Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

I have not really paid much attention to this proposed referendum so I'll have to do a bit more research. So my understanding so far is that a minimum of any two persons can call themselves a family once they have a (as yet undefined) durable relationship?

Zappone did explain it very well during the same sex marriage referendum but I can't really remember what protections are denied a non marital family. I will have to do a bit more research!

Article 41 .1 of the constitution states " The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law. "

Article 41.3 then states " The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack."

Whatever way you look at it marriage is devalued by this proposed referendum - its hardly being guarded with special care by giving the exact same rights to those that are married as those that are not married (cohabitating) - the obvious promotion by the state of marriage as being the foundation of family no longer applies. The state should promote what is best for society, for children women and men. That is Marriage because of the stability it provides to women and children and that should be promoted for the good of all.

Fine Gael TD Neale Richmond openly admitted on Virgin Media last week that the government's desired change for the definition of family in the constitution to 'any durable relationship' is in part aimed at expanding the eligibility scope for family reunification applications for immigrants...."This has serious consequences, particularly when we think of immigration law and proving that someone is a family member...or family reunification. This will allow that to be accommodated as well."

The cabinet has warned changing the definition of family to any "durable relationship" in the constitution could affect the family reunification program Since 2015, all asylum seekers granted refugee status or subsidiary protection can apply for family reunification, where a family is defined as someone's spouse, parents, and any children under 18. Before 2015, the definition of family for the purposes of family reunification also included grandparents, children over 18, siblings, nephews, and nieces. 

Minister David Stanton told the Dáil that this definition of family resulted in refugees bringing an average number of 20 family members to Ireland. The highest case was over 70. Local authorities were struggling to house them all, so the govt decided to reduce the scope. However, the NGO sector want to revert to the old definition of family again, so the referendum to expand the definition of family in the constitution could give them more options to do this.

It means that legislation that discriminates between married families and non married families, will be unconstitutional.

So it will depend on the legislation covering those issues. I don't know anything about tax affairs of married people 😊

Thanks, but what legislation currently discriminates between married and unmarried families?

I am not saying there arent any, I just dont know what they are. (other than income tax credits)

Indeed. That was the only other one I could think of!

It's upto the government to legislate to define durable relationships

Not really no. Marriage wasn't devalued by allowing for divorce or equal marriage.

No it couldn't. That would be unconstitutional.

Lol.

Do you actually believe that gay/lesbian/single parent/widow/widower/non-parent carer relationships only make up 5% of family units in Ireland?

It makes no sense whatsoever

I thought that definition had been thrown in the bin, I questioned why even have a referendum when it seemed like anyone could claim to be a woman.