Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

March Referendums

13567…12

Comments

  • #62
    Lime Tree Farm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,155 ✭✭✭Lime Tree Farm


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121800770#Comment_121800770

    Yes, but you can't give evidence from the grave or the crematorium either.



  • #63
    getoutadodge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 513 ✭✭✭getoutadodge


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121801116#Comment_121801116

    The legal eagles are salivating at the prospects of these being passed.



  • #64
    KevMayo88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 393 ✭✭KevMayo88


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121800793#Comment_121800793

    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.



  • #65
    KevMayo88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 393 ✭✭KevMayo88


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121799706#Comment_121799706

    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.



  • #66
    Aravo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭Aravo


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121785079#Comment_121785079

    +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.



  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Lime Tree Farm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,155 ✭✭✭Lime Tree Farm


    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.



  • #68
    kollegeknight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,393 ✭✭✭kollegeknight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121802469#Comment_121802469

    Where did you find that definition?



  • #69
    Lime Tree Farm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,155 ✭✭✭Lime Tree Farm


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121802779#Comment_121802779

    I posted Michael Mc Dowell's Irish Times podcast link above, that's what I thought he was saying



  • #70
    Cran
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,278 ✭✭✭Cran


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121801577#Comment_121801577

    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.



  • #71
    tabby aspreme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,360 ✭✭✭tabby aspreme


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121802469#Comment_121802469

    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



  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Lime Tree Farm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,155 ✭✭✭Lime Tree Farm


    "Under Lebanese law, a man can have up to four wives" quote

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/first-marriage-of-lebanese-man-with-two-wives-recognised-under-irish-law-1.3120790


    Gabon, "In practice, the right to multiple spouses is reserved for men only". Quote

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_polygamy




  • #73
    KevMayo88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 393 ✭✭KevMayo88


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121803651#Comment_121803651

    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.



  • #74
    tabby aspreme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,360 ✭✭✭tabby aspreme


    In time this referendum could become known as the, Zip up your Mic*y referendum



  • #75
    Augme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,628 ✭✭✭Augme


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121804416#Comment_121804416

    Why would a person and their mistress be considered a family? Or what would make you think a court would determine that?



  • #76
    KevMayo88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 393 ✭✭KevMayo88


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121804820#Comment_121804820

    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.



  • #77
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121804416#Comment_121804416

    It's easy to legislate so that they are not considered

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #78
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    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

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #79
    kollegeknight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,393 ✭✭✭kollegeknight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121805530#Comment_121805530

    i will still trust and listen to Michael McDowell and his opinion- a lifetimes experience in law and politics.



  • #80
    tanko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,514 ✭✭✭tanko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121805530#Comment_121805530

    I was wondering when the Green Party trollbots would arrive and here they are.



  • #81
    robbiezero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,899 ✭✭✭robbiezero


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121805530#Comment_121805530

    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?



  • Advertisement
  • #82
    I says
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭I says


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121805530#Comment_121805530

    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.



  • #83
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 20,907 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121798257#Comment_121798257

    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

    Post edited by Bass Reeves on

    Slava Ukrainii



  • #84
    J.O. Farmer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭J.O. Farmer


    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.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/supreme-court-widowers-pension-court-case-flac-6278095-Jan2024/#:~:text=The%20seven%2Djudge%20court%20unanimously,when%20she%20died%20in%202021.




  • #85
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121805544#Comment_121805544

    🤣🤣🤣

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #86
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121805656#Comment_121805656

    Then campaign for a referendum to revoke their power to do that

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #87
    Augme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,628 ✭✭✭Augme


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121805656#Comment_121805656

    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.



  • #88
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 20,907 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121806042#Comment_121806042

    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.

    Post edited by Bass Reeves on

    Slava Ukrainii



  • #89
    This content has been removed.


  • #90
    _Knight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 55 ✭✭_Knight


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • #91
    _Knight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 55 ✭✭_Knight


    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.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement