Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Hawkeye123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121657764#Comment_121657764

Yes it could be. I think from a women's perspective it is a bad deal because they lose something they have. I will vote against it to sock it to the government. There were other referendums where I just didn't vote and it wouldn't have mattered because they were going to carry anyway. My thinking is the government will commission a poll with instructions to announce it will pass but fake news only ever comes true by coincidence.

K-9

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121659182#Comment_121659182

Except for how it was implemented.

Women in the Civil Service who got married had to give up their job, so it is clear how the Government viewed it. They basically said, not alone do you not have to work due to economic necessity, we are going a step further and saying you cannot work once you get married, and we will sack you if you do not give it up voluntarily.

Basically what you are saying is, they didn't word the article strongly enough as it can be interpreted to mean the exact opposite of what was intended. So in a way, the article is defective.

To me, it is like saying, you know what, that bit about the special place of the Catholic Church in Ireland was quite progressive. The reason the article about economic necessity seems progressive for its time is due to happenstance, not intention.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121659346#Comment_121659346

We don't live in the past though, we live in the today and today that article is not interpreted legally as a means to keep women out of the workplace.

The constitution is a living document and is interpreted at the time it's interpretation is sought. The context used is always the modern one, not historic. The constitutions meaning is necessarily therefore in constant flux. Especially where terms are not defined - like durable relationships. What the SC think a durable relationship is today, might be completely different in 20 years time.

Beyond that, the idea that this article is what gave the marriage bar it's legal grounds or justification is laughable. A similar marriage bar operated in the UK for home service until the War necessitated it's removal and their foreign service up until the 1970's. I don't think even you could claim HM Government was in hock to Dev or Archbishop McQuaid.

gossamerfabric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121659141#Comment_121659141

any law not in line with the interpreted spirit of the constitution or amendments to it is in real danger of falling away.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/polygamous-relationships-not-recognised-under-proposed-constitutional-changes-1576609.html#:~:text=Under%20Irish%20law%2C%20polygamous%20marriages%20are%20not%20recognised.

US3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658436#Comment_121658436

Nonsense. Every woman in my life has a job. This law doesn't force women to stay at home

K-9

Don't think the UK had contraception or abortion bans for quite so long though, you have to look at the whole picture. Btw, CnaG and FG were, if anything, more conservative than Dev, so it isn't a Dev thing. A FG Taoiseach voted against his own parties contraception legislation in the 70s.

Anyway, the article went from extremely conservative to progressive, to out of date again imo. I don't see a reason in this day and age why women are specifically singled out. Maybe I'm missing something.

Another poster mentioned women shouldn't have to give up their special position in the constitution, I don't think that is the way a constitution should work. Men had to give up property and parenting rights in the interests of women's rights, there is no reason why women should not have to give up certain rights to make the constitution more egalitarian.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121659614#Comment_121659614

Neither contraception nor abortion were covered by this article though (obviously, since both are available and the article is still currently in force).

While the article says women, the reality is that men and women are largely interchangeable in the constitution. To be honest, I could get behind an amendment that substituted women for parents, guardians or caregivers but the government fear that might actually introduce an enforceable right that they have to pay for. Best do away with it completely and define family as a bit of whatever you are having yourself.

There are a million things higher priority than this **** and this is what they choose to spend money and time on.

K-9

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121659754#Comment_121659754

See SF and the SD's coming out for it, I wonder will that have an effect on the protest vote.

Most referenda are a bit of a waste of time and money though, judges pay, bail laws etc. The constitution makes us have to vote on something like this, which tbh Dail Eireann should sort out, not us. Probably another thing Dev didn't envisage at the time! We can't really blame the politicians too much if the constitution forces them to go to the electorate on an issue like this, and then complain it is a waste of money.

jmayo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121661172#Comment_121661172

Are you for real thinking that voters will be swayed from casting a protest vote by SDs and SF?

They are now seen as being in bed with FG, FF and the cabbage heads.

Heartlands such as Donegal have become disillusioned with SF.

They are very conspicuous in their absence at protests right around the country.

And nobody gives a fook about Labour anymore either as they have totally forgotten they used to represent working people.

Bacik connects with the electorate like a leper at a swingers party.

The refendums are going to fail due to massive protest, the main parties are going to get a kicking in local and EU elections.

The people have no other way to make their feelings felt.

Enough is enough.

K-9

Leper at a swingers party. Very good.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121659190#Comment_121659190

They're not losing anything.

In the 87 years that clause has been in place, it's not done a single thing to help any woman (or man) working in the home.

It's virtue signalling nonsense, 1930s Catholic Ireland style.

dalyboy

I’m personally really looking forward to this referendum. My vote will be straightforward. Whatever way FF , FG , Sinn Fein , and all the other leftie political parties are advising us to vote I will do the opposite.

That’ll be in this referendum and every referendum in the future. (Until have a government that puts the citizens of this country 1st and not their cronies)

Hawkeye123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121662504#Comment_121662504

Grand so. Vote against it. But if it is defeated, I will take it to be the start of the great Renaissance of God's Holy Catholic Church. Won't be long now and we'll bring back the bans on batty business, divorce, abortion, contraception and married women working outside the home.

Reopening the Magdalene laundries, the reintroduction of corporal punishment and a recruitment drive to staff the hospitals and schools with stern strap welding nuns and Christian Brothers frog marching ruffians down the street. Paradise!

Furze99

Interesting discussion on these matters on last nights Late Debate on RTE. Verona Murphy TD (a single mother herself) was not decided and thought 90% of her constituents didn't see any advantage and both clauses best left as they are.

A Mary from FG was all gung ho in favour as some are here (instancing archaic language etc) , but when she was asked awkward questions arising she flapped around and could only give vague assurances.

Going down as things stand.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121662504#Comment_121662504

That's fine, there is probably an element of truth to that there but I personally don't agree that is the whole story because supporting family life is important regardless of creed, it is the foundation of the State. In any case I agree that article could be changed and improved upon.

But we are not just voting for change, we are voting for a specific change. The proposed new article waters down the existing by substituting "State" for "society" for which it only has to "strive" to support. Weak, mealy mouthed nonsense. An elimination of a right, wrapped up to make it look progressive.

Just like the Seanad referendum, I agreed that change was needed but in that case abolition was not the change I'd wanted. Same here.

kowloonkev

Am I right in saying that the constitution and our vote to amend it doesn't really matter if the few judges in the supreme court decides to change its interpretation of it?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121663854#Comment_121663854

What right is being eliminated?

A right isn't a bit of feel-good (in the 1930s) flowery language. It's something you can take to court and win on.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121663436#Comment_121663436

Bit early to be that high.

ELM327

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658995#Comment_121658995

It would be regarded as abnormal*, and certainly not a durable familial relationship.

(* - abnormal in a statistical sense)

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121663935#Comment_121663935

What threshold do you apply abnormality to? 10% 1% 0.1%? No one can say with any degree of confidence about what way it would be interpreted, especially in the context of a difficult case. Family law cases are often difficult.

It's a deliberate decision to not define it.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121658995#Comment_121658995

I don't see why not. Whether a relationship is durable or not, has nothing to do with the number of people in it. The notorious gangster Martin Cahill had a polygamous relationship with two sisters, which I think was durable enough, until he was shot dead obviously.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121664062#Comment_121664062

But it can be defined in legislation.

ELM327

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121664062#Comment_121664062

Generally I would use 2 standard deviations from the mean as an average. While I can't calculate the stats for polyamorous relations accurately, I would hazard a guess it's probably above that threshold!

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121664272#Comment_121664272

It could but it would likely be found unconstitutional as the the proposed amendments does not confir the authority to the Oireachtas to define it. The courts are free to decide what a durable relationship is.

This is unlike abortion, where the 8th amendment was replaced with text which specifically outlines that abortion availability is to be regulated by law. Strictly speaking abortion could be made illegal again without another referendum (although other rights like bodily autonomy might now confer that right as well, without the specific constitutional ban). It certainly could be made more difficult to access.

US3

I still have yet to see an explanation of what a woman or man will be able to do after this wording is changed that they can't do now.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121664321#Comment_121664321

There were 862000 families with children in Ireland and 10k same sex couples on census night. Now on the basis that all same sex couples have children (they don't), you might find that generally accepted relationships will start to fall into exceptional categories.

I don't think statistics are the answer here.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121664372#Comment_121664372

They can't even tell you what a woman or man is let alone what rights they have.

The reason durable relationship has not been defined is solely to dodge a debate around identity. Not good enough, cards should always be on the table when it comes to the constitution.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121664348#Comment_121664348

That isn't true. There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting legislation.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121664503#Comment_121664503

Defing a woman is nothing at all to do with this referendum

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121664593#Comment_121664593

In terms of this amendment if a durable relationship was defined by law as a the traditional nuclear family then it would be struck down as there are other relationships that are obviously durable. So the Oireachtas does not have a free hand to define it, it can only be defined within the parameters that the constitution permits.

Since the proposed amendments do not provide a definition, thus is by extension extremely broad. It will be up to the courts to decide what it is and if any law would fall inside or outside of the definition the courts choose to impose.