Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Another odd aspect of the proposal is that "durable relationships" are not just undefined; they are not even to be 'regulated by law'. So, the government is basically saying - if this passes, we are washing our hands of it, and it will be the courts who get to define what a durable relationship is.

I was trying to think of examples of durable relationships, and we have the example of families where parents are out of the picture and grandparents are looking after their grandchildren. Again, I'm still looking for examples of specific rights that those families lack, and more important how the constitution prevents them from being given them.

But, what other 'durable relationships' are there? What about family friends? Sometimes people regard close friends as part of the family in an informal sense. They probably don't want that to be the case in a legal/constitutional sense though.

Not at all. Women support women to have choice.

Partially societal and partly nature IMO. But you are telling me lies if you say that a professional working mother is only wracked with guilt because of societal pressure. It is nature as well, surely as it causes an emotive response that is causes by physiological natural causes.

I can even give an example a while ago that I saw on twitter/X - RTE presenter of 'The Sunday Game' Jacqui Hurley (who presents TSG and sports shows - mostly GAA - great presenter she is too)

But she was consumed with guilt missing her young daughters big day (it was either an Irish dancing or gymnastics type thing) Anyway, Hurley then posted a photo of the daughter all kitted out, and how proud she was but was devastated that she missed it due to work.In other words TSG. In tears I believe Jacqui said she was. And she was inundated with replies from women saying that her daughter knows how proud she is of her, and knows she would be there if she could.

Would a man worry and crave such responses and have such a powerful instinct and reaction to missing their Child's recital ? Honestly?? How many would?

It is the main reason why women pick professions such as primary school teaching, as it gives them more time off to spend with/mind their children (where possible) rather than other more time consuming professions.

In fact in tests in female mice it was shown how powerful  oxytocin is and what a powerful matenal hormone hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus (PVN) is https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03814-7

In the study above the senior female mice tutored the virgin female mice in motherhood a learned behaviour which is triggered by oxytocin. I would argue that strong maternal instinct was demonstrated by Jacqui Hurley when she missed her daughter's recital at work and it elicited an extremely strong emotional maternal response.

My answer was much more nuanced than your glib comment. Which I have elaborated on above complete with a real life Irish woman's example who works late hours in the public eye. It is always women themselves who comment on the difficulties of being a woman in full time employment, missing their young children. And they empathise with each other.

The problem as I see it - that people can change societal attitudes but a mother's grá for her young child in the formative years (in particular) will always be a strong one they want to be around their child.

The way I see it is that society has now pressured women to go to work (even if they do not need to financially), and "the stay at home mother" is now seen as something lesser, or of a bygone age. Rather than be seen as a pilar and bedrock of society itself. A very important job in itself. Judging by the tone on this thread, it is no longer something to be admired or praiseworthy. This is what the changing of Article 42 is about IMO.

But still we will end up having the working mothers feeling guilty, and then overcompensating for their absence. While the school/creche etc do the real child rearing of their child.

I feel these days women try and take on far too much, work, children etc. But then have to 'outsource' the fundamental formative years rearing of the child, and in many cases even further. With High creche prices and so on, that have now lead to their own societal issues.

It creates it's own unique pressures for a mother, that fathers do not have to suffer with the same emotional intensity (my Jacqui Hurley example - which many mothers relate to that are trying to juggle a child and work). Which can in turn can create marital pressures leading to divorce and so on. A bit of vicious circle.

Putting in explicit definitions in the constitution leaves it far wider open to be challenged or for gaps to occur. Allowing for the government to legislate is far more straight forward and wouldn't require a referendum for unexpected changes.

Not really, the government has learned the lesson of not enshrining laws into the constitution. It's not the purpose it serves.

But it's not though. You are stating that not explicitly giving the power to legislate means they wouldn't have the power to legislate. That's not true.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but it will take more than anonymous posts on boards to convince me this isn't true, but you can't use legislation to define the meaning of words/terms in the constitution unless the constitution expressly allows for it. Otherwise, the constitution would be meaningless. So, say the government passes a law that limits the new extended definition of family to grandparent/grandchild families only. Anyone else could go to the courts and make a case that they have a "durable relationship" and they should be included as well. If the courts are satisfied that the relationship is durable then they will call them a family, regardless of what the government says or does.

All good points, but how does a Referendum materially change anything?

If a woman wants to goto work, she can. If a man wants to stay home & look after the kids, he can.

A Referendum isn't going to change the law (unless I have missed something?) nor is it going to change anyones perception on the social fabric of a family and who should/should not goto work or stay home to mind the kids.

I dont see the point of the Referendum. What am I missing?

What would Enoch Burke vote?

The referendum is nothing to do with marriage.

It's the job of the legislator to make laws that are not unconstitutional.

That isn’t what gives civil marriage its value, sure there’s various legislation based on the family too, neither of which are defined in the Constitution. It’s not even a question of having a marriage cert or not - it’s whether the State recognises the relationship or not.

While it’s true that anyone is entitled to consider durable relationships whatever they want it to mean, it doesn’t follow that the Courts are likely to see it the same way - there would have to be evidence that would constitute a durable relationship.

I think grandparents have to go to the courts to get visitation rights or custody afaik.

I think you are trying to twist what I wrote or else parroting another posters allegation?

I have opined support for the view that the present constitution as in Article 41.1.1 is fine as it is. No more, no less.

I have opined support for the view that the present constitution as in Article 41.1.1 is fine as it is. No more, no less.

Now that’s not quite true? 🤨

Putting other 'durable relationships' on the same par as marriage is bad I would consider for couples, mothers, fathers and children.

—-

What's the rationale behind putting other 'durable relationships' on a par with marriage in the constitution?? Maybe it's to lessen the rights of people?