What are the benefits(if any) of the yes votes passing in both cases.
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.
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.
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
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👏
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 😂😂
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.
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.
Too late though. Don't why that part seems so difficult to grasp.
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.
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.
It's my argument for not pissing away another 20 million on needless, badly constructed constitutional amendments
Er, is that your argument for voting No?
Projected spend is 110bn this year - over 50% above 2019.
Corporate tax won't always keep us afloat.
If we're in this much of a shambles with money growing on trees, what will it be like when our chickens come home to roost?
Roderic O' Gorman is mowing through the equivalent of 3 extortionately expensive National Children's Hospitals a year. Let that sink in.
This is were idealism gets us.
That 20m will be needed yet when reality hits.
Under the recent Supreme Court judgment, she might be entitled to that anyway. I don't think the concept of a durable relationship as proposed in article 41 would have any influence on a situation like that beyond what is already in the Constitution.
In relation to the case you posted about previously. That involved a person who was married to two people. I don't know why the term "durable relationship" is relevant in that situation? It isn't, in my opinion. That case is about marraige and the Courts determination of what a marraige is.
They do for sure. I disagree with them on that. Unless durable relationship is defined properly.
an example I give- if a situation not dissimilar to that of Martin Cahill- 8 children from two sisters (allegedly) - married to one- upon his death-could his sister in law claim a durable relationship and then a widows pension?
what’s your opinion on the example from the Supreme Court that I posted previously- the claim to bring a second wife in for citizenship and all of the children.
In 2023 tax revenue was €88.1bn and there was a surplus of €1.3bn.
In a sense the Constitution does define a family, it states it must be founded on marraige.
When have FLAC said the terminology is too loose? FLAC are advocating for a Yes vote on article 41 so you clearly don't agree with them that much. 😉 Michael McDowell also thinks a reason to vote No is because of the cost of the referendum. For an allegedly intelligent man, that was one of the stupidest things I have ever seen.
But they did run the referendum.
As far as I'm aware the €90bn plus was the 2023 expenditure - below is a graph of the predicted 2024 expenditure.
Sorry my bad- members of a family.
but they haven’t defined a Family.
When The likes of Michael McDowell and FLAC are saying the terminology is too loose, I tend to agree with them.
regarding the €20m- if they didn’t run the unnecessary referendum- it wouldn’t have been spent.
As I included in the edit, the €20m is going to be spent whether it is a yes or a no. Voting No isn't going to lead to a refund of that €20m. I didn't make the decision to hold the referendum but the fact the decision was made isn't going to influence how I vote. Seems very strange that it would tbh.
I would consider two brothers who lost both parents as a family. I don't think they should be excluded.
I'm not sure what you mean by "family member"? That terms isn't being used in the proposed amendment.
but instead of spending their energy on trying to solve problems- they are looking at the constitution and a change that some claim will change nothing, i believe it will change thing for the worse.
So why not use the word parent or guardian-
i personally don’t like the term family member. It’s too broad.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/953388c7f864cc590f5d23536526159f.svg)
