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

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

Bobson Dugnutt

Every sort of crank, malcontent, wingnut and looper on Twitter appears to be voting no so I’ll vote yes.

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

Bobson Dugnutt

People voting no as a way of sticking it to the government is also the reason we have absolute pricks like Mick Wallace; Clare Daly and Luke Ming Flanagan over in Brussels.

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

DarkJager21

Voting NO for both

Anything with Roderic O Gorman or the greens fingerprints on it is a No all day long.

Scipri0

Voting NO for both

It's too vague for my liking, and it won't really make a difference to people's lives, so will be voting no to both. I'm not going to vote yes to something that they can't even explain.

routetoot

Voting NO for both

Can't define a woman, can't define durable relationship, can't define misinformation. If you vote for this you deserve the government we have.

pgj2015

I saw the Green party want a yes vote, so they helped me make up my mind, no vote for both.

Photobox

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121794010#Comment_121794010

Can't define hate either

AyeGer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121792002#Comment_121792002

My inclination is a no vote for the same reason. What exactly is a durable relationship.

I haven’t made up my mind on the family amendment yet.

suvigirl

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121794102#Comment_121794102

Don't need to. Already have hate legislation with no definition of hate.

The courts can decide based on the reasonable person

_Kaiser_

Voting NO for both

No to both.

When even the advocates for a Yes vote can't clearly explain WHY people should vote Yes there's something off.

Agree with the posters above too - the amount of money being wasted on these "distraction referenda" by the same Government that is letting the country fall apart and be overrun by people we haven't a hope of supporting as it is (without adding potentially even more through one of these changes), but also wants to try and silence (under threat of prosecution) people who call out these problems is farcical.

Why some would think that the Government is suddenly and somehow far more competent on these 2 particular issues given the above and their track record is a mystery!

If there's really a need for these changes then there should be no problem with explaining why. So far they've completely failed to do that beyond inaccurate or emotive soundbites.