Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

If I recall correctly, The Family Home Protection Act, 1976 is based on a married family. (Unless it has been amended recently).

In other words, a house lived in by a married couple, is a family "home" and has the protection of the Act, in the event of a marriage breakdown.

If lived in by an unmarried couple,even those with children, it is not a family home and not covered by the same legislation.

Nah, doesn’t come close to it, because the property can’t be regarded as a family home.

In the last couple of pages though there’s been a lot of focus on the idea of one-income married couples vs two-income unmarried couples, but at it’s inception, the Irish Constitution was very much influenced by Catholic social teaching in which a couple got married for the purposes of procreation - the woman would rear the children and be confined to the domestic life, and the man would provide for his family.

The EU wanted to become an economic superpower with a mobile workforce, and gender equality was part of that - the idea being that whether or not they were married, whether or not they had children, member states were expected to have achieved 60% participation rate of women in the labour market by 2010. Various initiatives in taxation and welfare were introduced in order to achieve this aim, it was never about discriminating against married couples or unmarried couples, it was focused on achieving gender equality in employment.

Obviously, real life doesn’t work like that, and like you pointed out earlier - Ireland historically failed to invest in the provision of childcare, which meant that the poorest in Irish society, most often one parent families (which in Irish law weren’t regarded as a family), were forced into what’s called ‘in-work poverty’ - sure, they were women in employment, but it was often low-paid, and wasn’t made up for in welfare payments, and between those factors it meant the outcomes for those families is generational poverty, lack of access to education, healthcare, security and social mobility -

https://archive.ph/xLnro

https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2020-06/european-semester_thematic-factsheet_labour-force-participation-women_en_0.pdf

It depends. Sometimes cohabitants can have a legal claim on the home.

During the same discussion Minister O'Gorman appeared to be taking the view that the courts will decide what it means despite TD Catherine Connolly, a barrister, saying "the word "durable" will lead to serious difficulties in interpretation".

Roderic’s not exactly wet behind the ears when it comes to law either -

He completed an undergraduate law degree at Trinity College Dublin, followed by a Master of Laws in European Union (EU) law in the London School of Economics. In 2011 he completed his PhD, with a dissertation entitled 'Union citizenship, social rights and the Marshallian approach', at Trinity College Dublin.

O'Gorman started an academic career at Griffith College, where he lectured and was a course director for five years. He next worked as a law lecturer in the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University. He served as the programme chair of the Bachelor of Arts in Economics, Politics and Law.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderic_O%27Gorman

Catherine Connolly was definitely quoting selectively in order to suggest that there would be any difficulty in the Courts interpreting the meaning of the term ‘durable relationship’ within the context in which it is intended for the purposes of recognising a familial relationship other than that which is founded upon marriage. Ms Justice Baker didn’t have any difficulty in doing so -

Ms Justice Baker said the Regulations permit a plain reading and do not lack clarity or sufficient precision.

https://archive.ph/3k5HL

It’s why in his response, Roderic makes it clear that it will be at the discretion of the Courts to determine whether or not a durable relationship exists between the parties involved, and the extent of that relationship based upon the evidence presented in each case. The Courts do that anyway, such as in this instance -

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/child-born-through-surrogacy-denied-citizenship-via-non-biological-irish-father-1473179.html

That’s a no from me.

Presumably this expanded definition would also include polygamous marriages?

I wouldn't worry about that - we don't usually pay for other people's pets' retirement or health plans.

The problem arises as to how a single parent family will become a Constitutional family by the inclusion of "durable relationship" alongside marriage as the basis of the family. The definitions provided so far are for a "durable partnership" i.e two people in a committed relationship per your quote:

"You must be in a position to provide evidence of a durable relationship with your partner and evidence of cohabitation of at least two years on the date of application."

What problem? A relationship between parents and their children is considerably more durable than one founded on marriage. I mean, yes, a child could pursue emancipation when they’re 18, and that would be akin to divorce (which prior to the 15th amendment was prohibited for being legislated for by the Constitution - marriage was for life!).

You’re making out like it wasn’t confirmed by Roderic that the proposed amendment does include Constitutional recognition of one parent families -

The amendment proposed here will have the effect of granting the protections currently available to marital families to a wider cohort of family arrangements such as single parents and their children and unmarried cohabiting couples.

His aspiration is that the proposed change of wording will include one parent families. Nowhere can it be found that a "durable relationship" in either EU or Irish law describes a parent/child relationship. He quite clearly says that the word "durable" in Irish law may differ in definition from EU law which sounds potentially quite problematic:

"The definition of "durable" that we are seeking to put into the Irish Constitution is not influenced by the EU law definition of "durable....There is that term "durable" in European law but Irish constitutional law can have a different meaning."

"As it stands at the moment the government could hand out a blank piece of paper to the voting public and ask them to write yes or no on it."

Yep, that's about it - asking the public to buy a pig in a poke. The public are not easily fooled though and will smell the rat.

What an odd way to choose how to vote, have you no mind of yer own? But then as we see from other threads, there are those happy to join the baying mob, shout down any dissenting voices and then wonder why no-one will debate them ;)

Ivana Bacik said during the Dail debate that O'Gorman is trying to introduce a new concept into the Irish Constitution - that of "Durable Relationship". He has already said that his proposed definition of "durable" will differ from the EU law definition of "durable".

Ivana Bacik, Holly Cairns, Catherine Connolly and every other female TD who spoke during the Dail debate took issue with the term "durable relationship". Roderick is a man though, he knows best and they are only silly women who just don't understand!!!!

Ivana has said that the Labour Party are reserving their right as to what position they will take regarding the proposed changes so hopefully some clarity will appear when they publish their decision. I'll wait for that before I comment more on what an Irish Durable Relationship (as opposed to an EU Durable Relationship) potentially means.

As I said from my first post here what I want to see clearly is how the proposed changes will finally allow a single parent family, headed by either a man or woman, the Constitutional protection and rights currently held by a married family.

As I said from my first post here what I want to see clearly is how the proposed changes will finally allow a single parent family, headed by either a man or woman, the Constitutional protection and rights currently held by a married family.

You won’t see them, because that’s not what’s being proposed. The proposed wording doesn’t equate families without distinction as to their marital status, which is why Ivana and many other politicians and civil society groups have their reservations about the proposed wording - precisely because it’s a significant departure from the recommendations and wording which was suggested by the Citizens Assembly and the Joint Oireachtas Committee:

The State pledges to guard with special care the family, including but not limited to the marital family

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/33/joint_committee_on_gender_equality/reports/2022/2022-07-13_interim-report-on-constitutional-change_en.pdf

That would have equated families regardless of their marital status, but, and this is obviously deliberate - instead Government (and not just Roderic, let’s not be silly) have decided that mere recognition of non-marital relationships is all that’s required to recognise those family units not bonded by marriage. Marriage maintains its special status in the Constitution.

That’s why I have my reservations about the proposed wording too, because I don’t see it as being anything other than symbolic, and not symbolic in a good way, but rather a reminder that all families are not of equal status in Irish law, the Family is still primarily based on marriage, and the outcome of the referendum either way changes nothing, because it doesn’t introduce anything meaningful and there’s no proposed legislation which would mean anything is any different. It’s a bit like being expected to be thankful for a shìtty Christmas present 😂