Why did government ignore the citizens assembly recommendations on the wording and ram their own flawed activist based language into the proposed new wording
And why is Roderick o Gormon refusing to release the minutes of a meeting that exposed all the adverse consequences of such wording of Immigration, wills and succession, marriage and tax rights.
These private school politicians are treating the Irish people like idiots
Vote No and No if you love your wife ,your husband ,your children and your country.
I was just watching this on twitter. If you skip to 50secs where Brenda Power BL & Journalist recounts the story of a full time carer who looks after her adult son. The woman took a case to the High Court because her carers allowance was cut - she lost the case. She then went to the Supreme Court to hear her case under Article 41.2 last November. The Supreme Court said that it is the first time that they would have to give consideration to Article 41.2 with regards to women/parents of profoundly disabled children. The case is due to come up on the 11th of April however within three weeks of this woman applying to the Supreme Court the Government announced the Referendum amendments and decided to have the vote (8th of March) before the woman's case could be heard. I'm paraphrasing the article but you get the gist. The Government are trying to ram road this through with wishy washy terminology.
https://x.com/griptmedia/status/1763596230314045853?s=20
13 law professors have written an open letter dealing with the “durable relationship” issue
they haven’t advocated one way or the other for the referendum but there is a good bit of nonsense doing the rounds about this particular issue and they cover it very well here:
https://twitter.com/dkennytcd/status/1763836649153184063
No/No
The whole thing is too rushed. We still have no info on the amendments and voting is next Friday. Aside from that I have serious difficulty with a durable relationship.
At present the two articles are not creating any difficulty, so why replace them wishy washy wording.
The state provides an option called marriage to show you are in a durable relationship if you do not take that option its is your choice
On the care amendment I am not sure of it meaning or application.
I am voting No No protest vote if nothing else .Can I ask what way are you voting
Who says durable relationship only means couples?
If I recall correctly reading at the time the news broke, they reported that the Septic tanks had never been used for sewage disposal at any time.
Jaysus
My view on that would be those that built the tanks put the remains in the tank.
Not doubting ya, but how would babies be found in septic tanks if the tanks were added after burials?
No problem with what you posted here except I've was told by someone who would have had access to records and documents from that time and the septic tanks were installed after the ground was used as a burial place.
Ok, so being poor was the problem. And then being poor meant that in some cases, out of fear of being excommunicated or driven from the parish, young single mothers gave up their babies, or were sent to the homes. And it's being poor that meant the church were putting babies in septic tanks.
Mod: I've noticed recently a tendency to question mod actions on-thread. I will take this opportunity to remind everyone that this is not the way to do things.
We may have been slack recently in following this up, but don't rely on it in future.
If you want to take issue with a decision, use a PM.
This has always been policy.
I am just giving an explanation that it was not just the church. In 1935 the widow's pension was first introduced in Ireland. Here is the bill.
It would be 1973 begire the first support of single mothers came in.
I am just pointing out it was a different era blaming the church is an easy option. We were a very poor country compared to now.
Most people really don't know any of the constitution. In fact, the example you give is apt, Irish people would have more knowledge of the American constitution than they would their own, primarily as its referenced in so many "things".
The wording of this change is all over the place, lacks clarity and there's literally no "harm" coming from what is currently there - there are numerous laws that have been enacted over the years that have given enhanced protection to children (from any background), women (from employment to freedom of choice to many others) etc - none of these (to my knowledge) have required any constitutional change.
Now lookit, as I said already, I ain't a constitutional expert but I really need to be convinced as to why changes are required, some airy fluff around "Keeping them up to date" and some of the other rationale I have seen isn't really good enough if there's no actualy positive outcomes or it doesn't actually solve a problem.
If anything I do believe changes here will end up causing problems down the line, with the only potential beneficiaries being the legal profession.
If you sit for one minute and look at the proposed changes (without any outside input) you can read in plain english:
Is that victim blaming? Did those single mothers bring it on themselves? It's a new perspective on the whole thing anyway
People often blame the State or the Church for what was society protecting itself. Because we lived in a poor country where there was little state support outside of the OAP.
Families struggled to support themselves if a parent ( either make or female) got sick or died it put a tremendous burden on that family either by the loss of a breadwinner or the person who looked after the home.
Transpose this to a daughter who was going to have a child outside of marriage. It would have added a significant burden on the family and longterm on the daughter who was unlikely to be able to work to support that child andcwas unlikely to be able to find a husband for the want of a better word. A single women could work but a woman with a child was unlikely to be able to work.
Therefore it's easy to point the blame at the state who found ot hard to cover day to day spending and the problems was dumped on the Catholic Church.
You have to remember this was the time when corporal punishment was still in schools. I remember being punished in school in the 70's and into the 80's. And this was mild compared to what happened in the 50's and 60's
Hindsight is 20/20 vision
Oh now I would think most people knew of this or had some inkling. I was certainly aware of it, things like the marriage ban came from this and affected women in my family.
That said it was a product of its times, but a rather regressive one, imho, which sought to stem further the emanicapation and equality of women, who weren't long voting at that time.
The problem with constitutions is keeping them up to date, as a living document in modern parlance. The right to bear arms in the USA is a relevant example.
Exactly until this BS referendum no one knew the wording existed not alone it shaping the thought process of the country.
How can it set a tone for our culture when the vast majority of people in this country wouldn't know one end of the constitution from the other?
I'd include myself in this grouping btw.
“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.”
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.
!.
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.
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.
What's the purpose of this, I wouldn't know augme from adam(e?) but they only seemed to put forward counter points to those presented. You might as well delete the thread altogether.
As an other mods byline says "The purpose of debate..." and all that.
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.
What layer of discrimination? All I see this referendum doing is at best severely muddying the waters around the very strong and long standing legal framework of marriage (please don't bring the church into this we are talking about the legal framework) - at worst opening up all sorts of foreseen and unforeseen legal and tax issues, court cases and who knows what else.
Purely from a legal point of view which is how I am looking at this I can't understand how some seem so ok with this. I Wonder would they be so easy if other legal frameworks were being bypased/eroded/rendered obsolete giving the rights to those without any of the actual commitments.
Scraping the barrel is all they’ve got.
Mod note; Bye bye Augme we have tolerated your crap in F&F for long enough.
Scrapping the barrel there.
Yep, fantastic places they were then. It's a shame they still aren't around.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/953388c7f864cc590f5d23536526159f.svg)
