonable in many situations, e.g. where there are kids from one or both sides prior to the marriage that you're planning on passing accumulated wealth on to.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

And if it may not be permanent, then it's not really marriage either, is it?

Don't want to sound too dumb here, but marriage looks to me like a fully legal life-long contract which people can subsequently choose to default upon (for good or bad reasons).

Which is it - life-long or only potentially life-long?

Potentially lifelong.
But while it endures, sharing is a requirement. Remember what Barny says; sharing is caring.

If you need any more counselling, I'm available.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Potentially lifelong.
But while it endures, sharing is a requirement. Remember what Barny says; sharing is caring.

If you need any more counselling, I'm available.

So in addition to Tommy Robinson, Barney is another of your oracles? :pac:

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Potentially lifelong.

So why are people saying "till death do us part" if approximately 50% of all married couples will subsequently welch on that commitment?

recedite

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Hotblack Desiato

UsBus wrote: »

and not your rubbish pre marital course you have to sign up to..

There's no legal requirement to do a pre-marriage course. If you choose to subject yourself to the rules of a batsh!t crazy church then that's your own business.

robindch wrote: »

if approximately 50% of all married couples will subsequently welch on that commitment?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJRF8xGzvj4

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

So why are people saying "till death do us part" if approximately 50% of all married couples will subsequently welch on that commitment?

Nitpick: the figure for Ireland is more like 1-in-10. We have an unusually low divorce rate. The 50% statistic comes from the US, where they have an unusually high divorce rate. (And even in the US, I believe, it's considered a dodgily high figure.)

Why do people say "till death do us part"? Because that's what they want. They know it might not work out that way, but they want it to.

This isn't true just for starry-eyed teenagers. Smacl tells us that he and his Reason for Living got marrried after being together for 17 years and having several kids. It was an act of "simple pragmatism", to protect the kids "should one of us predecease the other" (which, spoiler alert, is statistically very likely to happen, when you think about it). Clearly, Smacl and the Object of his Affections expect their marriage to last until one of them dies; for them, that's the very scenario that the marriage is intended to address.

None of which is to say that they, or any other couple, shouldn't consider or enter into prenuptial agreements. There are two good reasons for doing this. First, even though you may want it to last forever, it may not, and there is merit in thinking about what your wishes and expectations might be if it doesn't. But, secondly, it doesn't just have to be about the possiblity of relationship breakdown; a prenuptial agreement can deal with how you expect things to work while you are together - how finances will be arranged, how decisions will be made, expectations of support for one another in relation to careers, etc, etc. And the merit of dealing with all this is not that you end up with a set of legally binding commitments governing these issues - prenuptial agreements are not really legally binding - but more that you discuss them and arrive at some kind of shared understanding or, at least, identify any areas where you may have different ideas, and so think about how to deal with your disagreement.

All of which begins to make getting a prenuptial agreement sound quite like doing a marriage preparation course. And, to be honest, the two processes have a good deal in common.

tuxy

Until death do us part is part is a vow used in Catholic weddings because that's the churches stance on it.

In a civil service you can use different vows.

Many people want a church wedding but do not have Catholic beliefs so just go along with it anyway.

smacl

tuxy wrote: »

Until death do us part is part is a vow used in Catholic weddings because that's the churches stance on it.

In a civil service you can use different vows.

Many people want a church wedding but do not have Catholic beliefs so just go along with it anyway.

Ours was a registry office job, and while there was no mention of death, that was still pretty much the gist of things. Could make for some interesting vows, 'I now pronounce you man and wife, until such time as one of you gets a better offer or has just had enough the relationship', which when you think about it would be far closer to the truth

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: the figure for Ireland is more like 1-in-10. We have an unusually low divorce rate.

I'd suggest that part of this is also because divorce has been so damn awkward in this country. I don't know many divorcees, but I do know one hell of a lot of married couples who've split up. I also know a few who haven't but might be better off if they did, social expectations and stigma also have a role here.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I'd suggest that part of this is also because divorce has been so damn awkward in this country. I don't know many divorcees, but I do know one hell of a lot of married couples who've split up. I also know a few who haven't but might be better off if they did, social expectations and stigma also have a role here.

Yes, fair point. Because of the legal setup here, if unhappy differences arise a couple will usually get a formal separation and sort out their property, parenting, etc arrangements at that point. Some years may pass between this and the opportunity to obtain for a divorce, so application for divorce will nto be driven by a need to sort out the practical issues. People may only apply for divorce either because they want the sense of closure that will bring, or because they want to marry someone else. So that could keep the (formal) divorce rate down.

A crude measure of the incidence of divorce in any society might be from census returns; the number of people identifing as divorced as a percentage of the number of ever-married people. But I'll leave it to the honours students to do the research and the calculcations on that.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why do people say "till death do us part"? Because that's what they want. They know it might not work out that way, but they want it to.

I'm not denying that people want their state of married bliss to last forever - who wouldn't? - but simply asking the question why the legal form of marriage, at least in the public mind, is a permanent arrangement, while in fact and very often, it's a temporary one.

Also, from various perspectives, marriage can be seen as coercive, giving considerable power to one individual to allow them to dominate the other if and when things deteriorate - perhaps owing to changes of one kind or another, or people learning things about the other person which weren't made clear the day the contract was signed. I'm reminded of my own godfather who married back in 1960's in the full knowledge that he was gay, a fact which his then-wife only learned of on her honeymoon and had her, in short order, marching to the airport and home again.

One way around the permanence/not-permanent issue is an idea which some legal systems are toying with - renewable, non-permanent marriage contracts. These switch the interest of both parties from a default position of avoiding discussion of divorce, to the opposite - a more helpful discussion requiring the active agreement of both people to continue - a conscious decision and discussion which, in my view, a lot of couples could benefit from having.

UsBus

Heard a small bit more about this referendum in the news recently. Seems to be scheduled for May. I'm hoping it gets well publicised that there is a need to reduce the waiting time from four years down to two.

Unfortunately it may not drum up the interest in many people if they are not directly affected by it. I hope I'm wrong and people get out & vote to reduce this draconian waiting time. Everyone goes into marriage with the best of intentions but when it goes wrong, people shouldn't be penalised for four years.

L1011

Turnout will be OK because of the two elections on the same day, it's not going to suffer from that

seamus

Given that the fear element has really been taken out of this, I doubt the usual suspects will make a lot of noise about it. There'll be some, but I'd be surprised if there's any mass movement to try and block this referendum. Half of the them are divorced or otherwise separated anyway. Should be a no brainer tbh.

jimmycrackcorm

UsBus wrote:

Unfortunately it may not drum up the interest in many people if they are not directly affected by it. I hope I'm wrong and people get out & vote to reduce this draconian waiting time. Everyone goes into marriage with the best of intentions but when it goes wrong, people shouldn't be penalised for four years.

SSM only affects a small number of people but it still got the interest.
I'd expect this to pass based on progressive attitudes seen in both that and the abortion referenda.

4 years is a ridiculous and arbitrary number.

Hotblack Desiato

Any sign of a wording yet? I think putting two years into the constitution is a mistake, leave legislation to legislators.

Odhinn

seamus wrote:

Given that the fear element has really been taken out of this, I doubt the usual suspects will make a lot of noise about it. There'll be some, but I'd be surprised if there's any mass movement to try and block this referendum. Half of the them are divorced or otherwise separated anyway. Should be a no brainer tbh.

..

seamus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Any sign of a wording yet? I think putting two years into the constitution is a mistake, leave legislation to legislators.

Conflicting reports on the news yesterday talking about removing the four years and then later mentioning two years, so I dunno.

I expect they'll just delete the four years reference and put the two years into law. They didn't go with anything convoluted for abortion or SSM, so I don't see why they'd do it again.

Actually, RTE have reported:

Voters will be asked if they wish to remove the four-year minimum living apart period from the Constitution and allow a reduced term to be defined by legislation.

So it looks like there'll be no term in the constitution. Pretty straightforward.

loyatemu

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Any sign of a wording yet? I think putting two years into the constitution is a mistake, leave legislation to legislators.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/cabinet-signs-off-on-wording-for-divorce-vote-37955094.html

"Voters will be asked to remove the reference to a minimum 'pause period' from the Constitution and allow it to be dealt with in legislation."

seems straightforward, but I'm sure the usual suspects will emerge to warn of societal collapse. More RTE appearance fees ahead for David Quinn et al.

Hotblack Desiato

Ah jaysus. Please tell me RTE don't pay the likes of him to be on... :eek:

harrylittle

tuxy wrote: »

Until death do us part is part is a vow used in Catholic weddings because that's the churches stance on it.

In a civil service you can use different vows.

Many people want a church wedding but do not have Catholic beliefs so just go along with it anyway.

The Catholic church uses that stance because its one of Gods commandents " Thou shall not commit adultry "

Hotblack Desiato

So, do adulterers summon demons, or is it just the magicians?

Cabaal

Incoming Iona (Lolek Ltd) to represent the "silent majority".

Its getting annoying having to deal with their crap in almost every referendum

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

Incoming Iona (Lolek Ltd) to represent the "silent majority".

The silent and non-voting majority, if recent referendums are anything to go by.

smacl

Cabaal wrote: »

Incoming Iona (Lolek Ltd) to represent the "silent majority".

Its getting annoying having to deal with their crap in almost every referendum

No harm, I don't think they're a credible voice for anyone that does not follow their anachronistic world view, which is becoming an increasingly small minority. As recent referenda have shown, the moral majority in this country are neither silent nor easily bullied by conservative Catholic dogma. I actually think that so many people find Iona objectionable enough that they'd instinctively vote against them.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

The silent and non-voting majority, if recent referendums are anything to go by.

So silent, invisible and non-intervening, they might as well be god.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So silent, invisible and non-intervening, they might as well be god.

Perhaps they are!

Odhinn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So, do adulterers summon demons, or is it just the magicians?

Don't be silly.





It's obviously the gays.

harrylittle

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So, do adulterers summon demons, or is it just the magicians?

if an adulterer commits a mortal sin they seperate from gods protection .... so they become fair game for all sorts of demons ... much like a buffalo on the african plains becoming seperated from the herd ... roaming close to a pride of hungry lions.

gctest50

harrylittle wrote: »

if an adulterer commits a mortal sin they seperate from gods protection .... so they become fair game for all sorts of demons ... much like a buffalo on the african plains becoming seperated from the herd ... roaming close to a pride of hungry lions.

What is that post rambling about ?

Can't beat a hardworking demon, do more in a day than some rosarybead clutching Catholic anyway

seamus

smacl wrote: »

No harm, I don't think they're a credible voice for anyone that does not follow their anachronistic world view, which is becoming an increasingly small minority. As recent referenda have shown, the moral majority in this country are neither silent nor easily bullied by conservative Catholic dogma. I actually think that so many people find Iona objectionable enough that they'd instinctively vote against them.

https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/1113541838022094854

Subtly trying to bring the conversation around to "why marriage is good", no doubt with a future intention of claiming that it needs strong protection from divorce.

Dave getting fairly pilloried on Twitter though, very few positive responses.

Peregrinus

Married people have more sex? Well, who'd have thought!

David's not going to tell you this, I suspect, but studies suggest not only that married people have more sex, but that they have more kinky sex.

Niether of these things are all that surprising, when you think about them.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Married people have more sex? Well, who'd have thought!

Not only are married people having more sex, they're having more kids as well, with more than six-in-ten births taking place within the bonds of Holy Matrimony:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/nearly-four-in-10-births-outside-marriage-figures-show-1.2667188

Is there a causal link between sex and babies? David needs to know!

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Not only are married people having more sex, they're having more kids as well, with more than six-in-ten births taking place within the bonds of Holy Matrimony:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/nearly-four-in-10-births-outside-marriage-figures-show-1.2667188

Is there a causal link between sex and babies? David needs to know!

Nah, I reckon David follows the Stork school of thought. How could any of that dirty sex nonsense ever be related to beautiful babbies?