March 8th - What’s your vote? **Mod Note In Post #677**

If it takes a judge to come on a radio show to try to explain in clear language WTF this durable relationship issue is, well that's just not good enough for me. Why has it taken up until two days prior to voting day to try and explain it? I am fed up of the vagueness of it all, it makes me think (probably wrongly) that there is a massive hidden agenda here somehow.

Clarity is everything when voting to change the Constitution IMV. No No here.

Absolute NO and NO from my house

I found it unacceptable that Prime Time introduced Maria Steen as a 'stay at home mother' instead of a key member of the iona institute. May as well have introduced Micheal as a 'former school teacher'.

Yes, If the church and church supporting institutions stayed out of this you'd be more likely to get a No vote winning.Government are delighted the church and the likes of Iona stuck their oar in as they know if if the church argued water as wet some people would disagree with them just because it's the church.

Thought Martin did very well. Didnt get drawn into the far right efforts to muddy opinion on durable relationships. Its still a YES YES from me.

Imagine voting the same as Ireland First and Aontu. Yuck.

After giving the proposed changes careful consideration I have decided on No to both amendments.The wording is vague and and the unintended consequences of the new wording could swamp the courts for years, the real beneficiaries of these changes would be the legal profession and other vested interest groups.

The government needs to tackle the pressing issues like housing,health,transport, tourism,and the immigration mess we currently have.

Martin was a teacher for less than a year,a more accurate description for Micheal should be failed health minister and a cabinet member of a government that bankrupted the country, not to mention his abysmal handling of the Lisbon Treaty.

Its amazing that the people who are voting no because 'it doesn't change anything' and 'is a waste of time' are on the same side as the people who are voting no because it leaves the door open for someone's illegitimate mistress to come in and destroy families...

It's the Schrodinger's amendment, both destroys families, and has zero effect both at the same time.

There is perfect clarity on the changes to the constitution, everyone got the exact text of the changes sent to their houses from an independent body

If you think there's a 'hidden agenda' here, then could that possibly be? What is the Citizen Assembly trying to sneak in through the back door as part of some kind of deeper agenda?

And how could that possibly work?

Just reminding people of what Martin has done to this country,his new incarnation over the recent years does not impress me and does not absolve him of the damage he did in the past,I will discount anything he says just the same as many will discount Steen because she is a member of the Iona group.

The care referendum takes the pressure off the state to support anyone "in the home". The could have worded this much better and without stoking the genuine issues that people have with it. It's not enough to say that the language is "sexist" and thats why it should be removed, if what it is being replaced with will potentially have worse practical implications.

Why are we looking at "adding to it in future"? Why not get it right this time? It's costing millions not to get it right and at this point if it doesn't go through not getting it right means it might be decades before it's reviewed again.

Half-a$$ed is the term I'd use.