Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

"The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationship."

Grammatically, is there not ambiguity here on whether the highlighted clause refers to 'the Family' or to 'all positive law/rights', or perhaps even to 'Society'?

Yes.

Betting markets tightening again.

Momentum seems to be on No side in each referendum.

I don't. And with a will, they won't.

This and isn't it extraordinary how the state wants to move away from the basic essential legal certainty of marriage and proposes to move us into some twilight zone where little will be certain. Marriage and the basic concept of it has existed for many centuries - for good reason.

Such as?

The President could not intervene on this to support a Yes or No. Surprised you think he could.

The president could give his views as first citizen and in the light of his wisdom, on the pros and cons of the suggested changes. That would be useful do you not agree? After all, the president (whoever that is) will have to form a view eventually and they will be at the sharp end initially.

Who says that it would cause a constitutional crisis if the president spoke his thoughts? Are you making that up?

The referendums in themselves are not party political matters. The president is well known for giving an opinion on many matters to do with civil society.

I suggest that perhaps you are making this up? Would you not welcome his views on the matter and that of Mrs.Higgins too? I'd find them interesting anyway.

What an amazingly clueless post. You have no idea what the role of the President is.

No.

I'm not making anything up. The President is not able to speak on the referendums. I'm genuinely surprised you think its allowed.

Just heard that. One point made was that any single parent unit who are not in a relationship will not be covered by the amendment.

There could be a lot of situations like that where a single parent is alone and was never married or in any type of long-term relationship durable or otherwise. Has she a point on that?

What if a single woman had a child by IVF and never had a partner or a single gay man had a child through surrogacy or a single person adopted a child. Neither of those examples includes a marriage or a durable relationship.

This president seems to have his own ideas on what is proper for a president to comment on.

Our obsequious media never call him out on it though. Maybe if he said something they don’t agree with they might change their tune.

Previous case laws main focus was the "inalienable and imprescriptible", but you are correct unless there is a case taken on the new phrase through the courts. It is bit mixed.

Proposed to change Article 41.1.1° text in bold:

Article 41.1.1° “The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”

--

In the past people have viewed a "family" as parents (Mammy and Daddy) plus children (which many would view as outdated). Now same sex couples can marry and get all the legal benefits form it etc. Fair enough, society moves on.

But this new proposal seems very contradictory for many reasons.

Is the new phrase "durable relationship" simply intended to mean "unmarried people in longterm relationships" ?

But surely that would contradict the phrase "moral institution"? Should the word "moral" have been omitted as that has religious connotations?

Does it mean that single parents (unmarried with no durable relationship) are not considered a "family" under this definition? Or does that durable relationship mean their children?

What is a durable relationship ? Six months, A year, five years? What about people with longterm "friends with benefits arrangements" is that durable? Or religions where polygamy is accepted in other nations?

Does 'durable relationship' mean a familial one? Step children, foster kids, surrogate mothers, etc It could be a minefield. As that would mean single parents have a durable relationship with their children/family.

Surely the original idea of marriage was to attempt to make the family a stronger unit, but it seems that the marriage is no longer a prerequisite for a strong family unit. It was simple. But the proposed change weakens that severely.

See below -

Proposed to change Article 41.3.1° by deleting text shown with line through it:

“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.”

That seems to discourage "durable relationships" within marriage rather than encourage them. After all the fuss about the marriage referendum it seems that institution of marriage will be severely diluted in importance with this deletion.

--

Are those who might fall outside the "durable relationships" are they somehow supposed to be covered by the "Care Referendum"?

Article 42B, as shown below:

“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.”

But it seems to indicate that care can only be given by members of a "family" - in other words people that are married or in a "durable relationship". And how does that cover hired help/health care professionals. It gets messy as this bond is contractual in nature, is that included? it is not a family "bond". There

--

It all seems very messy, in my view I feel they should come out with some new proposals instead.

I have do decide which way I will vote I suppose.

The Article 41.1.1 change in the family referendum seems like the least flawed of the three if that was on it's own I would vote yes for that. Despite the contradictory word "moral" and confusing phrase "durable relationship"

But I don't really like the fact that marriage is being removed as a foundation of the family. in Article 41.3.1 Moving away from the moral question (which is stated in A41.1.1). How is a dilution of the institution of marriage going to encourage "durable relationships" or even married ones?

Surely the institution of marriage was originally created to encourage the forming a solid family unit? Commitment to each other and the family and so on? If that is removed what is the point of marriage itself other than the legal benefits? Where is the societal glue for the family unit?

A42B should have included those outside the family, it would at least negate what is lost in other proposd changes to me.

--

Probably a reluctant no for the family referendum for me as I could accept A41.1.1. but I would not be in favour of A41.3.1 proposes changes.

And in the proposed care referendum A42B do not go far enough in my view it should at least encourage a more wider societal view beyond the family, if the old definition of the family is weakened, in my opinion.

No I don't. And I have no idea who he is.

I have zero time for all organised religions. They are all based on utter nonsense and make up the rules as they go along. All religions cause much more harm than good. Warped mechanisms for power and control. And just downright weird in the modern age. Creepy men saying creepy things.