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

Well the mistress would know he is married, I mean how long could he realistically hide that. So she knows it’s not necessarily going to turn into a relationship and she might be fine with that(my understanding is that there is frequently a financial transaction involved). The wife may not be unaware of the mistress and he may be spending limited time with her. So it would be his wife and children that would be punished for his affair after he dies, which would also be wide open for abuse.

Voting Yes to both.

Was doubting but now know it's right thing to do when I see majority of posters on Boards are voting No/No and Conor McGregor has also called for a No/No vote for no valid reason other than its coming from the government.

This is me...puts hand up 🖐 At this point I am yes , no .

I trust our legal system will be reasonable and rational when it comes to defining a " durable relationship " .

It already has, with the case a few weeks ago where the man who was refused the widower's pension after his partner and the mother of his children had died, the original court ruling overturned.

But the 2nd one on "care" is annoying . It doesn't go far enough . Its complete bs .

What about support and care in the community for those who don't have a family , whose family are dead , for people who are trying to live independently but struggling and need supports ?

Or those who don't want their families to be burdened with their care?

So I agree with those who oppose it for that reason .

The only way it may have a place is in transferring home care tax credits or applying pension contributions for those caring at home who are not mothers? (Not sure if that will happen so maybe somebody who does know could comnent on this)

These were the only benefits given to mothers at home rearing children and only in the last 10/15 years because of major kick up over the state pension for women who worked all their lives parttime work around their children and family care, and were being paid a pittance. Its still not sorted but getting there.

The referendum commissioner said that " strive " means to try harder than " endeavour " btw ...

Try harder to do what exactly ?

@[Deleted User] there is no option on your poll to take account of people like me who are voting yes /no or no / yes.

Not really that weird as those 'voting' here will likely have followed the arguments and considered the implications one way or the other.

Whereas in 'official' polls whatever they are, you'll also have significant numbers who haven't thought about it beyond hearing vague assertions that the constitution is sexist and out of date and this will make all genders equal blah blah blah.

This is tbh one of the best reasons I've heard so far that are not based in the actual details, no cap fr

Yes if you were to believe boards posts then we'd still have no marriage equality or abortion. I'd say divorce would probably get voted against too if it was possible.

Now I am conflicted, I want to do the opposite of McGregor

My partner and I are not married and have a child so it's a no brainer to vote yes so that the constitution will no longer discriminate against our family based on archaic Catholic church dogma and sexist ideology that has no place in the reality of the modern world.

Because its an unnecessary, ineffective change and all those involved with care and disabilities in the community feel that they have been massively let down with what is essentially a sop that won't improve their situation.

Government can say" well thats it, that box ticked"! and move on while many of the people who requested the change in the constitution are left hanging.

So why would you support a change to something insufficient?

Never mind something you are unsure will help?

Seems like a silly unnecessary thing to do and is just PR.

The whole referendum should be scrapped and wording /changes thought through and communicated better prior to a new date in the future imo.

Initially I thought whats the harm, nothing bad will happen so vote yes, but thought it was weak. Then with every group that came out against it reinforcing my opinion and finally the Equality for Care

And also Independent Living Movement Ireland are very disappointed with it and cannot support it.

So why is it that those people that most need it a) weren't listened to and b) other groups like Carers Ireland have come out with very qualified support saying yes but we really need more?

Because it appears the government diluted it down to get it done in a hurry before the election with no real interest in doing something that would cost money or oblige them to really look after individuals who need care in the community. Maybe they do have an interest but they didn't give this referendum the time or work it deserved and it shows.

I think I explained in my previous post the groups affected but you only have to watch the clip on the news today about the difficulties individuals with disabilities have getting to a supposedly accessible bus to see why this should have been a life changing new article in the constitution for them / us.

As it is this " change" will do nothing for them except patronise them.

People are entitled to vote how they feel is right for them. And especially if they have given the subject matter thought.

Having done that I think this is not right for me so I will be voting NO to the' care ' section.

But still, that doesn't make sense, You're voting between two choices. one of which is closer to where you want to be than the other. Yet you're not choosing that option. You're voting to keep things as they are, which is further away from the level of carer recognition than you want. That's illogical.

Now if that vote is carried as a "no", the government will say "Well the people had their say and they don't want to change this", and so they won't change anything.

There is no option to provide context for your decision, no option to request a third choice that goes as far as you want, so forget what the choice could or should be. Looking at the current article wording, and the proposed changed wording it's clear one is closer to recognising carers, while the other only recognises women who provide care. Why would you choose the latter?

Your welcome. It's the right vote. Sure its not perfect but if we do not make changes now things stay backwards and the same. These changes will allow more people get the same tax rights as heterosexual couples and it will make things a bit better for carers but there is more to do.

The current article isn't about care. It's about a woman's life in the home and a mother's duties in the home. This new proposal has implications about care beyond that of a parent for a child, and about the responsibilities of family members to provide care for each other. That's highly problematic on all sides as I see it.

I asked what do you think the term durable means. I didn't ask you what durable relationship means. But here's a some guidance from the Home Office in the UK on what they take into account when deciding on a durable relationship

The reference to the couple having lived together in a relationship akin to a marriage

or civil partnership for at least 2 years is a rule of thumb, not a requirement. In

circumstances where the couple have not lived together in a relationship akin to a

marriage or civil partnership for at least for 2 years, you must consider whether there

is other significant evidence of the durable relationship.

Other significant evidence of the durable relationship may include for example

evidence of joint responsibility for a child (a birth certificate or a custody agreement

showing they are cohabiting and sharing parental responsibility), evidence of shared

financial responsibilities or business ventures, or evidence of regular communication

and visits while living apart alongside definite plans concerning the practicalities of

Justice Marie Baker said this about it

As for an example of a durable relationship- a man and woman living together for 20 years with 3 kids.

An example of a non-durable relationship - a person who chats to their postman every morning when he drops off the post.

OK thank you. I understand the general word durable indeed but note that it's very subjective according to the perception of the user. For example, I have a sitting room floor that I'd regard as durable but on the other hand a bar owner would consider it far too prone to wear and not durable.

Justice Marie Baker echoes this and refers to possibility of subjectivity in considering what is a 'durable relationship'. The public should have a greater degree of certainty in what they are voting on. It's not helpful if those who are expert in the proposed amendment can't actually say what it means.

As for your example of a durable relationship- a man and woman living together for 20 years with 3 kids - I and I think most people would agree that this is indeed a 'durable relationship' and worthy of the same rights and obligations as a married couple with kids. Maybe the proposed wording should be a lot more specific.

What of a man and two or three women living together for 20 years with multiple kids - surely these people can too claim they are in a 'durable relationship' and therefore constitute a family. Would you agree?

And if not, how can you separate one unmarried relationship from another unmarried relationship?