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

Looking at the opposite though, will passing this mean supports being removed? Or preventing supports being added?

Screw the church and their No stance. But also screw the govt and "progressive" posers pushing Yes.

I don't care enough to dive into the pros and cons, and I don't have a background in legal practice. Not my job. Maybe have a clear cut referendum on housing or health.... you know things that matter. No, thought not.

So still staying out of this and having a few pints instead.

Again, not my job.

What a waste of time and money.... Could ask citizens many better questions - refugee crisis, rent control, right to housing, inflation control, nato membership, military spending, EU membership, homeless provisions....

But no. Lets focus on some cohabitating couples who aren't ready to be married, but want to be treated like they're married. It was too clear to have them just commit on paper and pay a €220 one off fee, no, if we make "Durable relationships" subjective then imagine how much money solicitors and tax accountants can suck off people then! And of course it's all in line with the current ideology shift to remove "women" and pretend that every relationship is functional.

A No/No would teach the government a very valuable lesson about putting words and phrases into legislation and refusing to define what they mean by them.

It should be the end of McEntee's 'Incitement to Hatred' nonsense and, hopefully, McEntee herself.

Just read the attorney generals letter of advice to the government and it is absolutely outrageous the government have pressed ahead with this referendum.

No wonder Roderic O'Gorman suppressed information from meetings.

The word "strive" and durable relationships mean nothing. A shambles.

My feeling is it's going to be no no.

There's widespread mistrust of this govt, for good reason. The fact they've...

1, Hid the minutes of how this referenda was born.

2, Silenced political debate by guillotining the motion.

3, Willfully misinformed the public despite correction from qualified legal persons.

3, Intentionally omitted actual definitions of what they want us to vote on.

4, Purposefully left loopholes for distancing state obligations.

...means it's actually a very sloppy and lazy grift and its my opinion they need their arses handed to them.

Lastly, the hate speech bill in light of all of the above should have you very concerned and nervous.

What ever your view on this is. I like this card.

It’s a No No + No No household here.

I don’t like the whole heather humphries trying to buy the yes vote by insinuating she’ll get more money at budget time for carers if a yes goes through- this extra money should be there for carers anyway!

Also what’s a durable relationship? The courts don’t have a definition on it, so would a Polygamous relationship be deemed a durable relationship by the courts?

Also sec 41.2 states, “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” and

“mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”.

Ok so what’s wrong with this if a woman chooses to stay at home and not enter the workplace? The above statement hasn’t stopped women from entering and excelling in the workplace has it?

Why are we now putting the emphasis of care on the family and giving the government a more hands off approach by saying they’ll “strive to support” these carers:

The referendum proposes replacing this with article 42B, which recognises the support given to society by “the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them”, and says that the state “shall strive to support” these carers.

So at the moment we have:

Women will not have to work if they don’t want to because the state will support her to stay at home- ie if the women would have to get a job to cover costs of caring etc well then the state is obliged to step in.

The proposed is:

whoever is in the family giving care is recognised by the state and the state will strive to help.

Have I got this right? It doesn’t seem like a great deal to me tbh.

Will there be an exit poll thread tomorrow ? There normally is.