Why are we having a referendum on Women in the Home?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121657297#Comment_121657297

Sexist drivel which demeans both women and men.

The number of couples where the man chooses to work in the home is increasing and there is nothing wrong with that.

What on earth is "real child rearing" exactly?

What about widowers?

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658285#Comment_121658285

Actually, they have made a statement that polyamorous arrangements would not be covered by any changes to the Constitution.

“It [a polygamous relationship] is not one that represents a moral institution in Irish law and it is not one that represents as durable,” the Minister said.

“The very clear policy intention of the Government is that whether it’s a polygamous relationship, I’ve heard the word throuples thrown around… that issue has come up in some of the debates.

“We’re very clear, such relationships is not covered within the concept of durability and it’s not covered in the expanded concept of the family that we are seeking to protect.”

So you can stop worrying your head about that particular red herring.

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/oireachtas/2024/01/17/expanded-concept-of-family-in-constitution-will-not-cover-polygamous-relationships/

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658340#Comment_121658340

Yes and it was quickly rebutted by others. You're also confusing polygamy and polyamory I think.

Polygamy as you would know I would have thought, involves marriage - the legal construct. And is illegal here already..

Polyamory is equivalent to people just living together in an unmarried state. If a normal couple co-habituating is to be considered a 'durable relationship', then there is no reason why a group of polyamorists could not credibly claim the same.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658492#Comment_121658492

A typo, now corrected.

Either way, don't worry your head about it, and stop using polygamous and/or polyamorous relationships as an excuse not to recognise unmarried families, as families.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658511#Comment_121658511

!!!! Detail matters you know, the devil is in the detail...

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658532#Comment_121658532

And all the detail needed was in the article linked, including the headline.

You're just being pedantic.

Podge_irl

It is not actually up to the Government to decide what is and is not covered by "durable relationships" in the Constitution, that is a question for the Courts.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658713#Comment_121658713

Given this most recent ruling, the Supreme Court appear to be moving in the direction that marriage is not required for a relationship to be considered "durable".

As I see it, those trotting out their "concerns" about polygamous relationships are merely deflecting because they simply don't want to see unmarried families recognised as such, and given the same recognition in law as married families.

There is a whole thread about it.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658800#Comment_121658800

Perhaps. I don't have any major issue with the referendum I should add and would vote for it. I'm just saying that a statement by a Minister on what is or is not covered by the phrasing is not actually all that relevant.

Tow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658557#Comment_121658557

You are relying on what a Government Minister says!

AlanG

It is remarkable that ministers who complain about misinformation are spouting loads about this referendum. ROG was saying how it would help women but there is no legislation he can name that was ever stopped by the existing wording. Additioally Leo is saying that carers can force the Gov to support them but they have specifically worded it so that it is not enforcable, in line with the previous wording which was tested in court.

Now they are saying what a durable relationship is but it is completely up to the interpetation of the courts as they are not defining it.

It would pass a lot easier if they Gov were honest with people and said it was up to the courts but it really doesnt matter as the change has not leagal weight. Somethies honesty is best.

Sam Russell

I fail to understand the point of either referendum.

Why did they not just go for something like the following.

"In Ireland, all citizens are equal before the law with no difference with respect to gender so the words man includes woman and vice versa. Also, similarly, the term mother includes father."

Redefining the term "family" just losing any meaning when "enduring relationship" is added without a proper definition.

Why bother?

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121761854#Comment_121761854

Just immediately off the top of my head, you would have a lot of problems with maternity related legislation and potentially sexual assault legislation.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658713#Comment_121658713

I must say I am struggling with this. What is the legal rational for inserting something so vague into the constitution?

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121762552#Comment_121762552

In the health insurance legislation, both men and woman must be covered for maternity. Does not appear to matter there.

Sexual assault applies to both genders, so what point are you trying to make there?

Obviously, where gender is central, then it matters - but that would be obvious to even the most obtuse lawyer and judge.

Perhaps keep your hat on so the top of your head does not leak such ideas.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763633#Comment_121763633

Perhaps keep your hat on so the top of your head does not leak such ideas.

--mod edited--

Removing all ability to distinguish between men and women legislatively would obviously be a gigantic change that would need significantly more thought and effort before anyone can even begin to say its not a big deal.

Mod: be nice!

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763034#Comment_121763034

At a guess, they think it somehow "future proofs" the amendment as to how society views family units as we move forward. But maybe that's just being overly generous to sloppy drafting.

Sam Russell

Perhaps the wording I suggested may need a slight variation to take account of all those cases that would constitute a big deal.

We live in a time where divorce is legal. Contraception is legal. Same sex marriage is legal. Sex change is not just possible medically, but also legal. Fertility treatment is common, and even can be funded by the HSE. Surrogacy is common, and moves have been made to sort out the legal wrinkles that remain. Nearly all aspects listed above were, where relevant, prohibited in the 1936 constitution. Clearly many were beyond the medical possibilities of the time.

So what legal concepts or landmines are likely to need consideration if bald and direct gender equality was written into the constitution?

Peter Flynt

I'm voting 2 x No in the referendums on account of my hatred for FF/FG/GP/Labour.

Also I find it difficult to understand what is exactly wrong with a stay at home mother minding her children and for this to be recognised by the state.

"Modern" neo liberalist Ireland is as bad as it was when the RCC ran FF/FG. These days, as citizens, we are nothing more than economic units.

Jack Daw

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763034#Comment_121763034

The point with the phrasing being so vague is it will result in loads of challenges on rulings which are based on this change to the constitution. This will ensure loads more work and money for the legal profession and the legal professions gravy train is kept running.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121766542#Comment_121766542

While it's quite easy to be cynical and the legal profession is quite good at feathering its own nest I don't buy this as the actual reason.

I suspect it's meant to be malleable to change with the times. I just don't think that it's wise to do that. I think the constitution should be clear and concise. If the times change then, in the future, another generation can make further amendments.

Despite that I'll still vote Yes because I'm happy to acknowledge the large numbers of families that are not based on marriage in this country - including some of my friends and relatives.

twinytwo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121767158#Comment_121767158

You do understand that is just scratching the surface right? In cannot be understated how, even minor changes to the constitution can have far reaching consequences - intended or otherwise. The proposed changes would directly or indirectly affect taxation, social welfare, inheritance, immigration etc. None of which has been addressed by the government.

We will spend years attempting to fix the fallout from this. While i have no issue with the idea in principle the wording is not acceptable. A no to both from me.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121767572#Comment_121767572

How will the proposed amendments affect immigration? Please be specific.

StormForce13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121767604#Comment_121767604

Are you incapable of carrying out your own research before deciding which way to vote? Or are you just lazy?

Either way, why not start your research here:- https://www.theburkean.ie/articles/2023/12/31/irelands-referendum-is-about-immigration

And if you disagree, feel free to state why - and please be specific!

Peter Flynt

Why are FF/FG continuously lying by stating that they're looking to rid the constitution of "A woman's place is in the home" when the constitution says no such thing?

Why are they lying Trump style?

What exactly is THEIR agenda?

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121767681#Comment_121767681

An article in The Burkean (or Gript, or that other site with the fake raffles run by Cora Sherlock's brother) isn't really evidence of anything. The only bit of actual content around immigration in that entire article is a quote from Neil Richmond that has no context around it whatsoever.

Also, if somebody makes an assertion and they're asked for evidence by another poster then the onus is on them to provide it. That's how message boards generally work. It's not on the questioner to go and research every assertion for themselves.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121767893#Comment_121767893

The contest is basically just that, particularly in the case of care-givers, there are relationships that are not necessarily the classic family unit. As the Minster of State for Social Protection he is just coming at it from that angle and arguing that it would allow someone other than a husband/wife to remain as a care-giver for someone entitled to be in Ireland. The impact this would have on immigration is obviously miniscule.

The idea that the amendment is "all about immigration" is a particularly silly one though. It's basically just Great Replacement Theory.

How on earth it would impact inheritance or taxation is beyond me as well.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121767725#Comment_121767725

It's this paraphrased and has much the same meaning (insofar as a paraphrased soundbite can have legal meaning):

"endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

Loafing Oaf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121767725#Comment_121767725

It doesn't say exactly that but it says some such thing

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Can you cite a FF/FG rep claiming the constitution literally states that "A woman's place is in the home"?

Rubberchikken

I will be voting no.

Anything that the govt pushes always makes me incredibly suspicious.