Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

It's been on the cards for a long time in constitutional reform, its not an overnight decision to hold it.

I think the wording isn't 100% decided yet and that's why the public hasn't been given full practical explanations yet.

Not really true but anyway...

You'll probably see demand rising well above that over the coming decade...try getting a kid into one these days!!

Parents want to protect their kids from serious mental health issues and who can blame them!!

Lots of aspects of the 1937 constitution are dated. But these particular sections are fine as they are. The only people they offend are those who look to take offence perpetually.

So is it definite what it's being changed to, has the Oireachtas decided yet?

From Wikipedia

THE FAMILY

ARTICLE 41

1     1° 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, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationship.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2     1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

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.

3     1° 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.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –

i      there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,

ii      such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and

iii      any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° Provision may be made by law for the recognition under the law of the State of a dissolution of marriage granted under the civil law of another state.

4 Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

See above for wording,

I'll probably vote yes for the care amendment and no for the durable relationship one, can see unforseen consequences with that one

That's what is being proposed but the dail debated it last week and the seanad are this week, and the ICCL are still petitioning for changes.

He (and I think I'm on pretty safe ground assigning gender in this instance) is clearly not engaging in sincere debate

That FT article is very strangely written. It sets the stage by saying that men and women enjoy equality in Ireland than almost any country on earth, then claims that according to the Irish constitution, a woman’s life and duties are in the home (not what it says, but ok). It then goes on to describe Saint Brigid as being born to unmarried parents and forced to work as a servant to her father. Her parents were a pagan Irish Chieftain and one of his Christian slaves that Irish pirates had brought from Spain, and that’s how Brigid came to establish a monastery in Kildare for both men and women. She was like the original egalitarian 😁

The author then goes on to suggest that Dev’s upbringing may have shaped his views on women’s rights. Dev himself didn’t seem to think so, and would likely have been offended by the suggestion:

https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1412016/

He was socially conservative, as the majority of people in Ireland were at the time (still are to a large degree), whereas women’s rights groups were socially liberal. It could be argued that Dev was just saving his own political skin, and putting responsibility for his inaction on Government and the Irish public as the reason for limiting women’s participation in public life.

It’s not entirely surprising either that most people in Irish society were socially conservative, at a time when the author points to the existence of Mother and Baby homes, where it appears that far from getting a raw deal, women who ran the homes, the nuns, did quite well for themselves out of it, receiving payments from the State for their services.

Women got a raw deal, certainly, but only certain women - it depended on their social status, ‘fallen women’ refers to women who were rejected by polite society, so much so that even women in prison objected to being housed with them for fear they might catch something:

Thousands of women working as prostitutes roamed the streets of the towns and cities of Ireland in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. While there was a common belief that prostitution was an inevitable feature of life, especially where military garrisons existed, as long as prostitutes remained out of the public eye they were tolerated. It was most often their visibility that caused anxiety in the wider public. Prostitutes were believed to be the main source of venereal disease infection, and prostitution itself was believed to be contagious. In 1809 the women prisoners confined for debt in the Four Courts Marshalsea in Dublin, fearing moral and physical contagion, complained about having to mix with ‘women of the town (some from the very flags [streets])’.

https://www.historyireland.com/women-of-the-pave-prostitution-in-ireland/

The first Magdalene Asylum in Ireland was founded by Lady Arabella Denny, and became a model for the rest of them, later run by the Catholic nuns:

Her work with the Foundling Hospital brought her in contact with despairing young women forced to give up their children, homes, and families. In June 1767 she founded Magdalen Asylum for Protestant Girls in Leeson Street, which was a home for fallen women or penitent prostitutes, who would work in exchange for accommodation, clothing, food and religious instruction. The women would spend between 18 months and 2 years in the asylum and were only allowed to leave if they had a position to go to or they were permitted to return home. It was the first institution of its kind in Ireland, and became a model for institutions throughout the country. The stated purpose was of delivering them "[...] from Shame, from Reproach, from Disease, from Want, from the base Society that ha[d] either drawn [them] into vice, or prevailed upon [them] to continue in it, to the utmost hazard of [their] eternal happiness".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabella_Denny

The provision in the Irish Constitution which refers to women in the home, is referring to exactly that, and not much has changed in the last century given that by far and away the vast majority of people working in the home, are women (98% according to census 2016, 92% according to census 2022), and nearly all of the persons in receipt of one-parent family payment in 2019, were women:

• Nearly all (98.9%) of the 39,265 persons who received the one-parent family payment in 2018 were women.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-wamii/womenandmeninireland2019/genderequality/

Given the article was written a year before the wording of the referendum was published, it’s not surprising it was written as though the changes being suggested were uncontroversial and didn’t really appear to be creating much of a fuss. Government had this one in the bag, at least they had until they completely abandoned the suggested wording of the Citizens Assembly and the Oireachtas Committee and published wording which really is only symbolic and doesn’t require any legislative changes which would improve the status of women, or, more specifically - women living in poverty.

Ironically, one of the most compelling reasons being touted for passing the referendum now appears to be the status of unmarried fathers!

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2024/0118/1427072-family-care-referendums-2024-constitution-of-ireland-article-41/

Even the NWCI are struggling to get behind the referendum, understandable though really when they can trot out statistics which refer to women who are homeless, much like the Constitution refers to women in the home, highlighting the fact that 42% of people who are homeless, are women -

The research by Trinity College Dublin shows that 42% of the homeless people in Ireland are women, rising to 47% in Dublin.

…

Another consequence of increasing homelessness among women is entire families becoming homeless. The research found that 66% of homeless families in Ireland are headed by lone parents, most of whom are women.

https://www.thejournal.ie/homeless-women-3489725-Jul2017/

Given that context, it is indeed poor women who have had a raw deal; women who are wealthy have always done alright for themselves. I don’t see anything in the proposed wording which would have any impact whatsoever on the status of women and families living in poverty. Government could have been brave and done a far better job of it, but instead they took the more conservative approach, and messed it up so badly that I’m not sure there’s any coming back from it.

Not all kids are cared for by parents, there are aunts, uncles, older brothers and sisters and grandparents caring for children. Better to have a phrase that can include everyone, I think

There were good cases to be made in both those issues, with real impacts of people that voters would know.

These referendum? Exercise in virtue signalling and will be seen as such.

I'm tired of numpties that insist the institution of marriage needs to be deconstructed to suit the stupid and the feckless.

He could have avoided all this nonsense if he married the woman, rather than waiting 20 years till she had 3 kids and cancer, then missing the boat due to covid.

I remember trying to explain this to a friend of mine that 'doesn't believe in marriage'. I was at pains to point out that marriage has nothing to do with romance, churches or 'a big day out' you can't be bothered with. It's a legal contract with the state. So, I asked him, 'do you believe in access to your kids as their guardian and a widower/widow’s pension though? Because these are the kind of things you need a contract to regularize your affairs with. You wouldn’t take a job without a contract, nor should you enter into a long-term relationship without one.

I feel the same when it comes to making a will. Do it, now if you don't have one. Even if all your worldly assets only amount to a couple of grand in the bank, because otherwise the state will screw you in probate and the people you would hope might benefit in the case of your passing might not.