March Referendums

smallbeef

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121821891#Comment_121821891

It's my argument for not pissing away another 20 million on needless, badly constructed constitutional amendments

kollegeknight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121821865#Comment_121821865

in the Supreme Court judgment- it was one man- one woman.

that would be different to one man- two women in the case of Cahill.

i believe durable relationship could include polyamory.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121821919#Comment_121821919

Too late though. Don't why that part seems so difficult to grasp.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121821940#Comment_121821940

But that has no relevance on what the Supreme Court said. In the Judgment they stated

The rules of private international law require the State to recognise a marriage validly contracted under a foreign system of law unless such recognition is prohibited by our public policy. In my view, for the reasons set out in this judgment, the Constitution and Irish public policy clearly envisage a marriage as being a union between two people, based on the principles of equality and mutual commitment

They state that the Constitution and public policy envisage a marraige as being a union between two people.

This proposed amended has no impact on the concept of marraige. The new proposed amendment says this about marraige

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marraige, and to protect it against attack.

I don't see any mention of marraige to two people being allowed and I'm fairly certain the government have proposed changing the rules on marraige either.

kollegeknight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121821999#Comment_121821999

it’s my opinion that it is all about blurring lines. It is not impossible to define the term durable relationships.

I do not trust Leo, Roderick, Eamon or Roderick.

i most certainly wouldn’t sign a piece of paper and let them fill in the contract and definitions after.

as for it being “too late” regarding the spending- a resounding no and don’t come back again with wasteful ideas would be my ideal outcome.

kippy

It'll be a double no for me. No rationale at all behind the need for any changes and the wording is way too fluffy.

Distraction tactic by the governing parties at best, complete waste of time and money at worst.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121822225#Comment_121822225

It has nothing to do with Leo, Roderick or Micheal. The Supreme Court will be the ones defining what durable relationship means.

I didn't realise that was one of the options to tick on the ballot box. 😂😂

SodiumCooled

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121822480#Comment_121822480

Why should there be any need to define a durable relationship when we already have a very clear and legal way of doing it called getting married. If you want the rights and responsibilities of being married then get married. We have SSM now also so nobody has any excuse or logical reason for not getting married if they want the legal rights that goes with it.

You don’t need to have a wedding or involve the church or anything like that - a couple can simply fill in the forms and it’s done.

Castlekeeper

I'll be voting yes for removing the societal ideal of the woman's role of housewife and child rearer being essential for a proper functioning society from our constitution.

I'd be doing the same if it were the man's role. It's just big state misogyny.

dh1985

Might be too late to save the money spent for this referendum but if the people reject this half baked bullshit attempt then future governments might sit up and take notice and actually do what they are been paid for in future and come up with meaningful legislation for the taxpayers of this country. Instead of a ram it down their throat they know best attitude that they have been employing the past decade. As the old saying goes willful waste makes for woeful want.

A country at full employment for the past 6-8 years with a 50% increase in spending an absolutely nothing tangible to show for it. And money been wasted on nonsense like this that will make no difference to the ordinary day life 99.9% of people.

Do your job comes to mind.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121822749#Comment_121822749

There are lots reason people don't want to marry someone who they have had a child with. That doesn't mean the parent and the child shouldn't be considered a family. Irish society has moved on from the mother and baby homes and the notion that unmarried parents are a stain on society. It is about time our Constitution caught up that attitude.

Siamsa Sessions

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121825454#Comment_121825454

There’s a lot more stains on society today than the convoluted wording of some archaic document that only the legal profession will ever argue over - usually for a very big fee at the behest of a group of ideologues.

On the scale of priorities, this is somewhere between Dancing With The Stars and Ireland’s Fittest Family.

smallbeef

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121823855#Comment_121823855

Yep forget carrying a baby for 9 months, giving birth, providing breast milk, dealing with all the hormones and miscarriages. Men and women are equal so lets erase any mention of women/mothers from the constitution 🤔

The constitution isn't holding women back and nowhere does it say a woman's role is a housewife and child-rearer. Shur most mothers work now, same as fathers. The constitution is just giving them bit of support/recognition for the biological part they have to play for a family to happen in the first place. To say men are anywhere near women in their essentiality to procreation is rubbish. We just provide the sperm and then share the minding of the baby think we are 'equals'. What about the bit in the middle? Don't women deserve recognition for what they put their bodies through. Men cannot do that, we are not equals - they are superior (at least in this regard). It was my wife that said we have to vote No to this. She is an independent working woman, but she'd love to be at home full time with the kids if we could afford it.

Anyway FLAC said that "the amendment is unlikely to provide carers, people with disabilities or older people with new enforceable rights or improved services from the State". So why would we erase any mention of women/mothers from our constitution for absolutely nothing only virtue signaling?

https://www.thejournal.ie/legal-body-criticises-sexist-ineffective-care-amendment-ahead-of-referendum-6303273-Feb2024/

SodiumCooled

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121825454#Comment_121825454

I don’t see how single parents are relevant here? In what way possible could a single parent (who is obviously not in a relationship) benefit from adding the wording “durable relationship” to the constitution.

Also I think for the most part society has moved very far on from seeing single parents as a stain on society, don’t even know why this was brought into the conversation.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121825691#Comment_121825691

I still won't be depriving single parents and other people the chance to be recognised as a family just because there's more important stuff happening.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121825725#Comment_121825725

The Constitution currently doesn't consider single/lone parents and their child/children as a family. I think most people would consider a single parent who is living with their daughter as an example of a durable relationship. Therefore, they would finally be recognised as a family by the Constitution.

As I said, most parts of society have moved forward. So I have no problem voting to ensure the Constitution moves forward as well. I do think it's an important acknowledgement to make to single/lone parents out there and especially to children of lone parents.

Castlekeeper

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121825714#Comment_121825714

I'm not sure where your going with the biology lesson there?

I assume that you're aware that currently Article 41.2.1° says

“In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”

So to rephrase, the common good cannot be achieved without woman leading her life within the home.

I think it's everyone's choice, including your wife, whom you say is economically limited in doing so, which is ironic considering Article 41.2.2° says that

“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.”

smallbeef

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826300#Comment_121826300

Well I'm sorry the the current wording offends you so much.

I think it will be the women that will vote this one down, and you can vote away against them. Now that's irony 😉 .

And if it passes, it won't make the slightest difference to anyone, just another 20m will have been spent removing women/mothers from our constitution in some misguided attempt at 'equality'. Bravo all involved👏

Reggie.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826300#Comment_121826300

I remember one of the issues that a woman's group had with the new wording was the term "the government would endeavour"

Which in thier understanding meant would try thier best not that they would ensure support.

The speaker was on matt Cooper and called for a no vote

893bet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121825714#Comment_121825714

Yup. Bathe is out with the bathe water.

Cynic in me is that this is a ploy to remove words “economic nessesity” as cost of living continue to rise. Cost of housing to wages is crazy trajectory vs 80s. What will another 30 years bring.

kollegeknight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121825776#Comment_121825776

I think adding durable relationships could damage a single parent setting.

say a single mother. She has a bf- not the father of the child. Not living together but going out long enough for me say it’s durable enough. she owns a house.

if she has no will and if his motivations were in a certain direction- he could try argue the relationship was durable enough to claim part of her wealth. And even if unsuccessful- how much money would be wasted contesting it.

single parents already get extra tax credits- a better worded amendment would suit people in that scenario better.

nobody questioned Dr Umar Al-Quadri about what he was at the night he was attacked- he says he was on his way to a house to perform a wedding- probably not a legal one but I bet it could be used as evidence as a durable relationship for citizenship applications- he himself said he didn’t know those who attacked him but all the relevant paperwork was completed. So how could he perform a wedding for strangers?

a solemniser couldn’t perform a legal wedding in a house like that.

Canosonic

What are the benefits(if any) of the yes votes passing in both cases.

bogman_bass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121795267#Comment_121795267

Think they are Citizen assembly recommendations

SodiumCooled

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121825776#Comment_121825776

I don’t see how these groups will benefit over the current situation. A parent - child relationship is already a very strong relationship both legally and in society, these rights are generally then given in cases where grandparents or similar are the guardian.

On the other hand I have very major issues with leaving the situation open for non-married couples with no legally recognised ties getting the rights of a married couple from a tax, inheritance etc perspective or otherwise. I am voting against this for this reason alone.

I would add I do not mean to offend unmarried couples but my view is if you want the rights and responsibilities then the option is there for anyone to sign the forms.

893bet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121825776#Comment_121825776

I am curious as to what benefit a single parent and child, “being recognised in the consitution as a family” will be able to reap from this change?

It sounds like virtue signalling.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826685#Comment_121826685

I'm not sure many single persons would consider themselves and their child being viewed as a family as "damaging". Unless the term durable relationship is included in inheritance law then I don't see how that could be possible.

Why exactly would a court take any significance into an "alleged" legal msrraige? Also, the government already need to determine if a durable relationship exists for applications from non EU citizens to join their EU partner. This isn't new territory for them.

Castlekeeper

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826630#Comment_121826630

The phrase with"endeavour" is the wording of the existing legislation as quoted, its is to be replaced with Article 42b which states that

“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.”

So strive vs endeavor, fur and hair.

"Endeavor" hasn't been doing much heavy lifting all along.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121827317#Comment_121827317

If you don't think a single parent and their child should recognised as a family that's your choice to make. The joys of democracy as they say.

893bet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121827455#Comment_121827455

That’s not what I said.

I asked the question what additional benefit would they see from being recognised that they don’t currently have?

Canosonic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121827455#Comment_121827455

But single parent and child are recognised as a family by society, who cares what the gov think or what they want us to think. From what I've read and heard, there is no meaninfull advantage to be got from this referendum. If they want to show support for them and their contribution to society then they can do it through income support or tax allowances or something. No woman I've spoken to gives 2 Fs about the constitution, it's wording or its meaning.

J.O. Farmer

There's an irony in recognising single parents and their children as a family is removing mother from the constitution given that most single parents l know are mothers.

Even most 2 parent families I know the mothers probably do more. There's probably an over inflated opinion of how much men do. While more than a generation ago on average at a national level I think it's unlikely they do 50%+ of the caring.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121827532#Comment_121827532

It basically is what you said with your virtue signalling comment, stop pretending otherwise. It provides them constitutional protection.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121827542#Comment_121827542

No doubt there's a long diverse list of woman you know and have spoken to the subject. Still, I'm there might be the odd woman outside of that pool who will actually be interested enough and will vote on it.