Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Caquas

The dominant question in this campaign has been “What are durable relationships”

And the Yes side have divided between “durable means durable” and “durable will be defined in legislation until the Supreme Court decides otherwise”

But hidden in plain sight among the FAQs on its referendum website, we have the answer from the Electoral Commission (can’t post link😨

What does “durable relationship” mean in the context of the proposed wording of the Family amendment?

The answer is longwinded and full of disclaimers and equivocation (sadly nothing about Christmas cards) but the nub of it is the assertion that

Article 41.4 of the Constitution defines marriage as being between “two persons”, and this provision provides part of the context against which the interpretation of Article 41.1, were it to be amended, would fall to be addressed. Accordingly, it is difficult to see how polygamous relationships would fall within the scope of any amended Article 41.1.

This is the kind of reasoning the Supreme Court might use to make sense of this nonsense. Unfortunately the FAQ does not explain how, under this logic, a lone parent family would be recognised as coming within the amended Constitutional definition.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121836201#Comment_121836201

That's interesting. Only the other day you were able to definitely tell me a lone parent would not be considered a durable relationship. I still haven't figured out on what basis you made your claims but you were very definite in your claims. And yet now you are admitting no basis for that claim.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121835954#Comment_121835954

I thought far more would rally to the Senior Council, Senator and former AG whose criticisms of the amendments have proved unanswerable.

Unanswerable? Far more likely people just aren’t interested in giving his nonsense any legitimacy by entertaining it, that would only be encouraging him. Obvious troll is obvious, y’know?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121836201#Comment_121836201

The dominant question in this campaign has been “What are durable relationships” 

That may well be the dominant question for some people, but for the many people who already consider their relationship so durable as to constitute a family, there’s no question as far as they’re concerned that they are a family. And now they’ve become aware that the Constitution does not recognise this fact.

Unfortunately the FAQ does not explain how, under this logic, a lone parent family would be recognised as coming within the amended Constitutional definition.

Well it wouldn’t, because that logic applies to relationships between couples defined by whether or not they are married, as currently it’s only on the basis of marriage that a family is recognised in the Constitution. The relationship between a lone parent and their child or children does not necessarily constitute a family, unless the parent had previously been married and their child or children is a product of that relationship.

The relationship between a lone parent who has never been married to the child’s other parent, and their child or children, does not constitute a family as recognised by the Constitution, and the amendment proposes to rectify this, given that in 2022 alone:

More than two-fifths of babies (43%) or 24,754, were born outside of marriage/civil partnerships, and of these, 26% were to co-habiting parents.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-vsys/vitalstatisticsyearlysummary2022/

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121836484#Comment_121836484

There you go again. I never said any such thing.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121836595#Comment_121836595

The leading voice for No is a Senior Counsel, a former AG, former Tánaiste and former Minister for Justice. But to you he is a troll who should be ignored.

Marvellous to see the Yes, Yes side reduced to this level of ad hominem debate.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121836671#Comment_121836671

I'll take your advice and ignore an obvious troll.

Tigerbaby

Thankfully we have dispassionate advice from FLAC and our former AG..

given the day and the weather thats happening...

its going to be a sNOw sNOw from me next week too.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121835954#Comment_121835954

Lawyer's Group" certainly is an interesting headline for that article, it makes it sound like this is a group of concerned lawyers concerned about the legal ramifications.

Imagine my surprise when I opened the article to see a big picture of Maria Steen front and centre. I guess the "Iona Institute" brand is just too toxic these days.

And there's Breda Power mentioned too, I guess her involvement is not surprising given her past.

Rosahane

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121836484#Comment_121836484

I suppose you could argue it to be a durable relationship if the person was gender fluid or bisexual 🤣

whatisayis

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121835210#Comment_121835210

"I dont know what wording they proposed so cant comment"

Funnily enough it was all over the internet a few weeks ago but seems to now only be available on the Journal website in this article:

Referendums: Flac suggests changing 'durable relationships' wording, warns about misinformation

On the face of it, it would appear to provide that single-parent families will enjoy constitutional protection (on the basis that those families are founded on the relationship between a parent and their child or children).“Out of an abundance of caution, it may be worth considering amending the proposed new wording as follows:

Adding the following after “durable relationships”: “such as that which exists between parents and children”.

https://www.thejournal.ie/what-is-the-wording-of-the-march-referendums-6273228-Jan2024/

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121835954#Comment_121835954

Yeah, it is telling that the legal fraternity seem very split and leaning towards a “no”

I think another poster is correct there definitely is an ideological war going on.

In the family referendum:

They could have went the route of putting Fathers AND Mothers in the home in some form of wording. They did not.

They could have also mentioned the child when referring to the family. They did not.

In the care referendum:

They could have put in a clear societal duty for all not just those in the home. They did not.

—

The more I reflect on it the rush to lower the symbolic high status the mother in the home had, to make employed busy women (who rely on private childcare) feel less guilty within/about themselves. You see this in conversation with women amongst themselves. missing children's events due to work priorities etc

It has ensured that the care referendum was rushed through making a meaningless statement. Yet care is recognised as only in the home.

So instead we will have no acknowledgment of the status of the mother in the home. Instead, it is somehow implied/watered down , while giving no clear rights to those who are dependents children/disabled/elderly. And also no acknowledgement of any societal care from outside the home in a larger societal sense.

As far as I see it was get the “mother “ part out, dilute marriage make it a choice not a desirable foundation for the family unit. And devalue the institution.

But it has still managed to make a mess of what by what it attempted to replace it with. Cart before the horse, no clearly defined “durable relationship” and a missed opportunity on larger societal care. In the care referendum.

—

Then the cherry on top it is on international woman’s day. In one previous referendum there was a following image (taken from WWII) which was used widely.

If they could, I get the impression many of those pushing for a "yes" vote would have this image on the front of the referendum paper.

But on this occasion I get the impression there is a divide among the women of Ireland, nevermind the rest of the population.

In the haste to negate the value of the "mother in the home", instead what a "family" is suddenly a very watery weak definition. Marriage as a foundation has been taken away (care referendum), but it at least it was clearly defined.

Yet, it seems implicit that women are the sole carers in the home (care referendum) , and taken in conjunction much weaker defined family unit "durable relationship" it seems like a right mess. And who are the people that are not defined at all (or even implied) under this referendum? Those within the care of the family.

It is ironic given the fact that women in employment (particularly the professional classes) who lean so heavily on private paid childcare are still going to recognised to be the implicit main providers of care

Article 42B:

The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another

But in that there is no recognition of work for carers outside the home which modern society relies heavily on.

A simple phrase "home and family life as supported by society" could have been included this instead.

whatisayis

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121835210#Comment_121835210

They never had to define family before because it was defined by the phrase "founded on marraige". That phrase made it very clear what could and couldn't be considered a family. Remove that phrase and leave it as you suggested creates even bigger uncertainty than inserting the term "durable relationship".

What I suggested was that there was an option just to remove the wording - that the family is based on marriage - which could allow legislation to be introduced that would be, as all legislation has to be, compatible with the Constitution. The introduction of the term "Durable Relationship" will require Supreme Court decisions as to the extent or limitation of the term in regard to the definition of family.

There is only a week left before the referendum and nobody on the government side or from any of the NGOs supporting a Yes vote have been able to explain how a one parent family constitutes a durable relationship and/or more importantly what legal effect the amendment will have on one parent families.

Why anybody would vote in favour of this amendment while knowing that the terminology is undefined and has unknown legal consequences is just incomprehensible.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121836858#Comment_121836858

It must be pure coincidence that the IT has Maria Steen front and centre in their report.

No point in wasting space on, say, an Independent TD and barrister like Michael McNamara who might confuse the reflexive Yes,Yes voters.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121836820#Comment_121836820

The fact that he is a Senior Counsel, former AG, former Tánaiste and former Minister for Justice has no bearing on the fact that he is also trolling. He could be the Pope, and still his behaviour would suggest that he is nothing more than a bad actor.

Marvellous to see the Yes, Yes side reduced to this level of ad hominem debate.

You clearly haven’t been paying attention, not the least bit surprising given your attempt to elevate anyone who agrees with your opinion, regardless of their background, and attempt to delegitimise anyone who doesn’t share your opinion. You’re in a poor position to be lecturing anyone on the standard of debate, but that fact notwithstanding, and given your previous observation about the idea of an ideological battle being fought - you’re as covered in mud as the people you’re attempting to set yourself apart from. Me, yesterday, in response to one of your posts:

Unfortunately, anyone’s reluctance to vote in favour of the proposed amendments makes things difficult for them because it allows for them to be considered in the same vein as Ronan Mullen and his Puppet Master McDowell (‘twas honestly galling to watch the pair of them sneering at him while Roderic had to entertain their nonsense about throuples and all the rest of their BS). That’s why I haven’t bothered to contribute to the discussion in a while, because if there’s one thing I detest more than a Government clearly demonstrating that they haven’t the first clue, it’s identity politics, and both those in favour of the amendments, and those opposed, using identity politics to their particular advantage, while ignoring the substantive legal, political and social implications involved in the circumstances which give meaning to any proposal.

I didn’t give you any advice. I gave you a reason as to why nobody was bothered entertaining what you perceived to be McDowell’s unanswerable comments. They’re not unanswerable for the idea that there’s any truth to them whatsoever, it’s simply a fact that people can’t be arsed to entertain him.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121837090#Comment_121837090

The likes of Steen being involved in this, and being put front and centre, makes it fairly clear to all (well, nearly all I guess) exactly what sort of group this is.

The involvement of the likes of McNamara doesn't tell us anything other than it gives us a good indication of the sort of individual Michael McNamara is happy to align himself with.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121835954#Comment_121835954

The IT might have put in a link to the actual Lawyers For No document...

https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/lawyers-for-no-document-family-and-care-referendume.html

edit:typo

gormdubhgorm

This is a real missed chance of putting something good in the constitution IMO.

But the thought of how pointless some of it is, and how much problems other aspects could create in future, is worrying. It is more damaging than anything else.

Does anyone know how much planning was put into this?

It could be a real wasted opportunity if it is a Yes/Yes in my opinion.

Surely they could have done better than the options given?

The new wordings could be stuck there for the next 50 years as governments would look silly going back to the people too soon.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121837206#Comment_121837206

Agreed.

These amendments follow decades of debate including a full-scale Citizens Assembly. However, the amendments were the product of a mysterious process which ditched the Citizens Assembly proposals. The Government rammed the amendments through the Oireachtas, guillotining its debate and fixing the date of the referendums as quickly as possible. The FoI request for the reports of the secret preparatory meetings with various NGOs will not be answered until after polling day. The Government has the audacity to claim that it would be unconstitutional to release these documents during the campaign!

The €20Million cost that is often mentioned is only the direct cost of the running information campaign, the polling stations, and counting the votes. The opportunity costs of all the preparations is unknown but vastly larger.

This process has been so scandalous it deserves a No, No just to tell the politicians what we think of their shenanigans 😡

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121837179#Comment_121837179

The last thing the IT wants is for people to actually study this document which makes the Electoral Commission text look like the Ladybird Guide.

All the IT readers need to see is Maria Steen.

https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/assets/components/layout/img/archive/bills-and-papers/Referendum%20-%20final%20with%20images%20.pdf

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121837206#Comment_121837206

There was a HUGE amount of work put in by the Citizens Assembly AND the Oireachtas Committee.

The oireachtas committee had great recommendations on wording which were dropped in favour of this terrible wording.

The Oireachtas Committes report is here

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/33/joint_committee_on_gender_equality/reports/2022/2022-12-15_final-report-on-unfinished-democracy-achieving-gender-equality_en.pdf

Shelga

I think I’m going to vote No/No- I was leaning towards a Yes on the family amendment, but there are just too many legal unknowns.

I have found this to be one of the most confusing things I have been asked to vote on in my lifetime, tbh- and I can’t wait for it to be in the past.

One reason I’m voting No/No is I think if both are rejected, it makes another referendum at some point more likely. If we vote Yes/Yes- we’ll never get a chance to change it again. The argument of “well it’s a start” is complete nonsense. Why vote Yes to amendments that are sloppily worded and will have no tangible benefit to anyone? I have yet to hear of a single practical benefit that will be delivered as a result of passing either amendment.

Furze99

It's unfortunate to see the likes of Maria Steen and Ronan Mullen being able to make hay out these referendum proposals. But this is a result of poorly thought out wordings by the government. They have handed them a solid platform on which to oppose these. And they will benefit from the inevitable No results.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121836954#Comment_121836954

As they say, out of an abundance of caution it might jave been worth adding. But I don't think it not being added automatically excludes one parent families.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121837068#Comment_121837068

All legislation does have to be compatible with the constitution, doesn't mean it is though. Also, leaving it to legislation means that the government of the day can do whatever they want. That provides no Constitutional protection for anyone.

No one on the No side can explain why a mother and her 5 year child who have been living together sinc birth isn't an example of a durable relationship either. Can you? I haven't seen anyone claim it will have a legal effect. However, it will provide Constitutional protection for them.

Maybe because nothing in the Constitution is defined. The terms of abortion aren't defined in legislation for example.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121837969#Comment_121837969

Yeah I was told the other day single parent families will definitely not be counted as a durable relationship and then same poster went onto explain how the Electoral Commission explained they could.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121838017#Comment_121838017

Its amazing really. We have people speculating that a man and his mistress could easily be defined as a durable relationship and the mistress would then be entitled to all his wealth but yet a mother and their child wouldn't be deemed as a durable relationship. Gotta love it.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121838090#Comment_121838090

Yep.

Total inconsistency

"It definitely will include x"

"It definitely will include x"

The arguments for no on the family referendum are a joke

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121837969#Comment_121837969

I find it amusing that you have this line in your post -

"No one on the No side can explain why a mother and her 5 year child who have been living together since birth isn't an example of a durable relationship either. Can you?"

--

I probably am three quarters of the way to a full no/no on both.

In my one of my previous questions I asked did "durable relationships" refer to familial relationships such as offspring son/daughter? I also asked was there any statements saying it "was" such a meaning?

From the research I have done so far it seems to me that "durable relationship" seems to infer intimate adult relationships of an (as yet) undefined duration

Muhammad Uzair Pervaiz v Minister for Justice and Equality [2020] IESC 27

https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/27a54a3d-420a-4c3f-a9a4-a87369f81de5/2020_IESC_27(Unapproved).pdf/pdf#view=fitH

"(148) It is not the function of this Court to make any assessment as to the durability and nature of the relationship claimed to exist between Mr Pervaiz and Ms L., but I do wish to take the opportunity to say that there has been no evidence or suspicion regarding the nature of that relationship. The appeal should fail to the extent explained not on account of any decision that this Court does or can make on the facts, but rather on the legal grounds on which the application for judicial review is advanced."

--

If you can find case law/know of cases or even general comment that a "durable relationship" does include children, please point me to it.

Because thus far I have been strongly under the impression that the phrase "durable relationship" is an alternate foundation to marriage.

Proposed to change Article 41.1.1° text in bold:

Article 41.1.1° “The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships

--

The next question of course is what weight will "durable relationships" have in law v marriage after this amendment?

Equal?

One of greater strength than the other?

Or decided on a case by case basis based on each circumstances?

--

Then of course you are into the minefield with succession rights, tax law and so on.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121838017#Comment_121838017

Are you repeating your lies about something I never said even after you dodged my challenge this morning?

My only comment about lone parent families concerned the Electoral Commission FAQ

Unfortunately the FAQ does not explain how, under this logic, a lone parent family would be recognised as coming within the amended Constitutional definition.

If you think that means the exact opposite i.e. that the Electoral Commission has explained how lone parent families would be included under the “durable relationship” provision, then I’m sorry but you shouldn’t be posting online.

Annasopra

A lawyer for Yes. Good to see Dr Mary McAleese highlight the positive benefits of the amendments. I am still voting Yes No after reading all of the debate on Twitter at #VoteYesNo but I welcome Dr McAleeses informed intervention.

https://www.nwci.ie/learn/blog-article/mary_mcaleese_keynote_address_for_yes_yes_campaign?mc_cid=d91fe19506&mc_eid=f1379bd3f5