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

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

Options
  • 18-02-2024 10:21pm
    #1
    Posts: 0


    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.

    March 8th - What’s your vote? **Mod Note In Post #677** 780 votes

    I am voting YES (family amendment)
    2%
    mewsoStarkWompa1beertonsThe J Stands for Jaysunbabe08bennyl10stevekavoLostArtigCorcaighPopePalpatinesecondrowgalmyfreespiritGoldengirlDream123Martina1991drogcam 17 votes
    I am voting NO (family amendment)
    2%
    malpasfranmanec18redarmypftlightspeedLarbre34MarkcheeseDingaansnipermanJeffKennaRichmond UltraPanjandrumsJim_HodgeEevie McGreevyJackiebtGlaceonalfiebaileyJohnnyGash 19 votes
    I am voting YES (care amendment)
    0%
    spurioustenbob1patryan2Chiarrai92AllinallCluedo Monopoly[Deleted User] 7 votes
    I am voting NO (care amendment)
    4%
    jdMackerBacchusgazzerfitssdanseomrsdewinterConor Bourkebanie01optogirlSafeSurferharrrpurfieldArrBeeGerHankeybatistuta9corks finestmrpdapangel eyes 2012TheOnion 37 votes
    Voting YES for both
    20%
    nothingSimiSpearopusHellrazerrameireniallbZhaneAnnasopraPherekydesmatrimBubonicmaebeeAkrasiapositronMr. CooL ICENoxegonBrian?smokingmanMickeroo 157 votes
    Voting NO for both
    63%
    Manachde5p0i1erTheboinkmaster_Kaiser_ednwirelandGenghisdougalPompey MagnusThe wonderfishCyruslintdrummerLen_007vectraBadly Drunk BoyKilOitmobbymoby2101ambasiteElessarExplosive_Cornflake 494 votes
    Abstaining
    6%
    cenabullpostThe Majormiameeson.of.jimifabsoulMac-ChopsnorabattiePotential-Monkeandy125scottsercherryghostDeeper Bluelittle bessSonoballsymchughWesternZuluCYHSNkranboFogra 49 votes
    Post edited by JupiterKid on


«13456746

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,505 ✭✭✭baldbear


    Voting NO for both

    Apparently polls are saying a yes vote expected in both.

    Hopefully a good voter turnout.



  • Registered Users Posts: 158 ✭✭CrazyEric


    Atari Jaguar



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,074 ✭✭✭✭Liam O


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



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,665 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,235 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Voting YES for both

    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



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


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



  • Registered Users Posts: 674 ✭✭✭foxsake


    Voting NO for both

    voting no

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


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



  • Registered Users Posts: 32,993 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


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



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,200 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    Voting NO for both

    Easiest No votes I will ever cast tbh.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Voting YES for both

    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?



  • Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭KevMayo88


    Voting NO for both

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



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Voting YES for both

    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?



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


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

    ....oh look at the mature one!



  • Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭KevMayo88


    Voting NO for both

    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)



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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?



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,268 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Voting NO for both

    Voting no for both.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 674 ✭✭✭foxsake


    Voting NO for both



    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 .



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,129 ✭✭✭Augme


    Voting YES for both

    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.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Voting YES for both

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,200 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    Voting NO for both

    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 674 ✭✭✭foxsake


    Voting NO for both

    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



  • Registered Users Posts: 674 ✭✭✭foxsake


    Voting NO for both

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,475 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    Voting YES for both

    bloody hell, the ghost of Archbishop McQuaid walks amongst us



  • Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭Astartes


    What is a durable relationship?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,081 ✭✭✭✭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.



Advertisement