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.
Exactly until this BS referendum no one knew the wording existed not alone it shaping the thought process of the country.
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.
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
Is that victim blaming? Did those single mothers bring it on themselves? It's a new perspective on the whole thing anyway
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not doubting ya, but how would babies be found in septic tanks if the tanks were added after burials?
My view on that would be those that built the tanks put the remains in the tank.
Jaysus
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.
Who says durable relationship only means couples?
I am voting No No protest vote if nothing else .Can I ask what way are you voting
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.
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
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
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.
Can you put it up here. The IT is subscription only and I am not a twit
You can read it without subscription
Just read it - the gist of it is don’t believe the scaremongers as the change in wording means little or nothing.
Interesting reading the comments section to the IT open letter, especially the one from @ColinMangan_TGC
Also had a laugh at this one
click on the link. He spells it out in the Twitter thread
Seems some of that withheld information has been got
There is a case due to be heard in the Supreme Court on April 11th taken by the mother of a severely handicapped child who requires 24 hour a day care. Her carers allowance has been cut because her partner earns over €45K. If she wins her case it would force the government to change the way carers are looked after. If this referendum on carers is passed it will delete the article under which the woman is taking the case getting the government off the hook. Carers will be worse off if this referendum passes
Within three weeks of a date for the Supreme Court hearing date being set, the government announced the referendum on the carers article, some coincidence isn’t it.
So some €17m of taxpayers' money is being squandered on some wording that, some "experts" inform us, means little or nothing!!! 🤬
Thanks for that, Leo and Roderick. Oh - and good luck to your parties in the coming Local and European elections!
I heard Neil prendiville on red FM, asking Holly cairn's to come on to represent the yes vote. But she was unavailable all week.
The opposition parties are staying very quiet. There's no point in chatting much more no this, anti woman, anti mother, anti family referendum. Just go and vote No.
Let FF FG keep their durable relationship and keep the word Strive, and instead help the people. Squardering and wasting our ffucking money.
The treatment of working people or old people or people with needs in the last three years, proves they don't give two shhits about single parents or careers. You would want to be very stupid to argue otherwise
Aye..if it means little or nothing then why change it?
Such bollockology.......
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/953388c7f864cc590f5d23536526159f.svg)
