March Referendums

Disregard that initial part of my post. You are still avoiding my question.

What advantage do they gain? Protection from what exactly? I really don’t see what’s in it from them (currently at least).

First a single parent are recognised as a family both in common law and tge constitution make no reference to discrimination against them.

It recognises marriage as the ideal basis of family and wants to support that. In nearly eighty years since the constitution was first written the support for single parent families has never been in doubts in the state and is now stronger than it ever was.

Durable relationship is in relationships between couples but its meaning may recognise trouples or polygamous relationships. It not about single parent families where common law recognises the bond between a parent either mother or father and their children whether in a marriage or not. The constitution could never override that even if it tried.

Same influences as on the constitution.

I fixed that for you, sorry for using an extra word ("simply" not "simple"), I don't think it changed the meaning of the sentence too much? Though removal has lessened it.

It was used (appropriately?) to suggest that many people are trying to raise scenarios with intent to confused, obfuscate, muddy the waters etc. in order to promote a "No" vote.

"Gullible" would not work as a synonym in this instance.

So to juxtapose, in the society of when this constitution was created, in which women held most all positions of power, influence, and wealth, it says

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

So to rephrase, the common good cannot be achieved without man leading his life within the house.

“The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that fathers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”

In reality, eighty years on, women are still very much on the back foot on power, earnings, and influence, in our society. I think this is a bad thing and I don't think that articles like this in our constitution help that. It sets a tone for our culture that was never right and should never have been there in the first place.

Regardless of who is in the home, the state have failed here with it necessary in so many cases to survive that both people are engaged in labour.