Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Not just single unmarried parents, but unmarried couples who are also parents and also couples who live together with kids from previous marragie relationship etc. I think the concept that a family only exists due to a marraige is outdated.

The reason I'm voting yes in the Carers referendum is to ensure the Constitution acknowledges the role men play in being carers and that there is some, although small, responsibility on the State to provide for supporting men in their role as carers.

The flaw in your argument is the usual one with liberal/left-leaning advocate types - too much focus on individuals rather than the content.

Most people, once they reach adulthood, don't particularly care about "celebrity" views on ANYTHING. Additionally they're able to understand that an individual will have different views on different topics, some more conservative, some more liberal.

Real life isn't a Twitter echo chamber.

Where are you seeing this?

Certainly not a big point on this thread.

Where is the

"He said he agreed with McGreogors position of voting No on both"

Extremely disingenuous posting. Are you Catherine Martin?

I was referring to Elon Musk in that sentence.

The other day on Morning Ireland Justice Marie Baker of Chair Electoral Commission, when explaining Amendment 40 said

Her use of the phrase “people who don't identify as men or women”, stood out. Was her use of this phrase merely an expression of her personal beliefs, or are we to understand that Amendment 40, if approved, would not only erase the words ‘woman’ and ‘mothers’ from the Constitution but would also constitute Constitutional recognition of the legal cogency of the notion of gender identity? If the 40th Amendment involves the 'covert' and implicit introduction of gender ideology into the Constitution, shouldn’t those who are at present contemplating approving of it be made explicitly aware of this startling development before they vote?

And O Gorman says that polygamous marriages will not be recognized as 'durable relationships' because polygamous marriages are not valid under Irish law. yet he also says durable relationships must be protected and recognized in the same way that marriages are. So, if you can legally be in more than one durable relationship at a time, which you can because "what is a durable relationship" is undefined. Would this in fact, result in those engaged in polygamous marriages being able to argue that those in durable relationships are treated more favorably than they are - and this would presumably result in polygamous marriages having to be recognized in order to ensure equal treatment, rights and protections between marriages and durable relationships?

Tracey O' Mahony, (B.A., LL.B, B.L.) a Barrister and Founder of ICHR went through claims flying around and provided Facts on the proposed 39th Amendment of the Constitution (Family) Bill 2023. Thought it might be useful for some.

The Claim - The Constitution needs to be amended so Gov can offer the same rights to those who are not married, as those who are married

• The Facts - The Government has the executive authority to introduce any law it wishes into the Houses of the Oireachtas - meaning that if the Government wished to close any gap in rights and protections between married and unmarried couples, it possesses the executive authority to do so. In order to illustrate this fact, in 2010, the Government introduced a law titled "The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010", noting that this piece of legislation was designed to ensure that co-habiting couples in "committed and intimate" relationships could be given certain rights and protections under the law, noting also that such couples could also contract out of these rights and protections. Note that as of 22 January 2024, the Supreme Court held in John O'Meara & Ors -V- The Minister for Social Protection, Ireland and The Attorney General - that it was unconstitutional to deny an unmarried father of 3 children a widowers pension simply because he was unmarried

The Claim - The Constitution needs to be amended due to societal changes to the meaning of the Family, given the Constitution only recognises and protects families that are based on marriage

• The Facts - Former Supreme Court Justice, Brian Walsh stated: "It is true that the family envisaged in this Article is the family based upon marriage....However, it is not correct to say, as it has been frequently stated, that the effect of judicial decisions has been to declare that the only family recognized by the Constitution, or protected by the Constitution, is the family based on marriage. What the decisions have said is that the 'family' referred to in Articles 41 and 42 is the one based on marriage. The courts have said that other Articles of the Constitution may be availed of and invoked by what have been called 'natural families'; that is to say, families, or groupings that resemble families" which are not based upon marriage. What Article 41 deals with is that easily recognisable unit that is accepted throughout Western Europe the unit based upon marriage.....The variety of other possible unions or groupings does not make it feasible to have any general rules applicable but, as the Constitution itself does, will leave each individual case to be dealt with according to its own particular circumstances."

In light of the above, it is incorrect to say that only the Family based on marriage is protected and recognized by the Constitution

The Claim - The Constitution needs to be amended to enable the Government to offer the same rights and protections to those who are not married, as compared to those who are married

• The Facts - The Government have the executive authority to introduce any law it wishes into the Houses of the Oireachtas - meaning that if the Government wished to close any gap in rights and protections between married and unmarried couples, it possesses the executive authority to do so. In order to illustrate this fact, in 2010, the Government introduced a law titled "The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010", noting that this piece of legislation was designed to ensure that co-habiting couples in "committed and intimate" relationships could be given certain rights and protections under the law, noting also that such couples could also contract out of these rights and protections.
• It should also be noted that as of 22 January 2024, the Supreme Court held in John O'Meara & Ors -V-The Minister for Social Protection, Ireland and The Attorney General that it was unconstitutional to deny an unmarried father of 3 children a widowers pension simply because he was unmarried.

The Claim - The constitution needs to be amended to introduce the recommendation from the Citizens Assembly on Gender Equality

• The Facts: The purpose of this referendum is to extend the definition of family to include "other durable relationships". The Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality did not propose this term, and there has been considerable criticism of the introduction of this term, from all spheres of the political spectrum.

The Claim - The Constitution needs to be amended to extend the protections offered to the Family under the Constitution, which they say are limited to families based on marriage to include "other durable relationships" -as this would ensure that all such protections

The Facts - As the term "other durable relationships" is neither defined nor limited in scope, the Government cannot say what type of relationship will be considered a durable relationship, instead this will be a matter for the Courts to decide-meaning that it is quite likely that lone parents and those cohabiting will have to challenge the definition of "durable relationships" through the Courts. Also (and quite concerningly) TDs, Senators, and the Electoral Commission have raised concerns that "other durable relationships" may include:

• Friends living together, who are not in an intimate relationship (Jennifer Carroll MacNeill TD); AND
• Couples (which does not necessarily mean people in an intimate relationship) who are invited to weddings together or send Christmas Cards in joint names (Judge BakerElectoral Commission); AND
• Polygamous marriages (Michael McNamara TD); AND
• Foster children (in relation to contesting a foster parents will) (Senator Sharon Keogan); AND
• Persons engaged in extramarital affairs (in relation to contesting their married partners' will) (Senator Sharon Keogan); AND
• Family and friends and extended family and friends of asylum seekers (Michael Collins TD, Neale Richmond TD, Senator Sharon Keogan, Senator Michael, McDowell, Senator Ronan Mullen)

And mine today

"Strive to" should have been removed from the proposed wording, leaving a simple "Shall". Thus putting the onus on the Government to absolutely support the provision of care. They have used the word "Strive", which is wishy washy and holds nothing over the Government regarding its obligations.

But no surprises there. That is annoying me intensely, apart from all the other BS about "durable", which in itself is beyond definition it seems.

The inheritance issue is important. At the moment a spouse can claim the "legal right share" of a deceased spouse's estate. That is half if no children, and a third where there are. That is assuming that the deceased spouse did not leave that share to the surviving spouse in a will. On intestacy where there is no will, the spouse is entitled to 2/3rds and the children (if any) to one third shared amongst them. Spouse gets 100% if no children. No inheritance tax applies to spouses, it does to co-habitants.

That is one reason why many don't marry, in order to protect assets for children, or a business, or a farm or whatever. Of course the majority DO marry, but there are circumstances where marriage may result in the devolution of assets to a person who is incapable of say managing a business/farm etc. If the will omits them, they can claim their legal right share anyway.

So, has anyone clarified what happens going forward if the referendum is carried? I reckon a lot of this stuff has been hidden in the black hole of FOI restricted information that ROG refused to release.

That's just one aspect. Maybe the easiest thing to do is to abolish inheritance tax altogether and have an estate tax so relationship to the deceased doesn't matter anymore as the estate is taxed not the individual as they do in the UK. However, there is still an exemption there for spouses, but no legal right except on intestacy there. Legal action must be taken, whereas that is not necessary here in order to claim a legal right share, it is given as of right.

I'm just throwing it out. And I reckon a lot of this stuff has been hidden from view or comment by the Government in the event that spouses and durable relationships may have the same weight in law.

What happens if you don't recognise the gender ideology belief system? That is to say that a man can actually turn into a woman, and a woman can turn into a man!

It may be law, but I don't believe in their gender (self ID) ideology for one moment.

Hmmmm but actually currently depending on the situation people can claim against the estate of a dead partner if they were cohabitants

Forget your Muslims and their arrangements. Take a good home grown Irish family in a durable relationship - former 'General' Martin Cahill and the Lawless sisters. If that wasn't a durable relationship, notwithstanding occupational hazards, what is?

What obligation to support your new partner?

There isn't one, unless you marry them.

You are making stuff up.