Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

The amendment if passed may/ will have the effect of encouraging more couples who are starting families down the road of 'durable relationships' whatever that means. Whereas civil marriage and the protections emanating from it, offer a clear and well established path that help protect the interests of the couple and any resulting children.

We have no idea what could constitute 'durable relationships'. They could be cohabiting couples living a family life that parallels normal married couples. They could equally be all manner of 'blended families' with men having children with multiple women or durable relationships involving multiple partners and so on. These latter arrangements are not all roses for the people involved, usually the women and mothers get the worst rub.

Is that what you propose to equate? And how do you define 'durable relationship'. Don't give the lazy answer that the politicians or courts will decide, that's giving carte blanche.

My own instinct is that the Irish public will look at this and the possible implications and will say no........

My own instinct is that the Irish public will look at this and the possible implications and will say no........

Do you reckon they’re the same voters among the Irish public who see themselves as a family, while the Constitution doesn’t? There are plenty of families who will be voting in favour of the amendment, whereas the numbers of those people who see the amendment as being a threat to the validity of their relationship, is unlikely to be in double figures.

I don't see it as any threat to the validity of our civil marriage. I'd be more concerned about the effects on our society as a whole, as outlined above.

As to percentages, time and the ensuing debate will tell.

Well we may also note civil society groups that will favour retention of existing article. I fully expect a range of concerns will be laid out in due course. And it'll be up to those who wish to see change to persuade those who have doubts. Isn't that how it always is?

The amendment if passed may/ will have the effect of encouraging more couples who are starting families down the road of 'durable relationships' whatever that means. 

The amendment will encourage people not to get married? Do you really believe that anyone conducts their private lives based on the constitution?

People are in durable relationships, this won't affect anything in their lives until they need the constitutional protections given to the family, and if they ever do, they will be there after this referendum.

The poster is angling for a "if you don't know, vote no" scenario, which doesn't really apply here.

The current wording of the constitution could be used by future governments to deny those rights, it's highly unlikely (and unpopular and the EU would step in to stop it). I would view it as similar to the blasphemy entry which wasn't enforced but could have been.

---

I am dreading to see which lunatics and nutjobs they have to find to have balanced debate for this on the radio and tv, 24 pages here and not a single poster has been coherent about why to vote no, which means scraping the bottom of the barrel for "balance". Rónán Mullen will have their work cut out not to appear completely deranged and will spend 90% of the time subverting what it's about.

The above quoted judgement did not define a durable "relationship" it only defined a durable "partnership" which they defined as follows: "The Court held that the definition of “partner” in the 2015 Regulations denotes a person with whom the Union citizen has a connection which is personal in nature, and which is akin to, or broadly akin to, marriage."

The proposed change to the wording in Constitution is: The State recognizes the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society......

As far as I can figure it out, under this proposed wording, a single parent family will still be not considered a family under the Constitution?

If the amendment were to pass, of course it will give a state imprimatur to undefined 'durable relationships' being on a par with marriage. Night follows day.

Sounds like you go out of your way to find issues/problems in order to fit into your personal negative stereotypes of women.

Yes they are in a parent/child relationship.

While it’s a complex issue that easily gets politicized, some people would point to most African-American children being born into two-parent married families up to the 1960s, and then the rapid shift to unmarried single mother families since then. And the poverty etc that follows from that. Now only 30% of African-American children are born into 2 parent families.

I DONT believe the “durable” wording in the referendum will bring some societal disaster, but I do think there is a purpose to marriage/civil partnership as a means of encouraging stable relationships for children, and for society in general.

On the flip side of that the current wording means children in being raised within non marital families often don't have legal rights to Constitutional protection of their families