Yes, but you can't give evidence from the grave or the crematorium either.
The legal eagles are salivating at the prospects of these being passed.
It doesn't. My point was that should the referendum be passed, this is the kind of issue that will be brought before the courts whereby a party will use the amendment to try and bolster their claim. And it only takes one case for a precident to be set.
Because I do not believe that in any circumstances if a man for example is conducting an extra-maritial affair, and should that man die, that his mistress would have any entitlement to his estate citing their "durable relationship", over his legal wife and or children (unless he specifically willed anything to the mistress prior to his death). It only takes one case to set a precident, and should this amendment be passed, it will be open season to challenge and interpretation.
+1
I'm with McDowell on these referendums. Can't see them being passed. No definition on durable relationship. To be decided on by the courts in the future.
Some disability groups coming out against the other one. Seems to me the wording is not correct.
A recognised durable relationship is living together, if they have a child together is 2 years, otherwise it's 5 years living together. IVF to conceive in that time frame hasn't been defined.
Polygamous marriages that have taken place in countries where polygamy is legally recognised will enter the equation.
Where did you find that definition?
I posted Michael Mc Dowell's Irish Times podcast link above, that's what I thought he was saying
Do you honestly think this can happen what utter nonsense. Worlds gone made all No to everything based on nothing.
Everything in law is open to interpretation btw. Constitutions should be non definitive by their nature we ve had enough problems over the decades with absolutes in the constitution.
That's how things stand since 2010, those rights are currently in place, the referendum will change that and people will have to go to the courts if its passed
"Under Lebanese law, a man can have up to four wives" quote
Gabon, "In practice, the right to multiple spouses is reserved for men only". Quote
Of course the scenario I outlined could and would in all likelyhood occur in the courts if the referendum was passed. I cannot believe you consider the scenario of mistresses, etc. citing "durable relationships" in an attempt to make claims against individuals and their estates as out of the realm of possibility.
In time this referendum could become known as the, Zip up your Mic*y referendum
Why would a person and their mistress be considered a family? Or what would make you think a court would determine that?
I'm not making any predictions about how a court might or might not rule. I am suggesting that if the amendment is passed, these kind of cases will be brought before the court by people with various motivations, where the amended wording of the amendment will be used by a claimant as some kind of basis upon which they may make a case for various supports.
It's easy to legislate so that they are not considered
Most of this thread genuinely feels like unsubstantiated scaremongering. We heard a lot of it in 1986 and 1995 with all the unneccesary fear mongering that divorce would ruin Irish farms
i will still trust and listen to Michael McDowell and his opinion- a lifetimes experience in law and politics.
I was wondering when the Green Party trollbots would arrive and here they are.
It certainly ruined a few, but the upside was that people no longer needed to be trapped in unhappy marriages
Where is the upside to a yes vote in this one?
Divorce is between two people. Abortion is allowed up to 12 weeks. Both clearly defined outcomes so voters know what they are being asked to vote on.
This pile of steaming dung we are being asked to vote on, is not clear or defined. It’s open to all and any interpretation. The courts should not be allowed to interpret the constitution as they see fit.
The state should set boundaries in law. People have the option of marriage and divorce. If two people marry its a commitment that legally has financial and other limits on personal freedom and it takes a legal decision to break it up ( divorce). Therefore because of that commitment the state give certain benefits to the couple involved.
What is a durable relationship. There is no legal impediment to such relationships breaking up and its up to one side of the relationship to force support in an adverse situation where the relationship breaks up after the 2&5 year rule. Either part can remarry without any legal implications.
The state already gives recognition to relationships that last longer than 2 years where a child is involved or 5 years where no children are involved. However this is no impediment to either party marrying so do we need it added to the constitution.
The state should encourage long term legal commitments its up to the individual to decide to opt for the benefits bestows on such commitments.
If you join the Army you wear the boots, if you choose not to join the army you do not get the boots.
On the so called care amendment it again a wishy washy proposal who's purpose is to remove certain rights and it proposes changes where the effects of are not taught out. The legal implications are hard to decipher.
A constitution is not the place for wishy washy language, legal definitions of such language can have longterm negative effects.
Our Constitution is imperfect like any document nearly one hundred years old. However adding wishy washy amendment which have no defined interpretation just because a minority party cannot define its requirement is bad law.
In general legislation for hard cases make bad law. The state cannot legislate for every individual senario and definitely should not be using the constitution for such actions
Its no for me on both and my wife convinced me on the care referendum.
It is replacing this
"by her life within the home, woman gives to the state a support without which the common good cannot be achieved" and that "mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."
The wording is not perfect but are the government saying that they and the courts in 2024 take a literal sexist view of the word woman and mother to exclude men and fathers and not recognise say a stay at home dad.
They are are also replacing an obligation on the state to financially support mothers meaning they don't have go out to work something vague about striving probably because lots of carers and mothers work by economic necessity not just by choice.
I think they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If they want include carers mother could be replaced with parents and carers.
Like it or not if you are a primary carer you have certain duties in the home and neglecting them would be to the detriment of the person receiving care.
On the durable relationship’s a man here was found to be in one and entitled to a widowers pension without being married. This was sensible and we didn't need a constitutional amendment.
🤣🤣🤣
Then campaign for a referendum to revoke their power to do that
Eh
The courts should not be allowed to interpret the constitution as they see fit.
The courts have been doing exactly that since the Constitution was enacted. Have you never hear of the unenumerated rights of the Constitution? One of the mains reasons they are asked to do that is because nothing is defined in the Constitution.
And even if the supreme Court decided differently it would still be no reason to change the constitution.
They had a choice to get married, many people have deffered that choice with all its risks. They chose not to accept the help and protection that the state gives to married couples.
Hard cases make bad law.
It's funny, if a man told a woman she has no duties or care in the home, then she'd give you a bollicking.
Now they want to remove mention of it.
I'm voting no no.
If I don't full understand what I am voting for, it's no. Too much open to interpretation to be exploited by lawyers in the future if it's changed.
Also if passed, watch all the asylum seekers and refugees bring their family members in. Government will say they can't stop it because we voted for it.
