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

Why add to the confusion? But perhaps you're a lawyer licking his (her) lips at the prospects of more business coming down the tracks?

Peadar Toibin's point, were there to be a Yes outcome on the family ref, when debating Thomas Byrne was definitely thought provoking:

If a couple split up but don't divorce and a new relationship starts with one (or both), would this new relationship have exactly the same legal basis as the previous undissolved marriage/civil partnership?

Is this seriously the level of questioning you have to stoop to? Being difficult for the sake of it?

What do you think "words" are not defined in the constitution?

Various articles use words like 'affirms' 'Freedom' 'remuneration' all these words already have a clear meaning and are understood in the legal context in which they are used.

'Durable Relationship' has no clear meaning and is not understood in the context the government is trying to add it to the constitution.

Or do you not care about the legal mine field it creates?

I'm not being difficult for the sake of it. I'm simply asking people to point out where the Constitution defines terms used in the Constitution. For example, what's the definition for "public order and mortality"? What's the definition for "seditious or indecent matter"? What's the definition "personal rights"?

The Courts have been interpreting and defining words used in the Constitution for decades, and it has been an essential for ensuring people's rights are provided for. I don't understand why this is suddenly viewed as a negative. Its a fundamental necessaisity for a democratic society.

Because it's never too late to start improving things.

They need to hold a referendum to start doing that.

Leaving out the context of how those terms are used in the constitution. Again, the examples you listed all have an almost universal definition. If I was to ask 100 people what public order, morality or sedition is the vast majority would give you the same explanation/understanding.

Durable relationship could mean literally anything - adding such a term to the constitution is like opening a legal can of worms. You can almost guarantee another fortune will be spent cleaning up the mess it creates in both the courts and further referendum.

This may also be the first time the government is deliberately putting in such a vague term, that they know is going to cause untold trouble down the road.

Do you actually want me to type out definitions for you? I assume you are older than 12?

Did I mention a universal definition?

We will have to agree to disagree - it is clear you are will be voting yes regardless.

I was yes and yes but Peadar swung me over ,no doubt Thomas Byrne was completely out classed .

So now I'm No /No .

I can't believe I didn't realize the consequences of passing these referendums ....

Most people aren't aware of what a yes vote means

Well i had to use almost as I can not account for the various village idiots.

As you mention ironic, I do find it amusing that you want definitions now, but not for something going into the constitution. The government are free to use whatever terms they want - just not put them in the constitution.

Again you miss the very basic point. The terms you mention, people understand, will there be edge cases? Yes - this is where the courts come into play, which they as you mentioned have done in the past.

But once again, durable relationship can mean anything - you are essentially asking people to vote on a place holder.

To the best of my knowledge there was nothing stopping the AG/Government seeking an actual definition of "Durable relationship".

You strike me as the type of person, who, even if I had a crystal ball to show you the future and the fall out from this, you still vote yes.

The judge, who was in Pat Kenny’s show, pretty much said the same. She pointed out that the durable relationships will have featured in cases previously.

The ones who are saying “it could literally mean anything” are the same sort who were saying “someone could marry a horse” during the same sex marriage referendum.

No, if it were Peter Casey would be president, B.

Funny you say that, I thought the same about Boards not being representative of Irish society about 15-20 years ago. Back then, if you did take Boards that way, we should have been a very liberal country with a SF majority government.