Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Divorce Referendum

Options
  • 06-05-2019 8:49am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 7,185 ✭✭✭


    On the same day as the local and European elections (Friday May 24th) the electorate will also be asked to vote on a referendum for the proposed 38th amendment of the constitution, i.e. the Divorce Referendum.

    I know that the same-sex marriage and Abortion referenda were a lot more high-profile issues but I have heard absolutely nothing about this and haven't seen any posters up about it.

    Is it seen as a done deal and nobody is bothering to campaign much about it?

    Also, why did they not consider removing the issue of divorce entirely from the constitution, as they did with the Abortion issue, and allow for it to be dealt with through legislation?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2016


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,356 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    My understanding is they planning to remove the time scale from the constitution and let the government set legislation for it. Maybe I misunderstood to be fair.
    It’s a fairly non contentious issue so I’d imagine nobody is too bothered about pushing it.

    Just nipped to the shop and FG lads are sticking vote yes on a pile of lampposts


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,182 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    I knew about it.

    I'll be voting yes.


    I know people who have been waiting for a divorce longer than they were married!


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,715 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I know people who were married and divorced abroad but cannot get married here because we currently don't recoognise their divorce.
    In addition, their exs can show up here and demand financial support.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,461 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Seems like an administrative referendum than anything, closing off loopholes and tightening the law to be more accommodating to couples; I presume this has universal support from all parties, and the Rónán Mullens of this world are staying out of the conversation? Taking a public 'no' stance would presumably be seen as a fairly petty, vindictive stance against something already in the law books...


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,768 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Seems like an administrative referendum than anything, closing off loopholes and tightening the law to be more accommodating to couples; I presume this has universal support from all parties, and the Rónán Mullens of this world are staying out of the conversation? Taking a public 'no' stance would presumably be seen as a fairly petty, vindictive stance against something already in the law books...

    Iona are opposing it. Which is not a surprise!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,461 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    L1011 wrote: »
    Iona are opposing it. Which is not a surprise!

    I'm actually genuinely surprised; what's the thinking behind their opposition? I'm scarcely a PR expert but I'd have thought opposing this would just make the group/person appear a bit spiteful or petty, against a law already enacted & functioning.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,715 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    pixelburp wrote: »
    I'm actually genuinely surprised; what's the thinking behind their opposition? I'm scarcely a PR expert but I'd have thought opposing this would just make the group/person appear a bit spiteful or petty, against a law already enacted & functioning.
    Presumably their closeness to the RCC means that they simply must have an anti-divorce outlook.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,768 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    pixelburp wrote: »
    I'm actually genuinely surprised; what's the thinking behind their opposition? I'm scarcely a PR expert but I'd have thought opposing this would just make the group/person appear a bit spiteful or petty, against a law already enacted & functioning.

    They don't seem to mind negative PR from their actions - see Pantigate.

    Don't think any political parties, even Renua or Aontú, have come out for No.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭JeffKenna


    #hometovote


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,494 ✭✭✭touts


    pixelburp wrote: »
    I'm actually genuinely surprised; what's the thinking behind their opposition?

    Other people might be happy.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,494 ✭✭✭touts


    L1011 wrote: »
    They don't seem to mind negative PR from their actions - see Pantigate.

    Don't think any political parties, even Renua or Aontú, have come out for No.

    I'm sure John Walters will be more than happy to fill the gap on any and all shows that will have him.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,356 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    touts wrote: »
    I'm sure John Walters will be more than happy to fill the gap on any and all shows that will have him.

    There’ll be little to no debate so not much oxygen will be given to either side thankfully. I’d see this as more a bit of housekeeping legislation wise.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,950 ✭✭✭circadian


    pixelburp wrote: »
    I'm actually genuinely surprised; what's the thinking behind their opposition? I'm scarcely a PR expert but I'd have thought opposing this would just make the group/person appear a bit spiteful or petty, against a law already enacted & functioning.

    I'm convinced Iona are contrarian for the sake of it at times.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    Potentially its a good opportunity for Iona to oppose as presumably there will be a bit of airtime given to it and anytime there is for the sake of balance they will want a no representative and this is where Iona steps in getting there name out there.

    I did see a clip where a representative was saying they don't oppose reducing it as such but would rather keep it in the constitution as if we give control to the politicians who knows what will happen, next day divorces for drunken marriages and that kind of thing :eek:

    In my opinion it is exactly the kind of thing that shouldn't be in the constitution, i.e. specific details on a bit of legislation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,768 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    next day divorces for drunken marriages and that kind of thing.

    Due to the statutory notice period, those can't happen to begin with; you'd think they'd know the laws about marriage seeing as they've fought to stop them changing before!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,920 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    pixelburp wrote: »
    I'm actually genuinely surprised; what's the thinking behind their opposition?

    they're scum.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    L1011 wrote: »
    Due to the statutory notice period, those can't happen to begin with; you'd think they'd know the laws about marriage seeing as they've fought to stop them changing before!

    Just for clarity, my post was bit hyperbole, what David Quinn said was he didn't want to see it reduced to 6 months which has happened in other countries.
    RTE 9 New Sun 6th may, divorce bit 14:00 minutes ish in.
    https://www.rte.ie/player/series/rt%C3%A9-news-nine-o-clock/SI0000001468?epguid=IH000374687


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    L1011 wrote: »
    Iona are opposing it. Which is not a surprise!

    They have no issue with the proposed change in limits but want it to remain in the constitution and as has been stated above what they don't want is instant divorce nor politicians legislating for it. This should be approved with a very large majority.


  • Registered Users Posts: 214 ✭✭sandbelter


    is_that_so wrote: »
    They have no issue with the proposed change in limits but want it to remain in the constitution and as has been stated above what they don't want is instant divorce nor politicians legislating for it. This should be approved with a very large majority.

    Actually, as someone going through a divorce at the moment this is a very valid reason to vote no. Until you go through a divorce, it's a very abstract concept.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,801 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    sandbelter wrote: »
    Actually, as someone going through a divorce at the moment this is a very valid reason to vote no.

    You'll have to explain that one.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 214 ✭✭sandbelter


    Not easy to articulate....In short what I'm learning is that there both the divorce split then the divorce process and divorce is already legal so it's not a "Iona/RCC vs progress" clash, this actually about the being fair to the Applicant and Respondent to a Divorce (which Iona frankly seem to grasp).

    I happen to be of the view that the law should facilitate the Applicant, Respondent and children move to on. That's what divorce is, ""separate unto death". So don't get me wrong, I agree with the change to reduce to 2 years and the recognition of a foreign divorce as it is fair and proportional to all three parties to a divorce. But instant divorce terrifies me, but that's another topic.

    Hence I'm of the view the population has more insight into the divorce process than the politicians, they live with it and have more understanding of it. It's not just me that's had to deal with it, my whole family has had to as well, and funny enough it's my teenage nephews have found it hardest to adjust.

    I've tried to answer you objectively and factually as I can as I don't want it to sound like therapy.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,801 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    sandbelter wrote: »
    Not easy to articulate....In short what I'm learning is that there both the divorce split then the divorce process and divorce is already legal so it's not a "Iona/RCC vs progress" clash, this actually about the being fair to the Applicant and Respondent to a Divorce (which Iona frankly seem to grasp).
    That's fair enough, but I'm not clear on how the proposed change is unfair to either party.
    I happen to be of the view that the law should facilitate the Applicant, Respondent and children move to on. That's what divorce is, ""separate unto death". So don't get me wrong, I agree with the change to reduce to 2 years and the recognition of a foreign divorce as it is fair and proportional to all three parties to a divorce. But instant divorce terrifies me, but that's another topic.
    Well, yes - it's another topic. As far as I know, absolutely nobody is proposing instant divorce, which really makes it a slippery slope logical fallacy.
    Hence I'm of the view the population has more insight into the divorce process than the politicians, they live with it and have more understanding of it.
    The implication is that politicians never have marital breakdowns.
    I've tried to answer you objectively and factually as I can as I don't want it to sound like therapy.
    I appreciate it, but I'm no closer to seeing an argument against the proposed amendment.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,405 Mod ✭✭✭✭igCorcaigh


    This proposition has had so little debate, I only realised this week we are voting on it. So I had to find the thread here.

    Even though i agree with very little he says, I follow David quinn on twitter.

    I think his argument for a no vote goes as follows.

    https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/1124963772303642624?s=19

    Which I interpret as another watering down of the commitment that marriage entails.

    I'd like to see more debate about this.

    My instinctive feel is to vote yes, which is almost certainly what I will do, as I have voted yes to divorce in the past and also yes to SSM.

    My personal feeling is that a loving relationship has to be voluntary, but I also feel that this issue has to be debated properly, like all others.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,356 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    igCorcaigh wrote: »
    This proposition has had so little debate, I only realised this week we are voting on it. So I had to find the thread here.

    Even though i agree with very little he says, I follow David quinn on twitter.

    I think his argument for a no vote goes as follows.

    https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/1124963772303642624?s=19

    Which I interpret as another watering down of the commitment that marriage entails.

    I'd like to see more debate about this.

    My instinctive feel is to vote yes, which is almost certainly what I will do, as I have voted yes to divorce in the past and also yes to SSM.

    My personal feeling is that a loving relationship has to be voluntary, but I also feel that this issue has to be debated properly, like all others.

    It’s a bit odd because it’s such a non event that there won’t be much debate, they have to give equal time so if the yes side aren’t really too bothered pushing it then it’s hard to give airtime to the no side. Ultimately it’s so non contentious that the no side will be likely a quite small minority and that would lead to us hearing from the same few people on everything some just doing it to further their media presence.
    Personally speaking I think it’s the right thing to do and see it as little more than a tidy up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭hairyprincess


    It shouldn’t take five years to break out of a legal contract that only took three months to get into. Reduce to two years and increase the notice period to a year at least.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    I'm finding it very difficult to even comprehend what the opposition to this referendum is other than the usual Iona protection of the doctrines of the Catholic church. Am I missing some keen arguments against it or...?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,701 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    sandbelter wrote: »
    Not easy to articulate....In short what I'm learning is that there both the divorce split then the divorce process and divorce is already legal so it's not a "Iona/RCC vs progress" clash, this actually about the being fair to the Applicant and Respondent to a Divorce (which Iona frankly seem to grasp).

    I happen to be of the view that the law should facilitate the Applicant, Respondent and children move to on. That's what divorce is, ""separate unto death". So don't get me wrong, I agree with the change to reduce to 2 years and the recognition of a foreign divorce as it is fair and proportional to all three parties to a divorce. But instant divorce terrifies me, but that's another topic.

    Hence I'm of the view the population has more insight into the divorce process than the politicians, they live with it and have more understanding of it. It's not just me that's had to deal with it, my whole family has had to as well, and funny enough it's my teenage nephews have found it hardest to adjust.

    I've tried to answer you objectively and factually as I can as I don't want it to sound like therapy.

    I still have no idea why any of this equates to a no vote, though?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I know people who were married and divorced abroad but cannot get married here because we currently don't recoognise their divorce.
    In addition, their exs can show up here and demand financial support.

    The down side of this referendum is that you have to vote yes or no to BOTH parts. “There will be one question on the ballot paper and voters can either vote Yes to allow both changes, or No to reject both changes. Voters cannot accept one change and reject the other” https://www.refcom.ie/current-referendums/regulation-of-divorce/overview/


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    sandbelter wrote: »
    Actually, as someone going through a divorce at the moment this is a very valid reason to vote no. Until you go through a divorce, it's a very abstract concept.
    When I started out my career as a barrister I took on a lot of divorce cases (I'd usually be hanging around a court waiting for my whatever to come on and would get a handover from a colleague that couldn't attend) and I can say from experience that the process being long and drawn-out benefits neither party emotionally, physically or monetarily.

    There are plenty of cases where there are child custody issues, issues of assets to split, issues of premarital family land, etc. - all issues which obviously need to be addressed and dealt with, but not ones which should effectively require a waiting period to start the process.

    The vast majority of divorces in Ireland would be, from my experience, done on consent between the parties and there is in my mind zero reason these should be dragged out excessively.


    As an aside, I do not miss doing divorces! Commercial law is way less personal and messy!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,461 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    It shouldn’t take five years to break out of a legal contract that only took three months to get into. Reduce to two years and increase the notice period to a year at least.

    That's kinda the nub of it, especially against those that might argue that the "sanctity of marriage" is somehow undermined by reducing what amounts to divorce limbo time.

    As you say, it only takes 3 months to do the legal legwork (and we found it to be the least glamorous and most underwhelming part of the process), yet I hear no arguments about some form of cooling off period in case of whirlwind, kneejerk marriages. When it's time to marry everyone wishes you well, yet when it's time to divorce some might plead... what exactly? If it's not meant to be, tethering two adults for 4 years out of some abstract, high-minded waffle about 'marriage' isn't doing anyone favours. It feels accidentally spiteful, and somewhat insulting to the two parties, that they don't know in their own mind that it might be time to pull the plug.


Advertisement