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.
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: