Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

No.

We voted again on divorce but there was a lot of social and legislative change in the intervening 9 years.

We voted again on abortion but even more social change, and it took 35 years.

We voted again after rejecting two EU treaties on low turnouts on completely ridiculous and false No campaign arguments. Each treaty was amended to address the concerns, even though they were ridiculous. On a much larger turnout, each one was passed.

Of course an electorate can change its mind. That's the reason we have general elections on a recurring basis...

I won't directly address your points although I will point out that I never mentioned marriage or polygamous relationships as I consider the focus on the potential definition of "durable relationships" as a bit of a red herring designed to deflect attention away from the main purpose of the referendum which is to remove the Constitutional obligation of the State to support carers either within or outside the home.

An altruistic government could have proposed something very similar to the following as amendment no. 39 to Article 41:

2.2 In particular, the State recognises that by her their life within the home, woman a *home maker gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

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

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.

*Anyone - male, female, single or married - who receives carers allowance, benefit etc is already classed as homemaker and would have Constitutional protection. The definition of and legislation for the term home maker is already in place and in widespread usage.

By removing "on which the family is founded" means the Constitutional protection for one parent families, unmarried families etc. would be equal to that of married families. There would be no need to wait for the Supreme Court to define who is or is not entitled to be considered part of a durable relationship.

Simple, straight forward, easy for the citizen to understand and more in tune with what the citizens assembly and various other groups have recommended over the last 30 years. I would love to hear O'Gorman (or any other government or opposition TD who supports the proposed convoluted wording) try to explain how the government proposal grants more absolute Constitutional protection to both carers and families not based on marriage. It quite obviously does not.

"Why not just change woman to primary carer?"

I suggested "homemaker" as that is already defined and includes everyone who is in receipt of the various government carer supports. Primary carer would work just as well and that is all that needs to be done to gender proof the Article. There is never a need to delete a right from the Constitution especially if the full benefit of it it has not been tested through the courts.

None of those issues had anything to do with the EU, and still don't.

The triple lock was one of Bertie Ahern's worse brainfarts.

Yeah, that. Or the fact that the NWCI believes anyone can stick on a dress and be a woman has annoyed, y’know, actual women.

I had a good laugh at the NWCI twitter page myself, I mentioned it here last week, I am not surprised they turned off comments on their twitter page, the amount of Irish women who were lacerating them was off the charts....including at least one female member of the Oireachtas!

The class of people who had the run of twitter since it's foundation to themselves and whatever narrative they want to push is over...no wonder the rhetoric has been pumped up by the political class over the last few months regarding the new ownership of the platform. They are getting beat by the same stick that was used to beat those with opposing views and they don't like it!! Watch the BBC interview with Musk in recent times to witness for yourself how impotent the media and political class have become!

I can still see comments under their tweets.

There were a couple posts yesterday regarding the referendum that had comments turned off, and then this one as well...

Following a succesful vote, What legal rights will anyone have, that they dont have today?

They did it with the Lisbon treaty remember.. It's not without precedent.

Although that one was to keep our "friends" in Europe happy. This one is yet another social referendum to distract from far more immediate and pressing issues and which is assumed will pass because on the face of it (if you don't bother to do any research into it - which many won't), who could object to what is being positioned as simple and logical updates for 21st century Ireland’s family life.

I figure turn out will probably be low and those who vote will be people who will directly benefit or the usual "on message" crusaders.

Maria Steen on with Brendan O’Connor now, outlining why she’ll be voting No.

Another, clear, reason to vote Yes on these.

Are you advocating a "yes" vote just because Maria Steen is on the "no" side?

More seriouesly this reflects a typical left MSM tactic: put someone up on the side you disapprove of who is bound to rile people for other reasons. Or even in some cases put a total idiot up on the side you you disapprove of.

NWCI have a biological man on the executive board, and use the term "people with a cervix". Talk about trying to erase biological women. That NGO is advocating YES, so all in our house are firmly voting NO.

Doubtless there are a fair number of people who will vote on that basis. I didn't hear much of Maria Steen, but I did hear the woman on before her advocating a Yes vote on both refs. She was very passionate and made some good points. When Brendan put it to her that the state has a mechanism where families can get the rights they need, which has no reference to religion etc - ie marriage, she replied, as a single mother, that she couldn't force her partner to marry her, which is a fair point. At the same time though, I really struggle to understand what rights non marital families don't have, that the constitution prevents the state from legislating for. The recent case decided by the Supreme Court shows that far from preventing equality for non-marital families, the constitution actively requires it in many contexts, in spite of the section on the family.

Someone made another good point here a few weeks ago, that many countries get along fine without this kind of stuff in their constitution at all. So, if we're to do anything here, then just removing the whole section on the family from the constitution might be best in my opinion. Let the Oireachtas deal with each issue as it arises, unconstrained by any archaic language in the constitution. But, I suspect most campaigners wouldn't be happy with that, because they would prefer to have vague aspirational language in the constitution, and then take their chances that activist judges will turn it into real rights that can't be overridden by legislators.

I posted back at the beginning of the thread about who they would have to dredge up to "balance" the debates on the no side.

It seems some posters don't like that mirror being shown to them.