Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480712#Comment_121480712

That's interesting. Surely, that was fair enough? Why should married couples pay more tax than cohabiting couples?

Compare it with the change in 2000 where tax individualisation was brought in which basically removed the main tax advantage to married couples comprising a single earner + one stay at home parent. Some people argue that was anti- family but the government at the time pushed it through anyway.

My point is that if any government thought there were enough votes in it, they would have changed the law already to give widows/widower pensions to cohabiting couples. They wouldn't need to change the constitution first.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480750#Comment_121480750

No its not about lessening anyones rights

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480789#Comment_121480789

Maybe you're not reading the room?

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480769#Comment_121480769

But you mentioned tradition earlier. Marriage as understood in 1937 was very much traditionally in Ireland all about religion. Religion is still very much at the the forefront of the constitution. Contraception and divorce were banned because of how the constitution framed marriage within a religious context. So it seems like you are confused about tradition - you want tradition because just because but you dont want the religious parts of the tradition despite the fact they are traditionally an integral part of the tradition of marriage.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480817#Comment_121480817

Another non-answer. Can't see the no side gaining any traction if this is the best conservatives have to offer.

jackboy

This referendum will not be fought on the actual question. It will be a chance to attack the government so many reasons will be brought forward for a no vote.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480862#Comment_121480862

What a childish waste of time.

Imagine not giving non married families the same rights as married families because you're not happy with the government.

Talk about an own goal, kicking yourself in the ass.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480862#Comment_121480862

Indeed but they'll all be petty and ridiculous.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480862#Comment_121480862

There is always roughly a 20 to 30% vote no in referenda just to kick the government. I wouldnt expect this to be significantly more than 30% doing that.

jackboy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480898#Comment_121480898

Usually I would agree but there is more than the normal level of hatred against the Government at the moment.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480810#Comment_121480810

If course it was fair enough, the law was unconstitutional.

when the constitution is changed, any laws treating non married families different to unmarried families, will be unconstitutional, so will either be changed by government or will be open to constitutional challenge in the courts, forcing government to change the legislation.

briangriffin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480916#Comment_121480916

It will be very interesting to see how the courts sort out all of this mess.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480909#Comment_121480909

There is loud groups on social media. There are gatherings against refugees and asylum seekers that have fizzled out. And you have huge amounts of people that dont use social media and wouldnt agree with all the anger and hate. I think many who are angry with the government are living in echo chambers and really dont realise lots and lots of people think completely differently.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480313#Comment_121480313

The best example you’re probably looking for is Murphy v Attorney General:

In 1979, it was held in the High Court that ss.192, 193 and 197 of the Income Tax Act 1967 were repugnant to Articles 40.1 and 41 of the Constitution “because they created an invidious discrimination against married couples… and because they failed to guard the institution of marriage with special care and to protect it against attack”. Notably, Hamilton J stated that the discrimination was against the “husband in particular”.

https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/irish-legal-heritage-well-heeled-articulate-women

The other is probably Hyland v Minister for Social Welfare:

The Court held unconstitutional provisions of the Irish Social Welfare (No. 2) Act 1985, which, in effect, gave lower total unemployment benefits to a married couple than to two single people living together in the same circumstances. It ruled that these provisions violated Article 41.2 of the Constitution, which pledges the State to guard with special care the institution of marriage and to protect it against attack.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12289646/

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480828#Comment_121480828

Excuse me, it's you that keep dragging up abuse, misogyny and religion etc in connection with marriage. Trying to slur the concept of marriage. I have stated clearly and unequivocally that I am concerned with marriage as a civil arrangement of value to individuals, families and society. And it is obvious to all that marriage is a traditional long standing framework that has served well on the whole. I've no interest in the matters you raise to muddy the waters.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480849#Comment_121480849

But it's up to 'you' to persuade us that change is worthwhile. I don't see any good reason to change the relevant article in the constitution. If something isn't broken, don't try to fix it. There are a great many married couples in this state who are voters and who will think things are fine on the whole. You can label them conservatives - I'd just call them normal people.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121481030#Comment_121481030

Im just pointing out your arguments in this thread are contradictory. You spoke about the tradition of marriage, you spoke about traditions being centuries old but then refuse to acknowledge that marriage traditionally has been a religious institution and that the original traditional foundations marriage were all about property and ownership. I'm not trying to slur anything, I'm putting forward alternative viewpoints and highlighting the reality that marriage hasn't always been about the positives that some in this discussion claim. It's simply untrue to claim "marriage... has served well on the whole"

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480612#Comment_121480612

I made no such assumption either way? I mean, apart from the fact that I really couldn’t give a shìte whether a family is comprised of a group where the parents are married or unmarried, divorced, separated, blended or single, the point is that they are a family. Irish law doesn’t currently recognise them as a family because in Irish law, the concept of the institution of the Family is created on condition of marriage. Positive outcomes for Irish society aren’t predicated upon marriage, they’re predicated upon the Family, however that fundamental social unit is formed.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480994#Comment_121480994

Thanks, but it looks like as my post above #632 said, it's hardly wrong that married couples should be treated less favourably than unmarried couples, and really those cases show the flexibility of the current constitution in accommodating modern realities (or what was modern 40 years ago) like married women working and earning and having the right to be treated as individuals in the tax code.

So, I remain unconvinced that any rights we want to give to non-marital families would need a change to the constitution.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480750#Comment_121480750

The rationale behind it is simple - because it means that being regarded as a Family, in Irish law, whether married or unmarried, the Family will have the same protections as is afforded the Family in the Irish Constitution -

1° The State recognises the Family 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.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

The current situation is that some families enjoy greater recognition and protection in the Constitution than others; the idea of the referendum is that the Constitution will recognise families which aren’t based on marriage. There’s nothing in it that suggests lessening anyone’s rights, no idea why you’d even suggest that when it’s doing the opposite.

briangriffin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121481059#Comment_121481059

There are over 580 thousand marriages in this country today. I would say thats a reflection of the value the vast majority of people place on marriage. You are so ingrained in your thinking that all traditions are contrary to the common good that you cant even acknowledge that provable fact. those 580 thousand were not coerced or hoodwinked into marriage they chose it. There were over 23,000 marriages in 2022 - If marriage adds nothing to peoples lives then why did we have a same sex marriage referendum?

briangriffin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121481070#Comment_121481070

I didn't say it was your individual assumption I was saying it is the prevailing narrative, as you say you don't give a shíte what a family comprises.

In our constitution "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" "positive outcomes for Irish society are not predicated upon marriage but are predicated on the family" how on earth does that square with the family in the constitution being predicated on the institution of marriage, on the one hand society as we know it has the historical ideal of marriage as the basis for family at its heart but somehow your saying marriage has nothing to do with positive outcomes in Irish society today a society that has millions of marriages since the enactment of the constitution. Are you saying marriage offers no value to Irish society?

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121481144#Comment_121481144

Of course any constitutional rights for non married families need a constitutional change. You can see that?

suvigirl

@Furze99

You haven't told us how a constitutional change putting non married families on an equal par with married families would lessen rights for people?

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480965#Comment_121480965

They may not need to, government can change existing legislation to be constitutional. It's only if they don't, and there is legislation that is unconstitutional that someone may bring a challenge to the legislation, to the courts

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121481218#Comment_121481218

Such rubbish

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480769#Comment_121480769

civil matter or not, it shouldnt result in unmarried couples being treated disfavourably from a financial (or any other) standpoint.

briangriffin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121481228#Comment_121481228

Whats strange is that the legal difference between marriage and cohabitating couples are defined as I posted previously here.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth-family-relationships/cohabiting-couples/legal-differences-between-cohabitation-and-marriage/

The major difference in both is the lack of a legal commitment to each other ie. the marriage ceremony which grants legal rights in terms of inheritance, property and the family home and guardianship of children and widowers pensions.

So are we now saying that cohabitation and marriage are the same and how do you define equality of rights in terms of duration. I know when I marry and that could be after a whirlwind marriage of 3 months I am ceding certain legal rights on that day but at what time do those rights accrue to cohabitating couples is it the same as the cohabitating redress scheme 2 or 5 years or how is it going to work? Are cohabitating agreements no longer needed and will the legislature now define what those rights will be across the board.

How will how that is defined change peoples attitude to cohabitating or even marriage? Will men and women who fear commitment be less likely to cohabitate or will the legal change push more people into marriage or just put more people off marriage because its now an unnecessary inconvenience.

As I said already there are 2 ways of looking at the referendum.

1. It no longer promotes marriage above cohabitation as the fundamental unit group of society -
2. It gives cohabiting parents the same rights as married parents

I'm more inclined to think that statement 1 is more true than 2

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121481144#Comment_121481144

So, I remain unconvinced that any rights we want to give to non-marital families would need a change to the constitution.

You’re making two different arguments though? On the one hand you’re arguing that it’s fair that the Government was prohibited by the Constitution from introducing legislation related to tax individualisation, and then on the other hand you’re arguing that tax individualisation was a good thing for women, bad thing for families, but Government went ahead with it anyway. They did, because it wasn’t unconstitutional.

Before it was introduced, women when they got married, their income was regarded for tax purposes as their husband’s income - effectively women disappeared from the tax net once they married, and this caused the effects we’re seeing today where women weren’t receiving the full benefit of the Contributory State pension. After tax individualisation was introduced, well, it still didn’t go down well because it meant that while the spouse who was working in the home could apply for the home carers credit, the credit was applied to their spouse’s income -

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/so-theyre-going-to-recognise-my-work-by-paying-it-to-my-spouse-stay-at-home-mother-blasts-insulting-home-carer-credit-rise/42022428.html

It’s something to note that the above only applies to married couples and couples in a civil partnership. Cohabiting couples cannot avail of the scheme. In order for cohabiting couples to be eligible, the Constitution would have to recognise them as a family. Same applies in relation to the new legislation regarding carers pensions btw - the reason the eligibility rules were changed in 2012 was because of the fact that people providing care in the home wouldn’t receive the benefits of the State pension. They’re changing again now, but still only applies to married and civil partnerships.

Even if the Government were to bring forward the Surviving Cohabitants Pension Bill, and it’s unlikely to be prevented from doing so by the Constitution, cohabitating couples will still be shafted in terms of inheritance tax. In order to rectify that, well, y’know…

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2021/137/

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/inheritance-tax-leaves-cohabiting-couples-facing-an-uncertain-future/37562471.html

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121481030#Comment_121481030

I did. As have others. You've ignored the arguments and instead pretended that married people will lose rights but have, of course, failed to provide any backing for this point.