March 8th - What’s your vote? **Mod Note In Post #677**

I will vote yes.

I am mainly only interested in the part regarding “durable relationships” as my partner and I are not currently married, we do have kids though.

I’m understanding the changes to suggest I could claim tax credits for my partner and our kids that I can’t unless we’re married at the moment.

The other half I have no major issue with either and will vote yes. I’ve read some suggestions and heard from people this is the beginning of the end for Stay at home Mammys but I really think that’s crazy to believe. Child benefit won’t be cancelled.

Interested to hear what others think and maybe I’ve misunderstood the first part and what changes would follow as a result. If it really just means some text changes in the constitution with no real world effect (ie the tax credits) I would probably just not bother to vote at that stage.

KevMayo88

Voting NO for both

These referendums are an obscene and senseless waste of taxpayers money on completely pointless non-issues that will in no way affect the lives of anyone in any way if passed. On that basis alone, both referendums should be rejected. Let's give the government an embarrassment.

baldbear

Voting NO for both

Apparently polls are saying a yes vote expected in both.

Hopefully a good voter turnout.

CrazyEric

Atari Jaguar

Liam O

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791607#Comment_121791607

That's a great way to look at changes to the wording of the constitution of the country.

Manach

Voting NO for both

Having been involved as a carer and having to deal with the shoddy support the government provided to family carers, then a No vote.

Akrasia

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791607#Comment_121791607

Yeah, what a waste of money democracy is.

You should definitely vote no to show them gubermint not to be holding no votes no more

Wanderer78

probably yes for both, but still confused on what we truly are voting on....

foxsake

Voting NO for both

voting no

I believe mothers in the home contribute to society and this should be recognised and protected.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791671#Comment_121791671

...so we should be paying them appropriately for doing so, makes sense to me, also helps the economy....

NIMAN

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791617#Comment_121791617

It'll be lowest turn out ever.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791683#Comment_121791683

....some believing it ll be less than 50%(times)

MrMusician18

Voting NO for both

Easiest No votes I will ever cast tbh.

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791671#Comment_121791671

would you mind explaining to me, as to date no one seems able to, exactly what protections are proposed to be taken from mothers at home?

even just one example if you don’t want to list them all. I’ve heard notions about child benefit being scrubbed for example but that is a fallacy as social welfare legislation is irrespective of this article in the constitution.

So please help me understand what risk stay at home Mammys are put under by removing or editing the proposed text?

KevMayo88

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791669#Comment_121791669

Really smart to vote in favour of something you are confused about.

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791703#Comment_121791703

Well you seem well informed maybe you’ll be able to explain the proposed protections stay at home Mammys are going to lose if it passes?

It’s not as if they’re afforded a wage or any other benefits to stay at home, so what will change then?

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791703#Comment_121791703

....me am smart(says while drolling!)

....oh look at the mature one!

KevMayo88

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791622#Comment_121791622

Please explain to me one postive, practical change the passing of either referendum will have on any citizen? (and please not the nebulous leftie "we will be a more equal society" garbage)

Voting YES for both

Sure I’ll throw it out to anyone who has the answer I suppose.

Just a few but I’ll settle for one example of hardship incoming for stay at home Mammys if this was to pass as so far no one’s been able to provide one yet plenty have decried the lack of benefits to anyone for passing it all the same.

So what’s the drawbacks? What are they losing?

dulpit

Voting YES for both

Voting yes for both. I predict that the results of the boards tally will be a double no though, because obviously it will.

ELM327

Voting NO for both

Voting no for both.

Chris_5339762

Voting NO for both

Not really sure what we're voting on yet so I'll have to do my research, but with multiple wars on in the world and the rise of the far right, existential threats everywhere and doom and gloom, the government really should be concentrating on something more important and something that will actually help people, not this.

foxsake

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791700#Comment_121791700

Current

"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."

This wording (current) obliges the state to not have mothers forced into the workplace at the expense of motherhood . Btw I feel that since the millennium the state is failing on this - another days argument.

Proposed.

The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.’

This would says "shall strive" - which is a less strict that obliging the state.

One is the state is mandated too - the proposed the state with try.

also the support the state will give is vague - whereas the current wording deliberately mention economic meanings. "support" is vague "economic hardship" isnt ironclad but more specific. I love specifics.

I hope that answers your question.

also I have misgivings on the new definition of family. durable relationships is not for me .

Augme

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791846#Comment_121791846

The current wording does not oblige state to not for mothers into the workplace. It places an obligation on the state to "endeavour" to ensure mothers shall not be forced into work by economic necessesaity.

The word strive and endeavour are pretty much identical and interchangeable.

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791846#Comment_121791846

So what exactly are stay at home mammys given at the moment that will be taken from them?

MrMusician18

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791707#Comment_121791707

Its not just about the protections that stay at home mothers will get from these changes - for me its about the unintended consequences of needlessly loose language. The referendum commission chair said that attending a wedding together or receiving a Christmas card could be considered evidence of a durable relationship. If durable relationships like these are considered families this will potentially have huge ramifications for the likes of inheritance law.

Furthermore, I'd argue that the provisions are too weak in terms of protecting stay at home mothers, and no enforceable right is afforded to parents that work in the home. If this referendum is passed, then it will be considered a settled constitutional question for at least a generation. I want a better amendment.

foxsake

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791864#Comment_121791864

Point one.

I never said what you said.. you skipped over the word "forced" that I clearly wrote.

second - they aren't the same and I wouldn't bet a supreme court challenge on it

foxsake

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791867#Comment_121791867

I've answered your question. If it's not to your liking - so be it

For Forks Sake

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791846#Comment_121791846

bloody hell, the ghost of Archbishop McQuaid walks amongst us

Astartes

What is a durable relationship?

RobbingBandit

Voting NO for both

Vague language for both really with the ever changing world of who I(everyone) am and I myself being an adult with an invisible disability these measures are significantly open to manipulation by Healthcare providers and definitely don't go far enough to provisionally provide for what is to come in the coming years, I think holding both at the same time will hurt the care specifics more as the mundane wording of Women in the home will distract people voting to cast yes for both.

SuperBowserWorld

Voting NO for both

Voting NO as there is a ton of **** going down in this country that the government is ignoring and this is some pissy referendum to distract people from the real issues. RTE will be all over it too like fleas on a wet dog, to pretend they are some kind of functioning entity. And a load of politicians clapping themselves on the back, doing the same. Look Ma, democracy. The country is ******.

Photobox

Voting NO for both

Was always voting No to both, even more so after Thomas Byrne last night on upfront, the vagueness, the waffle, the repetitive use of words, I could go on. 'Durable relationships' is way too vague for legal implications It shows too the distain the government have for the public, to have someone representing them that is so out of his depth.

Glaceon

I am voting NO (family amendment)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791913#Comment_121791913

That's my question and the lack of clarity on it has me inclined to vote No on that one.

NSAman

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791913#Comment_121791913

I have a durable relationship with many friends…does that mean they can inherit with family exemptions? Have known many of them longer than my wife

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121792085#Comment_121792085

"durable relationships" eh?

Username conflict.

foxsake

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791902#Comment_121791902

i'm sure McQuaid given his influence at the time would have changed the constitution if he wished.

however Im at a loss how you extracted that from my post.

But i think you didn't - you had a pre-prepared gag to shoehorn in.

you should have picked a better time to use it.

Augme

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791877#Comment_121791877

The word forced isn't really that really. The current constitution says that the State shall endeavour to ensure mothers aren't forced. It doesn't say the state are to ensure mothers aren't forced.

Please inform everyone of the significant difference between the words "endeavour" and "strive" then.

Akrasia

Voting YES for both

So far the arguments for voting No are:

1. Fuck the government
2. **** the government for wasting time on this referendum when they should be fixing world peace/building houses
3. The definition of 'Enduring Relationship' is too vague
4. The word 'strive' means the government doesn't have to actually protect carers from having to work (while the word 'endeavour' somehow does)
5. I don't understand what the referendum is, so I should vote No
6. You don't understand what the referendums are, so you should vote no

I think so far, the definition of 'Durable relationship' is probably the best argument against the referendum in that it could potentially leave the constitution open to challenge if we somehow end up with absolute morons sitting on the supreme court and they decide that sitting beside the same season ticket holder counts as a 'Durable relationship'. That said, The definition, it seems, was deliberately left open to interpretation to allow case law to set the boundaries for what a Durable Relationship is in Modern Ireland for the purposes of accessing rights under the constitution.

If this referendum is passed, case law will ultimately decide what counts as a durable relationship for the purposes of defining a family. It will have to be contextual, so a written constitution is not really a suitable place to store such definitions

freshpopcorn

I don't know really.

Having watched Up Front last night I don't think the government sold it very well.

It all sounds very vague and basically things will be sorted out in the courts in a few years time.

Also with the care referendum I felt they were just doing enough to cover themselves. I do feel they government needs to do a lot more for careers than this referendum.

MacDanger

I haven't really read up too much on it yet but I see yesterday FLAC (Free Legal Advice Centre) is advocating a No vote

BTW, doesn't this thread belong in CA rather than AH?

techman1

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791617#Comment_121791617

That was first poll before any real debates, the debate on Claire Byrne last week with Thomas Byrne was very bad for yes side , he was annihilated in the debate so I doubt too many government ministers are going to be going on media defending it. The debate fell apart on that word "durable relationship " the yes side cannot define it, so this will be the fulcrum of the debates going forward and the No side are on very solid ground. It's going to be defeated on both counts

freshpopcorn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121793326#Comment_121793326

Hard to go by Twitter.

Your correct about a larger amount of the No Vote on Twitter however the Yes camp coming across as sneery/condescending.

NSAman

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121792168#Comment_121792168

NoSugarAllowedMan?

suvigirl

Voting YES for both

I'm voting yes for both.

Firstly I believe our constitution should recognise that many families these days are not based on marriage, it's outdated thinking.

I have no issue with 'durable relationships ' it clearly can include a wide range of different family dynamics, grandparents minding grandchildren, older siblings with younger ones. The Judges of our Supreme Court, make decisions everyday based on vague statements, I don't for one minute believe that they would find me and my teddybear to be a family, based on my idea that it has been my most durable relationship.

secondly, the constitution, by singling out women and mothers, completely excludes men and fathers and their roles in the home. A more inclusive article to include all who care is much more reflective of our society today.

I don't believe that the article has really been of any benefit to women in the home, it's not as if government pay them a salary, likewise changing it won't make any huge difference either.

Furze99

Voting NO for both

No need for either of them and laden with possibilities for unintended consequences.

I.R.Y.E.D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121793326#Comment_121793326

Not just twitter in fairness

Brussels Sprout

Voting YES for both

That poll is confusing. Do the first 4 options mean that someone is only going to vote in one of the 2 referenda since they only mention one of them?

If not (and they instead mean you're going to vote "Yes" in one and "No" in the other), then two of the options are redundant. For example, "I am voting YES (family amendment)" is the same as " am voting NO (care amendment)".

XsApollo

Will this apply for tax purposes also?

IE are people not married going to get the same tax breaks?

Where as now, a couple living together don’t get the same tax breaks as a married couple and also do not have the same entitlement to benefits they would have because they are living with a partner?

Is the family law system also going to brought in line also?

Next of kin rights?

inheritance rights also?

Cluedo Monopoly

I am voting YES (care amendment)

Yes for both but I think I voted wrong. I ticked both of them.

Greyfox

I won't be voting as the government need to f*** off, I don't know how anybody can care about this nonsense when we have a government who are happy to mostly ignore the housing crisis