Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

I don't have a problem with the dilution of the meaning of a marriage and giving recognition to stable family relationships, whether that be grandparent to grandchild where the parents have died or aunts/uncles in similar situations.

In recognising other stable relationships, you are inevitably diluting the importance of marriage because you are raising other relationships to the same level, that is the simple basic meaning of dilution. No point in pretending otherwise, especially when I don't have a problem with it. Recognising civil partnerships as stable families, recognising single parent families as stable families, recognising grandparent/grandchild relationships as stable families, all of that I have no problem with, but it does dilute the importance of marriage because marriage is now only one of a number of stable families, not the sole arbiter.

It is dilution.

Under the Constitution the family is based on marriage, nothing else.

If the amendments are passed, the family can be based on marriage or other things.

That is the text book definition of dilution - "a lessening of real value (as of equity) by a decrease in relative worth"

As I said, I don't have a problem with changes, but I also won't hide what it is.

Which is such obvious nonsense I cannot figure out how anyone can defend it.

OK then, it will undermine the traditional understanding of marriage which has served us well for centuries. There's nothing wrong with the concept of marriage and it should be encouraged. The way to do this is not to dilute undermine the practice.

I know you're in favour of the proposed change. Just that I can't figure out how the opponents of this seem to think it's OK for certain families to not be legally recognised as 'real families'.

Would the marriage bar (Wife resigns public service position after marriage) be "illegal" if the referendum passes?

i.e. is that something that was enabled by the constitution before, regardless of how archaic and stupid it was, which wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge post a yes referendum? (or was it always likely to fail a constitutional check)

Not at all. Most people understand that families include more then those with married parents. Including single parent families and cohabiting patents.

has to be said again, giving rights to someone doesn't take them away from those that already have them.

societies change, whether you like it or not. Most of the population are glad we don't live in the 50s anymore

Why should people be forced to marry? Some people just don't want to be married. They will stay with their partners, but houses, have kids, but just don't want to get married. Why should they be forced to?

Cohabiting parents should get married?

Yes Father

What does it matter if I'm a taxpayer??

Revenue and social welfare department look on marriage and cohabiting differently. That has nothing to do with the constitution.

Not necessarily, as the provision in the Constitution doesn't refer to married women in employment, but rather married women who are not in employment. The marriage bar wasn't enabled by the Constitution either, it existed in the form of the Civil Service Registration Act, 1924, a hang-over from British rule, and carried over into the Irish Constitution in 1937. Could it be put back into the Constitution if it was removed? Sure, by way of a referendum. Could it be legisated for today in such a way that it would be made legal - yes, but no Irish Government would want to.

In order to fully grasp the context in which it came about in Ireland, why it stayed about for as long as it did, and why it's still stinking up the place some 50 years after our ascencion to the EU when the legislation to address it was enacted with the Employment Equality Act 1977, it's best understood within a social context, as it didn't just impact upon married womens opportunities for employment within the Civil Service. Because it applied to women and not to men, it was regarded as discrimination based on sex. Fuller context is provided here and here.

It's not quite as clear cut as that either. EU law doesn't necessarily override domestic law in all circumstances, only in certain circumstances. EU law does include a provision which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex and/or gender, but it doesn't include a provision which prohibits discrimination in employment on the grounds of marital status. For all their ideas of liberal reforms on the surface, they're a conservative outfit underneath:

(PDF) The EU family: Is marital status emerging as a prohibited ground of discrimination? (researchgate.net)

Whatever about the narrow mindedness of other posters, it's far more insular to be unable to acknowledge that one of the benefits of marriage is that it provides a legal structure for recognition by the State, of the family unit, which confers certain protections and rights in law that are unavailable to unmarried persons and their children. It's why it was necessary in 2015 to expand the right to enter into marriage to couples regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender. Marriage certainly did not, and does not promote any of the more shameful behaviour of genetic fathers either now, or in Ireland's past - their behaviour is entirely on them, but I take it the behaviour you refer to is not that by which these genetic fathers ensured their children were protected in Irish law.

Marriage is a centuries old legal concept, as a legal construct it's there to balance and protect the interests of mothers, fathers and children.

It's a perfectly logical legal arrangement developed and understood over numerous generations.

If some people want to thumb their noses at marriage and pretend it's some outdated institution, let them at it. But they may also take the consequences when they then fall outside the various legal protections and arrangements that marriage affords.

Marriage does require a degree of legal commitment - maybe that's why your people don't want to be married. They don't care for the responsibilities that stem from marriage etc. Well they can feck off then.