Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121686768#Comment_121686768

😀 You are calling the Irish government communists. Nuff said. 😁😂🤣

Spanish Eyes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121686775#Comment_121686775

Well the Government and its henchmen/women seem to have no problem calling a lot of the Irish people Far Right, so it's only fair. 😉

road_high

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121686775#Comment_121686775

They are- big state, big taxes, restricted freedoms/curtailing of free speech, rampant cronyism, eye watering levels of state welfare and interference. Out of control nanny statism. The Irish government would make communists of old blush.

It’s very telling now when we have far left commentators/NGOs always on the same side as this government- bought and paid for and all singing off the same hymn sheet

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121686834#Comment_121686834

It's the only card the government has ,I wouldn't be surprised now if in a few months our shower Starts to blame the Russians for trying to interfere with our democracy, this shower of Cowards will say and do anything to keep in power,they need to be taught a serious and painful message when it comes to elections

Starfire20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121686893#Comment_121686893

ah yes, you seem to be one of those folks who think communism is when the government does stuff.

it might be better to learn what these terms are/mean before spouting off and embarrassing yourself

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121686775#Comment_121686775

They are not listening to the electorate…

they are pushing ideals and ideas that are of their own morality on others.

They want the vagueness of hate crime to be law and as so be punishable in their government document…from that document ” A hate crime is any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim, or any other person, to have been motivated by prejudice based on a person's age, disability race, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender… So now perception on behalf of a victim or anyone can determine if a certain type crime has been committed… how democratic…

whatever about calling him a communist but he’s not the greatest example of a democratic leader…in terms of his beliefs and the manner he communicates and pontificates…people could be forgiven in thinking he likes a sort of autocratic regime….in fact he has been accused of that trait before…both in the media here and by detractors of his.

road_high

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121686951#Comment_121686951

The far left always get so touchy when the failures of useless big government interference are highlighted lol

Those that benefit from big state tend to worship it and love it. Can’t see any other way of “solving problems”. Those of us that have to pay for it know it’s a failed system that never benefits us or delivers any value whatsoever

Starfire20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121686993#Comment_121686993

more gibberish.

please make a coherent argument

road_high

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121687027#Comment_121687027

You are typical of the condescending lefty type- all you ever do is talk down, dismiss and diminish anyone who doesn’t buy into the sacred lefty dogma of imaginary love and compassion.

Keep it up because it’s doing wonders in the opinion polls and forthcoming referendums. The “for roight”

road_high

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121686906#Comment_121686906

Whoever they blame for creating the “for roight” backlash you can be guaranteed the state, government, “opposition “, NGO and media class will all be blaming the same thing- no doubt their next brainwave will be “re education” camps for those with the wrong non trendy opinions

abozzz

If this is already falling into a left versus right issue, let me tell you, a referendum of total rubbish doesn't do that sides credibility any favour.

Starfire20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121687126#Comment_121687126

so you got nothing then.

thought so.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121686648#Comment_121686648

I'm awaiting the Ref Commissions booklet on the pros and cons, which is obligatory now. Should make for an interesting read, and I hope it is not filled with obfuscation and wishy washy stuff.

Same

ELM327

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121687393#Comment_121687393

I'm on the electoral register (checked again to make sure) but have received no communication at all about the upcoming referendum. Wouldnt the info packs etc be sent by now already usually? If it werent for threads like this, as well as facebook/x/etc I wouldnt have even known there was a referendum.

kowloonkev

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121686500#Comment_121686500

As far as I understand it there is some sort of public forum where all members of the public up and down the country are represented equally (wink wink), and they get together to talk about the big hugest issues of the day, and they are not interfered with at all by government agencies or institutions (wink wink), and then after all those discussions with the homeless, taxpayers, those on trolleys and squeezed middle who can't get a day off to protest (to name a few), they decided the most pressing issue was taking the word 'woman' out of a sentence in the constitution.

Then the government couldn't say no to that so they are having a referendum soon where we don't know what will happen if we vote yes even though the government are backing it sure who needs reasons. The usual crowd are supporting it because the church are b******ds and that.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121688340#Comment_121688340

I couldn’t remember ever getting one of these referendum leaflets in the post for previous referenda, but you can download a copy of the referendum information booklet here:

https://ec-cdn-live.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/app/uploads/2024/01/24155834/100934_EC_Family-And-Care-Booklet_English_Digital_23012452-002.pdf

I think it’s just a case of people have a lot more going on and this referendum just doesn’t rate all that highly on their priorities lists.

Checking RTE and TheJournal this morning there’s nothing on the referendum, their main stories are the top earners in RTE, and double social welfare payments this week.

It’s like a country of two halves going by those headlines 😂

AlanG

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121688529#Comment_121688529

The Government tells the citizens assembly what to look at so it is the Gov who set the agenda. Even at that they are under no obligation to follow the recommendations. The government have still not implemented the 7th amendment which was passed in 1979 so they pretty much pick and choose what they want to do in regards to the constitution.

jmayo

The government of the day and political parties can use the citizen assembly for their own ends.

And in modern Ireland nearly all bar a couple of tiny parties sing from the same hymn sheet with regard to a long line of social issues.

The government appoints the chairman.

Political parties appoint 33 members so guess what way they will vote.

66 members are citizens entitled to vote in a referendum. They are meant to be representative of society and age, gender, location and social class.

People can withdraw and they are replaced by others.

The interesting thing for me is how people are selected.

Because in Feb 2018 7 replacements who had been appointed in Jan 2018 were removed when it emerged they were recruited via acquaintances of a Red C employee.

Do I trust them to be totally impartial ?

Fook no.

minimary

Has anyone seen any opinion polling on the referendum yet? I was surprised when the Red C/Sunday Business Post polls came out this weekend and there wasn't any data on how people are planning to vote.

Also haven't seen any posters up yet by either side about the referendum.

Quantum Erasure

Minister Paschal Donohoe confirms that the government can't guarantee the upcoming referendum to redefine the family won't result in polygamous relationships being legally-recognised in Ireland.

https://twitter.com/griptmedia/status/1752674498170573031

Gussoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121700405#Comment_121700405

Of course it opens the door to polygamous relationships being recognised. Anybody that doesn't see this is being naïve.

Liberal media will carry the torch.

I've got three wives - it's great because the house is always clean and we have multiple income streams (msn.com)

whatisayis

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121700405#Comment_121700405

The only sure things that can be said about the upcoming referendum are:

39th Amendment The Family: Nobody can predict what future courts will define as a durable relationship. It has to include more than two (single parent with more than one child) as acknowledged by, in the new Article 42b, using the word "among" (more than two) rather than "between" (usually limited to two) It is therefore entirely meaningless at present.

40th Amendment Care: The state is also ensuring they will have no future obligation to support carers either inside or outside the home as they are passing all care obligations from the state to society by deleting Articles 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 which includes:.....gives to the State a support......

The New proposed Article 42b says:

“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.”

The government will be more than delighted if the focus of all discussions will be on the definition of durable relationships and not on the much more important removal of the right to state support (which does not automatically mean payments it also includes tax, pension, and social welfare entitlements) for stay at home and single parents.

L.Ball

Do you think if the "wrong" result is reached in the referendum they'll just run it again?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121701372#Comment_121701372

Other way round. Far from removing an existing right of support, the proposed amendment actually moves towards introducing one.

Existing Art 41.2.2 doesn't say that the state will support women, or women's life in the home; it says the exact opposite:"by her life with the home, woman gives to the State a support . . . ". it does not go on to say that the state will provide any reciprocal support; just that it will "endeavour to ensure" that mothers are not obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their home duties.

Whereas proposed new art 42B, which you quote yourself, does say, in as many words, that the state will "strive to support" the provision of care by family members. It's an express obligation to support, even if a qualified obligation.

As to the recognition of polygamous relationships:

The Constitution will continue to define marriage as a union of two persons, so there will be no recognition of polygamous marriages. Moreover the Constitution will continue to be obliged " to guard with special care the institution of Marriage".

What will change is the recognition of the family; currently marriage is stated to be the foundation of the family, but this will be changed to refer to "the family,  whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships". 

On the one hand, this opens the way to the recognition of families founded on non-marital relationships. On the other, the bracketing of marriage and "other durable relationships" in this way does lend itself to a reading in which "other durable relationships" means relationships that are analogous to marriage, that fulfil the same function as marriage, that look like marriage. (This is a common way for courts to look for the meaning of undefined terms in legislation; what are they placed alongside, what are they included with?) And marriage, of course, continues to be confined to two-person relationships.

As regards more, um, complex arrangements, there has been a certain amount of sniggering about "throuples" and polyamory groups and so forth, and there's also a certain amount of islamophobic dog-whistling hinting at polygamous marriage among immigrants. But in fact in reality the issue will present itself much more in the context of blended families; people who have successive, rather than concurrent relationships, who have biological children with different partners and/or and who also find themselves parently stepchildren. Where children are cared for by three or more adults, in 99% of cases that will be the context.

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121703574#Comment_121703574

On polygamy/the existing Irish constitution. Article 41.4 of the constitution states:

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

What bothers me with that wording is that, from an Islamic perspective (for example), a man with 4 wives fully complies with the [constitutional part of the] wording.

Which is to say, that a Muslim in such a case would say "yes I have a marriage contract with woman #A. There are just 2 of us to that contract"

"I also have an entirely separate marriage contract with woman #B. There are just 2 of us to that contract as well".

Etc.

The "polygamy is banned" interpretation of this provision always seems to be a somewhat "I want it to mean this" interpretation to me.

Peregrinus

But on that analysis you don't have one marriage; you have two marriages.

And, by the same token, a Muslim man whose two "marriages" are not legally recognised wouldn't have one durable relationship, but two durable relationships.

Which would mean, if he has children with both partners, he has two families, each founded on a (different) durable relationship.

I think you're right to this extent; you could at least argue, right now, that the State could legislate to permit polygamous marriages. However politically unlikely it might seem that that would ever happen, it's at least arguable that it isn't forbidden by the Constitution. But I don't think you could plausibly argue that the Constitution requires the recognition of polygamous marriages.

And I think the same goes for the new wording on durable relationships.

If a man has two "wives", and has children by each, each of those children is a member of a family within which care is provided, and this invokes the constitutional obligation on the state to "strive to support" that. This is true whether you argue that the children are members of two different families or of one, and hence the question of whether the entire polygamous arrangement is a single "durable relationship" is unlikely ever to arise, or to be ruled upon if someone raises it; it doesn't make any difference to the operation of the provision. But I can't see any argument for saying that the Constitution compels the entire arrangement to be accepted as a single relationship — not least when, by your own account, that's not how the people in the arrangement see it themselves.

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121703696#Comment_121703696

Correct, I am not saying the constitution expressly obliges the state to permit polygamy.

(Although I guess one could interpret the provisions purposefully in that way - in that if you argue that the "constitution permits/encourages marriages - it is not relevant if the marriage is a 3rd (simultaneous) marriage - and the state is not allowed get in the way)

I am saying that the wording does not do what it seems was one of the intentions - to put a polygamy ban on a constitutional footing. To me, to do that, article 41.4 should say effectively "a marriage shall be between 2 people *and you may not be in more than 1 marriage simultaneously*"

I am not expressing a particular view on the proposed upcoming changes.

Mr. teddywinkles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121702709#Comment_121702709

Well why hold a referendum at all. A fooking jokebox of a place if this happens.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121703725#Comment_121703725

I don't recall that one of the objectives of the marriage equality amendment was to put a constitutional ban on the legal recognition of polygamous marriage.

That would have been an odd objective to adopt, given that there was at the time (and still is) no political, social or legal pressure to legislate to accommodate polygamy. And, if we learned nothing else from the whole sorry saga of constitutional amendments about abortion, it's that amending the constitution to ban something that's already illegal can have unintended and completely unwanted effects. So I like to think we won't be making that mistake again in a hurry.

If the question of polygamy was considered at all, it was a much more limited concern; to avoid putting language into the Constitution that might accidentally result in an argument that the Constitution requires the recognition of polygamous marriage. And I think that was acheived; the wording does preclude any argument that the Constitution requires recognition of a marriage with three or more spouses. While it doesn't, as you point out, rule out the recognition parallel marriages, it also contains nothing that could be argued to require that recognition.

I'd take the same view here. There is nothing in the proposed wording that could be said to require the recognition of durable relationships with three or more partners as the foundation of a family. And the wider context is also similar; there is no political, social or legal pressure for the legal recognition of such relationships, and there isn't in fact an established phenomenon of families founded on polyamorous relationships seeking legal recognition and support. So, once again, it would be a mistake to try to insert provisions about this into the Constitution.

Marriage, and marriage-like relationships, are first and foremost a social institution; they arise out of what people actually do. If, to take a real-world example, relationships do end and partners do separate and move on to new relationships, then a law which precludes divorce and remarriage is out of step with reality, and become dysfunctional and eventually irrelevant, so you have to look again at the law.

But this cuts both ways. There's no point in having marriage laws that ignore the reality of relationships, but there's equally no point in having marriage laws about relationships that, in reality, don't exist. A constitutional amendment to ban polygamous marriage in a society where virtually nobody attempts to entersinto a polygamous marriage is at best pointless, at worst harmful. All the societies in the world that do have laws recognising or regulating polygamous marriage base those laws on the reality of polygamous marriage as actually practised in those societies.

If, at some point in the future, there are real-life polygamous marriages in Ireland with associated families, or real-life polyamorous family units, then is the time to think about how we address that. But, even then, we probably don't have to address it in the Constitution.

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121703740#Comment_121703740

Polygamous marriages do "exist" in Ireland though - as the facts behind the 2017 Supreme court decision H.A.H v S.A.A show (in that case, glancing through reports, the court seems to be rejecting polygamy on "general principles")

If I've time, I'll look back into what was contemporaneously said about the 41.4 amendment & polygamy -it's possible I've garbled it, but I doubt i entirely invented the point.