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

And it is... by those who've actually looked into it themselves (as opposed to taking vague and confused arguments in favour as their reasoning) and have thus decided to vote No per the IT.

Of course, there is a sizeable amount of "can't someone else do it" type voters out there who will rely on others to do the thinking for them. It's this group that the Government/advocates are appealing to/counting on.

I'm undecided still.

I know and read far more people voting "yes, yes" just because it's what the main parties are endorsing, than I know protest voters just deliberately going against the government.

I'm struck by just how many typical mainstream voters who would have voted for marriage equality, abortion, divorce etc, say they are voting no on this though.

Did you? There is a poster on the first page saying that they don't really understand the referendums but will vote yes anyway.

And you're the one claiming that the yes voters are the ones that have read and understand the issues.

I'm undecided as well. I've read the changes, listened to but really don't know what problem is being solved, or what advantages/disadvantages either will bring.

Lots of hypothetical stuff being thrown around, I still haven't seen any tangible impact either change might have.

Quite right - you would think then that the government would take such matters seriously?

Firstly we have amendments that no one really asked for.

Both of these amendments were then rammed through both the dail and seanad in 6 weeks (about half of which both chambers were on xmas break) allowing little to no debate or discussion on alternative wording.

While you may agree with the proposed amendments in principle (as i am sure many do) if you actually were serious about the constitution you would not be voting yes to these amendments in their current format.

The constitution is the most important legal document in the county - changes to it should not be done at the drop of a hat.

Really? Clearly with your vast knowledge of Irish constitutional law, you can sell this to all the no voters - i mean you have read and understand exactly what you are voting for. Do what the government have been unable to do.

In your answer kindly reference every other bill and bit of legislation that this affects, as well as addressing areas like inheritance.

This is your chance to correct us all - remember: do not forget to be specific.

I’ve to do more research before deciding and inform myself on the issues.

Would anyone care to summarise what the key challenges might be if the current wordings remained unchanged?

I’ve understood very clearly the constitutional changes in the past and the necessity for them. I’m not seeing the clear need in this case.

????

Changes to the constitution require a referendum? Who knew!

No comment on the rest of the post then?

How so?

Honest answer is I don’t know- and whether the content of your post has any legal merit on not, I’ll leave to a legal expert - but that’s my big problem with this referendum - the scenarios haven’t been fleshed out in any meaningful way and thought through and presented to the public.

I would HOPE that such a scenario as above isn’t something that’s possible in the future but I can already see legal cases brewing as test cases as a result.

But it’s not the responsibility of a boards poster to raise such a possibility- it’s the governments duty to outline such scenarios and how they will be dealt with, and they haven’t done that.

When something doesn’t feel right I tend to vote no - asking to do what the government asks is not a reason to do it in my book- I think this referendum is ill thought out, ill advised and just not clear enough - I’m leaning towards no at this point.

We've had lazy referendums in the past where not enough effort was used to educate the public- this is one such referendum

Certainly if the definition of the family one were to pass, it'll be open season for people involved in all manner of 'durable relationships' to demand rights and if they don't get them, they'll rightly go to the courts and be vindicated there. It's amazing that the government and politics in general propose to sleep walk us into this. Is it a case of being afraid to say the king has no clothes on - group think?

Have to admit that - consistent with my usual lack of knowledge of all things law - I genuinely do not know what the effect of the change will be. And I am actually in a polyamory relationship for 18 years now with us having 4 kids. So I assume I am at least somewhat affected by the change in some way.

But as far as I my little understanding goes the change itself has no effect in and of itself. It just means that if they ever want to legislate or create laws that affect people in situations like ours - that it would be moderately easier for them to do so?

To be honest I am not that pushed either way. Any "right" or benefit or relevance that married nuclear families have that we do not - we have sought and obtained in other ways ourselves. Taking steps to ensure inheritance, next of kind rights, medical proxy rights, guardianship rights over the kids, and so forth.

So it probably affects me in some way but I feel uninformed ignorant and not all that pushed or interested to be honest.