March 8th - What’s your vote? **Mod Note In Post #677**

Apparently polls are saying a yes vote expected in both.

Hopefully a good voter turnout.

That's a great way to look at changes to the wording of the constitution of the country.

Yeah, what a waste of money democracy is.

You should definitely vote no to show them gubermint not to be holding no votes no more

voting no

I believe mothers in the home contribute to society and this should be recognised and protected.

It'll be lowest turn out ever.

Easiest No votes I will ever cast tbh.

....me am smart(says while drolling!)

....oh look at the mature one!

Voting no for both.

Current

This wording (current) obliges the state to not have mothers forced into the workplace at the expense of motherhood . Btw I feel that since the millennium the state is failing on this - another days argument.

Proposed.

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.’

This would says "shall strive" - which is a less strict that obliging the state.

One is the state is mandated too - the proposed the state with try.

also the support the state will give is vague - whereas the current wording deliberately mention economic meanings. "support" is vague "economic hardship" isnt ironclad but more specific. I love specifics.

I hope that answers your question.

also I have misgivings on the new definition of family. durable relationships is not for me .

Point one.

I never said what you said.. you skipped over the word "forced" that I clearly wrote.

second - they aren't the same and I wouldn't bet a supreme court challenge on it

bloody hell, the ghost of Archbishop McQuaid walks amongst us

Vague language for both really with the ever changing world of who I(everyone) am and I myself being an adult with an invisible disability these measures are significantly open to manipulation by Healthcare providers and definitely don't go far enough to provisionally provide for what is to come in the coming years, I think holding both at the same time will hurt the care specifics more as the mundane wording of Women in the home will distract people voting to cast yes for both.

Was always voting No to both, even more so after Thomas Byrne last night on upfront, the vagueness, the waffle, the repetitive use of words, I could go on. 'Durable relationships' is way too vague for legal implications It shows too the distain the government have for the public, to have someone representing them that is so out of his depth.

I have a durable relationship with many friends…does that mean they can inherit with family exemptions? Have known many of them longer than my wife

i'm sure McQuaid given his influence at the time would have changed the constitution if he wished.

however Im at a loss how you extracted that from my post.

But i think you didn't - you had a pre-prepared gag to shoehorn in.

you should have picked a better time to use it.

So far the arguments for voting No are:

1. Fuck the government
2. **** the government for wasting time on this referendum when they should be fixing world peace/building houses
3. The definition of 'Enduring Relationship' is too vague
4. The word 'strive' means the government doesn't have to actually protect carers from having to work (while the word 'endeavour' somehow does)
5. I don't understand what the referendum is, so I should vote No
6. You don't understand what the referendums are, so you should vote no

I think so far, the definition of 'Durable relationship' is probably the best argument against the referendum in that it could potentially leave the constitution open to challenge if we somehow end up with absolute morons sitting on the supreme court and they decide that sitting beside the same season ticket holder counts as a 'Durable relationship'. That said, The definition, it seems, was deliberately left open to interpretation to allow case law to set the boundaries for what a Durable Relationship is in Modern Ireland for the purposes of accessing rights under the constitution.

If this referendum is passed, case law will ultimately decide what counts as a durable relationship for the purposes of defining a family. It will have to be contextual, so a written constitution is not really a suitable place to store such definitions

I haven't really read up too much on it yet but I see yesterday FLAC (Free Legal Advice Centre) is advocating a No vote

BTW, doesn't this thread belong in CA rather than AH?

Hard to go by Twitter.

Your correct about a larger amount of the No Vote on Twitter however the Yes camp coming across as sneery/condescending.

I'm voting yes for both.

Firstly I believe our constitution should recognise that many families these days are not based on marriage, it's outdated thinking.

I have no issue with 'durable relationships ' it clearly can include a wide range of different family dynamics, grandparents minding grandchildren, older siblings with younger ones. The Judges of our Supreme Court, make decisions everyday based on vague statements, I don't for one minute believe that they would find me and my teddybear to be a family, based on my idea that it has been my most durable relationship.

secondly, the constitution, by singling out women and mothers, completely excludes men and fathers and their roles in the home. A more inclusive article to include all who care is much more reflective of our society today.

I don't believe that the article has really been of any benefit to women in the home, it's not as if government pay them a salary, likewise changing it won't make any huge difference either.

Not just twitter in fairness

Will this apply for tax purposes also?

IE are people not married going to get the same tax breaks?

Where as now, a couple living together don’t get the same tax breaks as a married couple and also do not have the same entitlement to benefits they would have because they are living with a partner?

Is the family law system also going to brought in line also?

Next of kin rights?

inheritance rights also?

I won't be voting as the government need to f*** off, I don't know how anybody can care about this nonsense when we have a government who are happy to mostly ignore the housing crisis