March 8th - What’s your vote? **Mod Note In Post #677**

suvigirl

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826466#Comment_121826466

Durable relationships do not just mean people in romantic relationships.

freshpopcorn

Does anybody know if there's going to be debates on TV about this next week?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121821201#Comment_121821201

Isn’t it obvious, present government. But do indulge in being disingenuous.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121834417#Comment_121834417

I have durable relationships (decades) with several people, which might qualify for purpose of the amendment? Does it require me to have regular sex with these people? Do I have to live in same dwelling? I’m trying to get my head around the definition.

gormdubhgorm

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121834417#Comment_121834417

I have asked that question few days ago no one can point me to where experts and or politicians implied it included children / familial relationships for example.

If anything it’s intent seems to imply (relationships of whatever defined long term duration) based intimate sexual relationships among adults.

Think about it, if the above was not it’s intent why place the phrase “durable relationships’ beside marriage? As marriage is an intimate relationship one showing commitment.

“The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships”

However, in an effort to be “inclusive” to unmarried couples, they shoe horned in “durable relationships” hoping the word “durable “ would show some level of permanency.

But instead it has backfired as “durable relationships” are then in “competition” with marriage. While being vague and undefined.

But there is only one winner as marriage is contractually defined in law. A “durable relationship” will never have that same defined nature “marriage” has.

So what will happen is more unintended hierarchy of rights as the courts interpret it, instead of “inclusivity” as those who drafted it hoped.

The question will forever be what equivalence does “durable relationships” have v “marriage” in case law.

One well-known and valid example of a durable relationship was that between Martin Cahill (The General) and the three Lawless sisters.

A UK definition of durable relationship:

https://freemovement.org.uk/who-qualifies-as-a-durable-partner-under-the-eu-settlement-scheme/

Definition is that they have lived together already for two years. So that could mean somebody you house-share with out of financial necessity, and it would exclude a relative of mine who is in a long term very committed and loving relationship with her partner, both of them living in their own separate houses where it is most convenient for them to put up their own children & extended familiar when home from abroad.

EmmetSpiceland

Voting YES for both

Remember when the same sex marriage referendum was on and, certain, people were saying that nothing would stop someone marrying a horse if it passed?

Those going after the “durable relationship” element are, basically, doing the same thing.

RoyalCelt

Voting NO for both

Voting no for both.

I wouldn't trust this government as far as you can throw them. They don't strike me as having the interests of Irish families at heart.

gormdubhgorm

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791721#Comment_121791721

You are referring to the "care amendment' the new A42B (and in particular the current A41.2.1

A42B:

“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.”

which replaces -

Article 41.2.1° “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.”

Article 41.2.2° “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.”

--

`This is only my opinion it is not just what the mother loses but what society loses.

Currently the state of play for automatic custody of children is as follows -

https://services.courts.ie/Family-Law/arrangements-for-children/custody/custody-rights

Automatic custody-- This means you do not have to apply to court for custody of your child. The following people have automatic rights:

A mother who is not married to the father of their child has automatic sole custody of the child.

Married spouses living together have joint custody

--

If a mother now wants custody of the child the care explicitly given by the constitution for the "common good" under A41.2.1 is no longer there, which will surely result in new legal argument and challenges against the right of mother to get automatic custody.

The new Article 42B will leave it more open to "members of the family" so that strong maternal bond a mother has with child for the common good it had, will be significantly weakened. It will no longer be as clear cut as it once was in any subsequent constitutional argument based on A42B.

Annasopra

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121841096#Comment_121841096

I think so

gormdubhgorm

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121841731#Comment_121841731

Even though I am voting the same as you no/no. I suggest you look at the arguments on both sides rather than making it a "protest vote" for the sake of it. At least try and make an informed decision on why you are no/no, no/yes, yes/no or yes/yes etc.

It would be different if it was a local election you might get away with a protest vote then, but this is a constitutional referendum which has ramifications for generations to come no matter what the final result.

gormdubhgorm

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121841726#Comment_121841726

Bit of logical fallacy there, I have made numerous comments on that element at this stage and not once mentioned a horse.

From my point of view -

1) It is not defined and definitive unlike marriage

2) It seems to be placed as a viable constitutional alternative to marriage

3) In those competing rights (when eventually defined) where will marriage be v "durable relationships" in the hierarchy of legal argument. Equivalent or lesser?

4) If durable relationships are the equivalent of marriage what is the point marriage constitutionally? It also is no longer the foundation of the family.

5) If durable relationships are lesser than that of marriage, doesn't that negate the point of removing marriage as the foundation of the family?

--

No horses were harmed in this post.

--

gormdubhgorm

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121841529#Comment_121841529

This must be what the Minister for Justice tried to use in the Pervaiz case, I remember 2 years being mentioned but it was vague, as Irish law has of yet no definition of "durable relationship".

Interesting point on the house share, the sales of new cars will rocket among the legal eagles at this rate.

RoyalCelt

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121842114#Comment_121842114

I have looked at both sides. It's **** disturbing the direction they want us to go.

Montage of Feck

Voting NO for both

It's all too vague and leaves a lot to be subsequently decided in the courts. This thing could end up costing the state a lot down the line in legal fees and possibly a bigger social welfare bill.

tarvis

Not so long ago Ireland voted to recognise same sex marriages. How great were the celebrations - It seemed we had equality sorted.

But in 2024 we are being told that “durability “ is now sufficient for relationships - marriage is no longer needed to protect spouses children, property rights, wills and to obtain state benefits. Those who decline to sign a marriage contract with a spouse and the State are to have the same rights and benefits as those who get married. Please note marriage only requires a trip to a registry office -the wedding bash stuff is optional.

Why does this sound more like a free for all confusional change rather than an extension of ‘equality’

I associate durability more with buildings or structures or floor and wall coverings rather than with human relationships.

The more I hear and read about these referenda the more ill thought out and rushed through they seem. I will not be rushed to a currently unknown ‘motherless’ destination so it must be NoNo from me.

igCorcaigh

I am voting YES (family amendment)

(EDITED) I have only now had the chance to look at this referendum choice.

My initial feeling is YES for Family ref and No on the Care ref:

• YES because it eliminates the reference to marriage
• NO because it maintains a very watered down State commitment to care, or even makes it worse.

EmmetSpiceland

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121842991#Comment_121842991

How does it make it worse? It takes the onus off women and onto the family. Then, the government will then strive instead of endeavouring. Not exactly much of a change.

It’s a weak step forward but it’s forward none the less. It feels like people pushing a no vote in the care referendum believe that by voting no they’ll force the government to make changes and try again. This will not happen, not for a number of decades anyway.

The government was landed with these, they did not seek them. They have half-heartedly pushed them.

The more of the church’s influence taken out the constitution the better. A vote for no, in either referendum, is a vote against progress.

igCorcaigh

I am voting YES (family amendment)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121843090#Comment_121843090

I'm thinking about the removal of this bit:

"shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in economic activity to the neglect of duties..."

nachouser

Any mention of women having duties is the whole point of the thing.

Furze99

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121842919#Comment_121842919

Oh the shifting sands of those with agendas to upend Irish society! The right to be married was received with rapture at the time, but now we're bored with that and time to move on.

If something ain't broke, don't fix it. And if you wanna bitch about being in a co habitating relationship and your lack of rights, then go get married. It's really a very simple thing to do, cheap and accessible to all who qualify. And if you don't qualify by virtue of being married to someone else, well then sort yourselves out.

mrslancaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121841529#Comment_121841529

I was speaking to a neighbour earlier about that very question of living together and what impact it might have.

She knows a single woman in her late 60's, never married, no children and owns her house outright, no mortgage. The woman lives with her niece who is a single mom with an eight year old daughter, the dad is not in the picture. Parents of the niece (woman's sister and BIL) are both deceased.

This woman seems to be like a grandparent to the child - she is actually a great/grand aunt. The child attends the local school, woman helps with day-to-day care, eg school pick-ups, social activities etc. My neighbour was wondering if their set-up would be seen as a durable relationship and if it is, would the current inheritance rules be changed as the woman intends leaving the house to her niece. Currently her niece would have to pay a considerable CAT bill as the value of the house would be in excess of the €32500 for anyone in the Group B category.

Galwayguy35

Voting NO for both

A low turnout is predicted for this.

igCorcaigh

I am voting YES (family amendment)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121843129#Comment_121843129

They could have just removed the gender specificity, but they changed the whole thing.

Annasopra

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121843146#Comment_121843146

Why so bitter?

Annasopra

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121843154#Comment_121843154

We can't say yes or no to that question as it will depend on how durable relationships are defined by legislation or the courts.

igCorcaigh

I am voting YES (family amendment)

Have I heard that some disability action groups have called for a NO to the Care ref?

Does anyone have a brief summary as to why? It's this ref that I have a little trouble with deciding on.

EmmetSpiceland

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121843567#Comment_121843567

From what I can gather it doesn’t go far enough. There’s been a lot of, understandably, emotive outbursts from parents of children with disabilities but they seem to concern funding and welfare. Neither of which, as far as I can tell, have anything to do with this.

As I’ve said previously, it’s like people think things will be re-written and put to the public again, like the Nice Treaty, but that won’t be the case. There’s sod all appetite for these referendums as it is, only the religious, and misogynist, elements of No side seem to be getting angry, and animated, about them.

Goldengirl

I am voting YES (family amendment)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121841096#Comment_121841096

Very good one on The Week in Politics today, well balanced.

Simon Harris for Yes yes.

Louise O' Reilly Yes Yes

Michael Mc Dowell No No.

Catherine O'Connell Yes No.

All made their points well and fair time given to each.

Reinforced my opinion, have to say.

Will be on again this evening (replay) and on the player