Why are we having a referendum on Women in the Home?

Various governments have been trying to hold a referendum relating to this Article for the past 30 years. There was never any basis to the assertion that the Constitution says a women's place is in the home but it's a good soundbite.

The Irish word "teaghlach" means family or household (as in the wider family members living together). Under the Constitution women always had the choice to either look after the family/household full time or go out to work. Article 45 clearly states:

that the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.

At the time of writing of the Constitution the norm was for the men to go out to work while the vast majority of women stayed at home caring for the family and Article 41.2 is the state acknowledging the caring role provided by women who chose to stay at home. It was never a Constitutional requirement that women had to stay at home.

Ironically Minister O'Gorman's party are running with the slogan "A women's place is wherever she wants to be" in support of the referendum. What they obviously don't realise is that is exactly what the Constitution already says.

Removing Article 41.2 means the only place women will have the Constitutional right to be is at work.

I will also be voting no. I don't understand why they want to remove the words they do, the words look pretty good to me.

Can I add as a woman who has chosen (after discussion and agreement between myself and my husband) to stay at home to raise our children that I will be voting no. Just as a note the only state support we claim is children's benefit and do not expect any additional financial support because we made that choice.

I would happily vote yes if they just wanted to change the word woman to parent but I do think that the right of a parent to choose to stay at home to raise their children should be protected.

My fear is by removing it completely they will open the door to further changes down the line which may be detrimental to those parents to want to choose to stay at home.

The repeal the 8th you mean that was all about a woman's right to choose?(which I voted yes for by the way)

The main reason I'm against this is because they are not looking to reword it (as was recommended) but to remove sections completely and maybe it's my suspicious nature but I can't understand the reasoning behind that.

And while the government hasn't given a valid reason for not just re wording it to include all parents/families I'm just not happy to vote yes.

A long time ago it was paid to fathers. This was changed due to feminist campaigning because you had many situations where women and children got nothing and the men controlled all the money and spent it themselves

That's silly.

Men used to get child benefit. Now they don't. The referendum has no affect on it at all.

I heard McDowell and whilst wouldn't be his No1 fan, he laid out very simply why these referendums are unsatisfactory. Neasa sometime of the Greens, was flailing about trying to establish they were all about women's and gender rights etc. But just stating that with no real argument to substantiate her point. Like here.

Exactly. In our house herself gets the child benefit, but we could easily change it going into my account

"Yes there is a basis. You yourself have pointed out that "woman" is only mentioned three times in the Constitution and it is about their duties in the home every time"

No what I pointed out is that the word women is only mentioned three times in the Constitution twice in relation to their right to work and once to their right to care for their family. The only other female reference is the mention of "mother" also in Article 41.

Article 45 gives them a) the equal right to men to fair paid work and b) the equal right to safe work.

45.2.1 that the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs

45.4.1 the state shall endeavour to ensure that the strength and health of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children shall not be abused and that citizens shall not be forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their sex, age or strength.

Article 41 gives them the right to care for their families at home.

Removing Article 41 therefore only gives women the Constitutional right choose to work and removes the Constitutional right to choose to stay at home to care for their families.

Why do you think women losing their constructional right to stay at home and mind their children is absurd?

Are you forgetting the Homemakers Scheme that credits contributions for stay at home parents, for up to 20 years (half a working lifetime) towards a State pension? That is a significant benefit.

Are you also forgetting Working Family Payment, and secondary benefits like qualifying for GP/Medical card, possibly HAP, Back to School etc when a household only has one income?

You may not claim any additional benefits, but its not true to say that additional financial support is not made for families with one parent at home.

The Thirty-Ninth Amendment of the Constitution (The Family) Bill 2023 proposes to amend Article 41.1.1 to insert the words “whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships”.

It also proposes the deletion of the words “on which the Family is founded” from Article 41.3.1.

Inserts words.

The Fortieth Amendment of the Constitution (Care) Bill 2023 proposes to delete Article 41.2 from the Constitution and insert an Article 42B with the following wording:

‘The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.’

Deletes then inserts.

I don't see the issue here.

And the second clause specifically covers all members of a family as opposed to just women. So, what is your issue there when you say you want it to include all parents/families?

Is it that you don't want the constition to recognise a family can be something between people that are not married?

What's even worse about the proposal is that they've taken away the option for the Oireachtas to define it . "durable relationship as defined by law" would have been a fine wording but instead O'Gorman has chosen to allow our Supreme Court to decide.

And that's it, once the SC has had their say it cannot be revisited without another referendum.

This is a referendum that no one wants beyond a handful of people who could more accurately put activist as their occupation on the census.

Hopefully a few more respected legal minds come out against it like McDowell and this gets consigned to the bin.