Constitutional Referendum on the role of women in the home.

[Purple]

We are having a referendum to remove the reference to the role of women in the home next March. I think that's a good idea but why can't we just remove that bit instead of replacing it with some new definition of what a family is? That sort of stuff has no place in a Constitution.

 

[michaelm]

Seems like a waste of money to me, virtue signalling, wanting to be seen to be doing something. The Article confers no benefit or rights on anyone anyway. If they must faff around then just delete it.

 

[odyssey06]

These are the kind of needless changes that cause votes to be lost... similar to how the Seanad and Committee votes were lost, because people look at the proposed change and are bamboozled by it or disagree with it, even though there is a majority in favour of the core change.

 

[Sunny]

This isn't about the woman's place in the home and it is worrying that this is how it is being framed. It is extending the definition of family beyond traditional marriage to include 'durable relationships'. Has huge implications for tax, inheritance, children custody etc.

It's hugely welcome but also extremely complicated.

Unmarried couples with children do not get the same tax benefits as married couples with children but get treated the same for social welfare which is grossly unfair. Men are also treated very badly when it comes to custody rights just because they are not married.
This will change that. You shouldn't have to marry to get treated the same by the State.

 

[Purple]

This isn't about the woman's place in the home and it is worrying that this is how it is being framed. It is extending the definition of family beyond traditional marriage to include 'durable relationships'. Has huge implications for tax, inheritance, children custody etc.

It's hugely welcome but also extremely complicated.

Unmarried couples with children do not get the same tax benefits as married couples with children but get treated the same for social welfare which is grossly unfair. Men are also treated very badly when it comes to custody rights just because they are not married.
This will change that. You shouldn't have to marry to get treated the same by the State.

The referendum, as it is intended, helps people like me. I would, in theory, be able to claim children's allowance for by school aged children who live with me without going to court. As a divorced parent I could get the same additional income tax allowance that divorced women receive. My concern is that the unintended consequences could be many and expensive since we live in a rights based (but not responsibility based) society with a very generous welfare system.

It will also have major implications around inheritance tax for the children of blended families where the parents aren't married.

All that said I'm not sure that it's a good idea to discourage marriage.

 

[Sunny]

The referendum, as it is intended, helps people like me. I would, in theory, be able to claim children's allowance for by school aged children who live with me without going to court. As a divorced parent I could get the same additional income tax allowance that divorced women receive. My concern is that the unintended consequences could be many and expensive since we live in a rights based (but not responsibility based) society with a very generous welfare system.

It will also have major implications around inheritance tax for the children of blended families where the parents aren't married.

All that said I'm not sure that it's a good idea to discourage marriage.

I agree it's complicated. But I never thought the State using marriage as some sort of special relationship status that required protection to make sense. Marriage doesn't mean people love each other more than unmarried committed couples and it doesn't mean either party won't do their hardest to hurt the other person.
The concept belongs in a different generation when women were forced to give up jobs when they married.

As you say the difficult part gets in identifying truely committed couples rather than people trying to take advantage. But I would have thought an unmarried couple with children living as one family unit and accepting that they are as deserving as the same 'protection' as a married couple with kids is a good start. After that, gets trickier....

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Marriage is a legal contract. Are we trying to say there are relationships which are as "legal" as the real thing? It's certainly a new concept in contract law.

 

[Leper]

We are having a referendum to remove the reference to the role of women in the home next March. I think that's a good idea but why can't we just remove that bit instead of replacing it with some new definition of what a family is? That sort of stuff has no place in a Constitution.

Our kind of Democracy has its faults, weaknesses and drawbacks, but it is the best of what's around. Let's keep it.

 

[Purple]

Our kind of Democracy has its faults, weaknesses and drawbacks, but it is the best of what's around. Let's keep it.

I'm not a fan of referendums. People are smart but the Mob isn't. Referendums can be won and lost on a narrative built on emotion. I'm not an expert on legislation so I pay some people to act as experts on my behalf. They are called TD's.

It's not perfect but representative democracy is the best anyone's come up with. I trust the Dail more than the Mob.

 

[Purple]

Marriage doesn't mean people love each other more than unmarried committed couples and it doesn't mean either party won't do their hardest to hurt the other person.

No, but it gives the relationship a standing in law and confers rights to shares assets, inheritance and the status of the children. I don't see an alternative structure, or lack thereof, that can perform the same function.