Referendums on 8th of March

P

Purple

Registered User
Messages
13,990
What was will people vote in the upcoming referendums?
One proposes the addition of the words in italics to Article 41.1:
“The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”

I think that's a stupid idea. Marriage is a contract with rights and obligations. If you want the up side then sign the contract. How do we define "other durable relationships"? Are we once again ceding a power that should be held within the Dail to the Supreme Court?

The second is to remove Article 41.2 " “In particular, 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. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”
That sounds very misogynistic, because it kind of is, but it does give women additional protections. For example it's the reason that Children's allowance is paid to mothers. I'm in favour of removing it but I'm not sure I would be if I was a woman. Beyond the annoying and anachronistic language I don't see a downside for women in having it there.

In order to facilitate the first change a third change is being proposed; Article 41.3 is to be amended to remove the wording in italics, “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.”. I don't see how that matters either way.

The fourth change is to insert a new Article, 42B, (really replacing 41.1) which is “The State recognises that the provision of care by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”.

Now since we have no definition of what a family is, until the Supreme Court tell us in a decade or so, that sounds like a license for every lobby group, socialist, charity and chancer to try to assert their right to a handout and generally access services and supports that they shouldn't be entitled to. There's absolutely no way I'd vote in favour of that.

Therefore I'll be voting against the proposed changes on March the 8th.
If they were just removing Article 41.2 I'd have no problem with it but in the round it's ill thought out virtue signalling nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Voting against the first change since it is so badly and loosely worded and so wide open to interpretation. Aside from the "throuple" debate, what about all the people who consider their "furry babies" as part of their family and other nonsene like that

last one is, again, so badly worded I'll probably vote against it. Aside of the non-definition of family, what is "care?". All for carers of ill and elderly getting more recognition but is this the way to do it?

Also the Shinners want a yes vote so probably a good enough reason in itself to reject them.

Far bigger and better things for the Govt to be working on.
 
Be voting no, don't have strong opinions on the referendum per se. Its more a protest against government holding "bullshit " referendums on social stuff while ignoring the chance to put forward proper meaningful referendums. How many times have we heard that this cannot be done because its "unconstitutional ", well if that's the case change the constitution by putting it to the people. I think the constitution is used as an excuse not to do something
 
The Irish Times had an editorial a while back which said these refs were needed because the Constitution had become anachronistic. Meaning we had completely ignored the Constitution in this area. Take away - the Constitution is pious nonsense on social matters, the ref should be to scrap these sort of meaningless platitudes.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
The Irish Times had an editorial a while back which said these refs were needed because the Constitution had become anachronistic. Meaning we had completely ignored the Constitution in this area. Take away - the Constitution is pious nonsense on social matters, the ref should be to scrap these sort of meaningless platitudes.
Click to expand...
We seem to be replacing one set for another though, given the re-wording rather than removal.
 
Article 41.2 didn't stop Tax Individualisation and a model where, for most families, both parents have to work out of economic necessity. They are just faffing around. Deletion would have been the only thing I might have voted for. I will vote against all but I expect that a majority will vote in favour. I don't see it making any difference to anything either way.
 
The nonsense about care is what I'm most concerned about. It's way too vague and open ended. We're already the most socialist country in Europe. That sort of gushing nonsense could make it even worse.
 
One question I have on this. if one of the changes here is to change the definition of family to remove marriage (and replace it with durable relationship), what was the point of the last referendum to allow gay marriage?
It sounds like a yes vote dilutes the importance of a marriage or else I'm missing something.
 
Ceist Beag said:
if one of the changes here is to change the definition of family to remove marriage (and replace it with durable relationship), what was the point of the last referendum to allow gay marriage?
Click to expand...

The marriage equality referendum amended a different part of the constitution (41.4) to say:

4. Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

This will not change regardless of these referendum results.
 
arbitron said:
The marriage equality referendum amended a different part of the constitution (41.4) to say:

4. Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

This will not change regardless of these referendum results.
Click to expand...
Yes my point was that the definition of family was founded on marriage and this referendum aims to replace that with a vague term that is open to interpretation. What value would marriage now hold in our constitution if this is passed?
 
Ceist Beag said:
Yes my point was that the definition of family was founded on marriage and this referendum aims to replace that with a vague term that is open to interpretation. What value would marriage now hold in our constitution if this is passed?
Click to expand...

Even if the referendum is passed, it will still say:

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage and to protect it against attack.
 
Nonsensical lefty twaddle, will be voting no, you could drive a coach and four through the wording.
 
Michael mcdowell is really doing serious damage to the yes campaign, no government minister is willing to debate for the yes side, Thomas Byrne was on Claire Byrne last week batting for the referendum campaign and he got annihilated so that will frighten away any other ministers
 
joe sod said:
Michael mcdowell is really doing serious damage to the yes campaign
Click to expand...

Interesting that you say that. I listened to McDowell on an Irish Times podcast recently expecting that he would have helpful insights but he was really poor and made the no argument sound very thin.
 
joe sod said:
Michael mcdowell is really doing serious damage to the yes campaign, no government minister is willing to debate for the yes side, Thomas Byrne was on Claire Byrne last week batting for the referendum campaign and he got annihilated so that will frighten away any other ministers
Click to expand...
He was on the Katie Hannon Upfront show on RTE Monday night and was very weak I thought.
I think he said at one stage that he's a Solicitor specialising in Family Law by trade!
 
Itchy said:
Marriage is not being replaced or diluted. Parity of esteem is not dilution, in the way that gay marriage is not a dilution of "marriage". You may not like the definition but that's subjective.
Click to expand...
I don't know how you can say that (by the way I never suggested that gay marriage was a dilution of marriage, nor I do think anyone could argue that is the case and I voted for same sex marriage change). Marriage had a certain place in society, a certain value. This referendum appears to me to further erode those values. We already had tax individualisation before which had a negative financial impact on married couples. Now it appears that the definition of family no longer depends on marriage. This is not a fear or fantasy, it is there in black and white in the proposed changes. One of the arguments made during the same sex marriage referendum was that gay couples was that civil partners do not enjoy the protection the Constitution gives to the family. If this referendum passes that argument would not have had any merit, so what was the point of the last referendum?

Itchy said:
Family will be continue to be founded on marriage but there will now be another family structure that will be founded on a durable relationship. The institution of marriage will continue to have special status in the constitution.
Click to expand...
What does that even mean Itchy? In real terms can you explain this one to me? What does this "special status" confer on married couples now?
 
arbitron said:
It's unfortunate to hear people advocate protest votes, e.g. Sinéad Ryan: I’ll be voting No in the referendums as a protest – but not for the reasons you might think. Constitutional rights should never be weaponised to "punish the government" when the citizens are the ones affected.
Click to expand...
The momentum has definitely moved to the no side though, I was surprised by sinead Ryan actually, she basically repeated verbatim Michael mcdowells main points.

What was the point in running the same sex marriage referendum with all the fanfare associated, when they are going to downgrade marriage anyway to the same status as a "durable relationship " which they left undefined. Also by allowing judges to decide in the future is effectively downgrading and dumbing down the whole constitution. The constitution should be clear and concise not open to different interpretations by future judges. Of course that is their job to an extent but you don't put vague undefined terms and phrases into the constitution
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top