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

Voting YES for both

re: mistress/second partners etc

why is it that a man can be married, F off to some woman (or man) for the ride after work or whatever for months or years

then if they die that person should be left with nothing? It’s very strange people think this way.

You’re cheating on your partner and basically getting off with 0 consequences. If you wanted to have two women on the go they should both be sorted out if you die.

My opinion anyway.

tabby aspreme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121796360#Comment_121796360

https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/yes-vote-on-family-referendum-is-a-vote-for-a-foreseeable-mess.html

EmmetSpiceland

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121798540#Comment_121798540

There was a judge on with Pat Kenny, this morning, trying explain about these referendums.

When Pat mentioned McDowell she was very careful not to take a side, as she was being impartial, but she did point out that McDowell had his own motives for what he was saying.

Wouldn't he the first time he’s tried to hoodwink the public.

Princess Calla

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121798003#Comment_121798003

Well from a very general point of view , obviously people may not agree with this, but I shall go on.

It is assumed that in a marital home that all finances and assets are jointly owned. Why should the surviving spouse and children be out of pocket to the side piece?

If you knowingly enter into an affair with a married person , it's kinda morally wrong. While it is true that you took no vows so technically you're not breaking any commitments you're still playing with fire and should probably walk away. Also your "partner" has taken no vows to support you either. So ending up with nothing at time of death shouldn't be a surprise. If your "partner" wanted you looked after they would have left their spouse.

suvigirl

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121798540#Comment_121798540

Rambling nonsense.

McDowell, being a barrister knows only too well how to spin a line, or cause confusion.

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121798676#Comment_121798676

It’s fair to say the deception can operate on both sides. Meaning the “mistress” might be completely unaware!

seen it before (or well similar) a guy I worked with found out his Mrs was with someone else and neither fella had a clue she was with the other.

AyeGer

The Care Amendment should be rejected and the government can come back with a legally sound and clear definition of what is meant by durable relationships.

Voting NO for both

Voting no to both.

Dick phelan

Voting NO for both

Voting No to both. Mainly because with the family amendment they can't define what a durable relationship is which will lead to untold challenges in court. And No to the other amendment because strive doesn't mean anything, it's more wishy-washy language which can have countless interpretations of what it means or the extent action must be taken.

Dick phelan

Voting NO for both

For anyone voting yes, could you define a durable relationship, and if you cannot then why are you voting to put undefined language in the constitution.

Voting NO for both

Ireland has been living in the grey area of interpretation for far too long thinking "Shure tis grand!"

If the changes requested is not either black or white then it's no.

buried

Voting NO for both

Voting No.

The regime want you and me to believe that a Yes vote is for the betterment of Irish families.

It wasn't only three weeks ago this current despicable regime brought a Irish father, Jon O'Meara to the highest court in the land in order to stop him from looking after his Irish family of three Irish children.

This disgraceful regime needs a monumental kick up the hole, the likes that haven't been kicked in a century. A no/no vote is a start.

Larbre34

I am voting NO (family amendment)

Article 41.1.1° “The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”

Proposed to change Article 41.3.1° by deleting text shown with line through it:

“The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.”

I have no problem with the second alteration, but as I have significant issue with the lack of specifics in the first alteration, I will be voting no.

“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.”

I have no problem with this proposal and shall be voting yes.

So its a No/Yes from me.

lawred2

Voting NO for both

No/No

KevMayo88

Voting NO for both

I see Varadkar has said that passing the care referendum would would oblige the State to support carers. What exactly has stopped the state until now? Would it until now have been unconstitutional for the state to support those who care for the sick and infirm? I know a close friend who was recently caring for a person nearing the end of their life- this person could not even the local HSE to give them adult nappies- the family had to buy everything needed. The state couldn't give a damn about carers and people are deluded if this bogus referendum will change anything.

dulpit

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121799291#Comment_121799291

The chairperson of the electoral commission (a supreme court judge) was on irish times politics podcast and she pointed out that the constitution as it stands is clear that Jon O'Meara was not entitled to any widowers pension on the grounds of marital/familial status. He won on equality grounds. She suggested (but couldn't/wouldn't say for certain) that the case may have been different if the referendum passes.

Galwayguy35

Voting NO for both

I'm following Michael McDowells advice.

SafeSurfer

I am voting NO (care amendment)

Why ask people to vote for something that is not defined?

Both referendum questions are very poorly worded in my opinion.

Also the sample ballot papers as shown in the information leaflet are very confusing. It’s amazing that this is the best a well funded electoral commission can come up with.

Another thing I think is unfair is that the government motion to change the constitution, the YES option is always in first position on the referendum ballot paper despite not being alphabetically first in either our primary or secondary official language.

The advantage of order of appearance on a ballot paper is a well known phenomenon in elections and is a reason for candidates appearing alphabetically.

SafeSurfer

I am voting NO (care amendment)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121795265#Comment_121795265

Maybe tell us how and why “referendums are brought” then instead of dismissing people as not understanding.

The government committed to a referendum on public ownership of water after a massive public campaign in favour of public ownership of water.

Instead we get two referendums only a small fraction of the population sought.

Augme

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121799263#Comment_121799263

Can you point out where in the Constitution every word is defined?

Masala

Voting NO for both

Voting NO as per above on the durable relationship

on a separate matter… wouldn’t trust a word from the mouth of O’Gorman. Selling this country down the drain

Hamachi

Seeing specific posters on this thread agitating for a particular outcome, is sufficient to tell me to cast my vote in direct opposition.

Even if I couldn’t be bothered researching for myself (which of course I have and will continue to do), I find the simple litmus test above to offer some grounding.

getoutadodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121796878#Comment_121796878

Precisely why I'll vote NO

twinytwo

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121798682#Comment_121798682

Should be easy to refute what he has said then? Or is calling the position of a barrister and former AG "rambling nonsense" the limit of your discourse. For such an opinionated poster i am surprised you are yet again (at the 3rd time of asking) not taking the opportunity to clear all of this up for the no voters?

twinytwo

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121795265#Comment_121795265

You do know what an ordinary referendum is?

twinytwo

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121800870#Comment_121800870

😐️

Beechwoodspark

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121800782#Comment_121800782

His recent Irish Times article is persuasive

Also, the line minister involved, Rod O’Gorman has been absolutely disastrous in his role so all faith and trust is gone.

KevMayo88

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121801433#Comment_121801433

To be fair, I am seeing far more cogent arguments from the 'no' side in general, offering genuine and practial questions that the 'yes' side simply cannot counter or indeed answer in any meaningful way. The main thrust of the 'yes' side argument on both referendums is generic nonsense like "we will be a more fair/equal society, etc."- pointless soundbites that mean nothing substantive.

mrslancaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121800782#Comment_121800782

Read his article linked earlier. Now I'm wondering how long is 'durable' and why that and other questions haven't been clearly answered or explained by RO'G.

StormForce13

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121798581#Comment_121798581

I'm surprised that Pat didn't invite her to elaborate on that subtle piece of mudslinging.