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

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

Goldengirl

I am voting YES (family amendment)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121841144#Comment_121841144

You certainly can.. If you want to :)

Annasopra

Voting YES for both

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

Only 1 group that I can see

No disabled persons groups are supporting a Yes in the care referendum.

Independent Living Movement Ireland had been calling for Yes but withdrew that. I have not seen anything saying they are calling for a No Vote

Inclusion Ireland have said article 42B isn't in line with UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. They haven't specifically called for a No Vote.

There is an organisation formed a few weeks ago called "equality not care" calling for a No Vote.

So there is 1 disability group specifically calling for a No Vote

On the other hand if you look widely at twitter at #VoteYesNo - there are many many disabled people calling for Yes in family referendum and No in care referendum.

KevMayo88

Voting NO for both

Neal Richmond has said on the Clare Byrne show that a "durable relationship" would be means for immigrants to bring family members over. It is stunning he would admit to this, the mask is off.

Oscar_Madison

NO to both.

No clear compelling reason to change wording - ironically had it been slipped into a more important referendum it would likely have been passed - too many questions and too little and unclear answers

Annasopra

Voting YES for both

Good summary thread here about why many disabled people are calling for a No on the care referendum

https://twitter.com/AlannahEMurray/status/1764572619880222733?t=1zLu1iJw0f0h4cp7QGriYw&s=19

KevMayo88

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849027#Comment_121849027

It was actually The Tonight Show in an exchange with Clare Brock:

Neal Richmond: “And this is what I want to get to the key point of, changing what the definition of family is ... this has serious consequences particularly when we think of immigration law, and proving that somebody is a family member, family law, family reunification this will allow that to happen as well, so we’re keeping up to pace with other communities.”

Clare Brock: “So you’re talking about durable relationships?”

Neil Richmond: “Absolutely, yeah”.

Annasopra

Voting YES for both

Good thread clarifying a lot about the family referendum and highlighting the scaremongering nonsense

https://twitter.com/wendylyon/status/1764314126648492523?t=K9EiRNENvIZtgoOLJy17QA&s=19

dulpit

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849027#Comment_121849027

The fact that this is being brought up tells me the mask is off for the no side - the typical no immigrants message...

xzanti

Voting NO for both

No to both!

KevMayo88

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849147#Comment_121849147

Richmond specifically said the amendment could be used to bring yet even more immigrants into Ireland- I think we have far too many as it is, and I certainly won't be voting for anything that could be used to exasserbate the situation going forward. Ireland needs less immigration, not more.

jackofalltrades

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849147#Comment_121849147

That's nonsense and you know it.

Having concerns that this referendum could have unintended consequences for family reunification doesn't make you anti-immigrant.

Especially when we've had a previous referendum had lead to unintended consequences for immigration.

MacDanger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849071#Comment_121849071

I'm currently undecided on both and I'm looking for something that would provide some clarity; was hoping the link above would but there's really not much in it e.g. the "slide" about the suggested wording from the citizens assembly isn't actually wording that could have been put into the constitution.

I'd love some information on what specifically will happen in terms of X, Y, Z (e.g. tax, care obligations, etc.) that are not happening now but would be allowed to happen if the votes are passed.

From what I can gather so far, neither vote will really have much practical impact whatsoever

EmmetSpiceland

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849475#Comment_121849475

I have a couple of friends who have children with disabilities and they are going to vote no because they’re concerned about the level of supports and funding and how a Yes vote might impact them but that doesn’t have anything to do with the referendum.

Even that Alannah O’Neill link above doesn’t seem to involve the referendum. This isn’t about funding or supports. All that is up for changing is the scope of who carers can be.

Then others seem to think it’s like the Nice Treaty and will be improved and offered again if it’s defeated but considering the lack of government appetite to even run this one there is pretty much no chance we’ll see this again if it doesn’t go through. I would suggest that a Yes vote, with a convincing majority, would show the government that the people are very interested in improving care within the state.

Annasopra

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849475#Comment_121849475

Dr Maeve O'Rourke and Mairead Enright have written more specifics re care. You won't get anything really specific on tax implications.

https://maeveorourke.medium.com/a-right-to-care-and-the-care-referendum-on-8-march-9d6bdc7834ba

https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/womens-invisible-labour-kinkeeping-and-care-irelands-8-march-constitutional-referendum/

Dazler97

I don't know what I'm voting for ,I'll do research this week as I don't wanna vote blind etc

Glaceon

I am voting NO (family amendment)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849424#Comment_121849424

Immigration didn't come into it for me at all. I just feel that "durable relationship" is too ambiguous and could have unintended consequences.

MacDanger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849562#Comment_121849562

Thanks, that first link provides a pretty clear summary of the No position on the Care referendum IMO

MacDanger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849561#Comment_121849561

I guess that's a big question - would a No vote result in an "improved offer"? I probably agree that it wouldn't in the short/medium term anyway, once you get into the details of the actual wording of these things, it can be a lot more difficult than you'd think as the current govt have found out. If the referenda are rejected, I'm not sure there'll be a massive appetite from politicians to go after it again

Gloomtastic!

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849475#Comment_121849475

The Citizens Assembly put forward their proposals to the government but apparently the Attorney General had a problem with them so changed them to the mess we have now.

AyeGer

I’ve decided to go No for both. The durable relationship is far too vague. I’m not sure what exactly the motivation is to even have this vote in the first place. If it’s really important they'll have us vote again and they might address some of the concerns people have.

EmmetSpiceland

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849715#Comment_121849715

Neither amendment goes far enough, in my opinion, but they’re going far enough to remove the church influenced nonsense of the women in the home and the sole carer so I’m voting for that.

The poor state care, or support, is a fight for another day. A No vote won’t be getting this government to rethink anything, they’ll just be glad to be shot of something they barely care about that was landed on them by the citizens’ assembly.

KevMayo88

Voting NO for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849979#Comment_121849979

"...the church influenced nonsense of the women in the home"- try actually reading the existing passage in the constitution.

EmmetSpiceland

Voting YES for both

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121850070#Comment_121850070

I have the “independent guide” in front of me, has a very simple explanation of what is there, what is proposed and what will change.

Here, how come the MRAs aren’t fighting for a Yes vote? They, usually, get their backs up when women get something they don’t.

The Care Amendment is a prime example of women having rights, or responsibilities, that men don’t have. Time for equality.