Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

The intent of the amendment is to recognise families other than those based on marriage, its intent isn’t to legitimise polyamory, therefore it doesn’t follow that all relationships with more than two people are up for inclusion as durable relationships.

Wonderful! Crack on so! 👍

Will these all be treated the same if this amendment passes?

That’ll be for the Courts to determine based upon the particular circumstances in each and every case. McDowell already knows this though, and it’s clear from the question posed in the heading of that article what his angle was -

Do we want a society in which non-marital relationships are the easier, equal and growing norm?

Handing the role of determining what is or is not a durable relationship to the courts seems unnecessary and unwise because of its knock-on effects for marriages and the family

It’s attempting to stir shìt, nothing more. That’s why his shìt isn’t getting any traction, only from the likes of Ronan Mullen, another straw clutcher desperate to muddy the waters.

Hmm.. it may or may not be a red herring. Multiple partners could quite easily become a done thing, particularly when sanctioned by the constitution.

Not least, three or four incomes buys a house more easily etc.

But you're right too about the other complications. This whole thing is a bad idea.

I think you need to read again and pay careful attention to what was reported as said: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/polygamous-relationships-not-recognised-under-proposed-constitutional-changes-1576609.html#:~:text=Under%20Irish%20law%2C%20polygamous%20marriages%20are%20not%20recognised.

O'Gorman states that he'd rule out polygamous relationships - being married to more than one person at a time, is banned anyway.

O'Gorman doesn't mention polyamory, he makes a vague reference to throuples but such relationships could involve several people.

Since you seem to be so sure please explain the difference between a couple whether heterosexual or otherwise in a co habitating long term relationship and a group of people in a likewise long term relationship. What's the difference and what would the difference be if this proposal passes??? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

But they’re not similar situations, are they? The amendments are intended to recognise families which are no different to families formed on the basis of marriage, ie recognition of the relationship between a couple, or the relationship between a parent and their child.

Why couldn’t the State discriminate between them? It would depend upon the particular legislation in question and what the criteria were for qualifying for that benefit, whether it be in the form of taxation or welfare for example, and it would depend on the particular circumstances in each case whether or not the applicants had a legitimate argument that would warrant a Court entertaining their application.

The State could still discriminate between a married couple and an unmarried couple in certain circumstances, or discriminate between unmarried couples and polygamous groups, all that’s required is sufficient justification for that discrimination.

The "durable relationships" is a way to get around Polygamy being illegal here.

Which politician was it again that admitted this was partially to get round issue with family reunificaitons?

Now think what group of people may have multiple spouses that they may want to bring to this country?

They don't have just one wife, but multiple and since we don't recognise Polygamy it proves difficult when allowing a family reunification.

But if we allow durable relationships, hell you can have as many of them as you want.

Oh and just because minister voiced an opinion that this doesn't cover "Polygamous relationships and throuples”, it can be challenged at some point down the road since it is not explicitly ruled out in the wording.

PS. the group of people are of course the Amish.

We all know who you're really talking about

Gender equality!

What does that actually mean?

There are many women and indeed men, who choose to be homemakers. Your reference to them being tied to the sink and earning nothing would be profoundly insulting to most.

As to the question 'gender equality' is a bit of a meaningless phrase as women and men are thankfully somewhat different.

There is no such obligation even with the current wording, it has done nothing over its 87 years to support anyone working in the home.

It'll do even less if this passes

Article 41.2 was the legal basis for the payment of deserted wives allowance to women only. The deserted wives allowance and unmarried mothers allowances later became the single parent allowance in order to include the payment to deserted and single parent men.

I quite like perching on Chesterton's fence. It doesn't seem that the constitution as it stands has affected anyone unduly. Most of the work in the home is done by women and it's nice to be in one of the few countries in the world that explicitly recognises that. There are legal devices to ensure that your affairs after your death (and before with an EPA) are handled in the way you want them to be if you're opposed to signing a contract at the registry office.

It seems like a huge waste of money for no tangible benefit, which will mostly create animosity and issues between elderly partners and adult children of the deceased at an already-difficult time.

No.