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

If the government actually wanted to provide extended support for the family and carers, the current "wording" does not actually stop them.

Voting to be the opposite of McGregor is as mindless as voting to go against Roderic O'Gorman.

I do feel there's a some sort of concerted effort on social media like X to shame people who find themselves voting in line with Catholic bishops, Iona, and McGregor when that's usually anathema to them. it has become very noticeable over the past couple of days.

But all the experienced voices I hear on the Care issue - people who care, who advocate for disability rights, people who need care, are saying vote No. People like Tom Clonan, Joanne O'Riordan, and Gareth Noble.

I believe there were ructions in some feminist groups over whether it should be supported but it went eventually to a " meh it won't cause a problem and we'll come back at it again" so called 'support'!

Problem is many would be under no illusion that it will take years again to have it revisited for any meaningful change.

So it was felt the support should be withdrawn to force that meaningful change sooner.

Yes and Yes for me.

That is not at all what I said. Nor what I would choose.

This is an issue of equality of choice of care and independence as far as I am concerned.

The women's issue is not what this is about for me although it has been flagged as a problem widely.

Why are you misrepresenting what I did say?

The fact that it doesn't make sense to you is neither here nor there. I have made my decision to not vote for something which I feel is patronising and ineffective to both carers and those who need care.

So why have you a problem except that you think " sure it'll be a little bit better, what are you worried about? Go on with you now and vote yes"..

Thats how your argument is coming across.

If you do not mean to imply this and still don't understand may I politely suggest you go back and read my posts again.

I made a decent effort at replying in detail to your first post so afford me the respect of making an effort to read my reply properly.

What would you have advised if, for example, the marriage equality referendum had proposed to extend marriage to two men, but not two women? Obviously unlikely - but would you have thought that accepting the proposal was the right choice for someone in favour of marriage equality, as it's closer to what they wanted even if "insufficient"? Even if they believe it's discriminatory - as many feel that the care proposal is ableist?

I'm still unsure on the family referendum. I'm all for recognising different types of families, and I have no issues around unmarried parents, blended families or any sort of unusual set up. But the ambiguity of "durable relationship" does give me cause for concern in relation to potential claims on a person's assets, property, inheritance. In particular where a marriage exists alongside a durable relationship unknown to one partner in the marriage. I'm not confident on how that would play out under the new wording.

I think children's rights in relation to both parents should trump everything and no child should be treated in a less favourable manner in any regard, no matter the status of their parents. But while I feel everyone should be free to make their own life choices as consenting adults, I don't actually understand the reluctance to enter into a marriage if you want all the protections and rights conferred by marriage. Though I absolutely respect the decision of those making this choice I just don't understand it fully. And I feel people's right not to be in a "durable relationship" with possible legal ramifications is also important - how will that be protected under this proposal?

Still a lot to consider on this one for me.

im voting no to both. i don't believe the government has any genuine or credible intent here, on a simple point of equality, they still do not allow people living together with a family to share tax credits, nor will they.

i dont trust them, and i do think there are other motives that we are not privy to at play. this piece in the constitution has never stopped me as a working mother doing what i do, nor feeling somehow "less", so it can stay as it is.

A wanton waste of money.

I agree with taking the outdated sexism and misogyny out of the constitution. I have concerns about the new wording.

No mention of single parent families there, it only talks about couples. What about a parent who has a biological or adopted child but who was never-married / never cohabited / never in a relationship? There are so many permutations that it seems to be a minefield.

If our courts follow the UK example above, (as we do in many cases) then it seems that other durable relationship will only refer to the couple in the family unit.

Which legislation are you talking about?

Do you mean some UK legislation you used as an example of how the UK define a durable relationship? If so, your post (which I replied to) didn't mention single parents, your information was about couples.

Or do you mean the family amendment bill?

Michael McDowell* once again exposes the intellectual shortcomings and chicanery of the herd of witless buffoons that the Irish electorate - in its great wisdom - decided should rule over us.

*Column in today's Irish Times.

Taking umbrage ?! ( love it )

At this stage yes . I have already replied a few times to you but you are questioning a very clear decision .

Do you not respect that , even as you say yourself ,

" that the amendment does not adequately cover the broad spectrum of carers in our society " and I will add , nor those with disabilities who want to be treated equally in society.

Pretty clear I think that your premise at voting for "something less bad" in the constitution, ( of all things which should be aiming for the heights of our aspirations especially for vulnerable in society, ) is not what I would agree with .

So yeah I will not vote for it .

Edit to add ..you have not given any other reason why it should be voted for , and the only reason I have been given so far is that it gets rid of a phrase and replace it with an equally useless phrase.

Now if there was a real monetary benefit to people as a result of it being changed...?

I'm voting no for family amendment. This is just a cover up to get more foreign people in. We will be over run if that's voted yes. Can see its gonna happen tho because the ops opinion seems to be rife with everyone. I'm not married either I'd rater the gov threw their tax credits up there arse.

I don't think so. If I recall correctly, the majority here were in favour of both.

Boards though has changed. The broad outlook as become more significantly conservative. This is not just through attrition of posters but there's clearly been an evolution in posters thinking too. It's worth noting that recent polling has younger people being far more critical of things like immigration than the immediately previous generation.

While yes is in the lead in the polling, I suspect Yes won't turn out and that No is much more motivated - for a while host of reasons quite unrelated to the topic at hand.

Really depends on what side turns out and a curve ball like the weather could end up playing a huge part, especially if turnout is as pathetic as expected.

I might have this wrong, but it seems to me that the constitution is used as a "safety net" for poor policy. It's never used as a way to prevent good policy. As in, the constitution doesn't have to explicitly allow good policy, but it is the legal basis to challange bad policy.

this means that there has never been anything to stop the government from any of the things that they say would be possible under a yes vote.

Just because the constitution says "family is massed on marrige", doesn't actullay prevent a law stating that all "<insert different name for family>" are treated in a certain way. Or a law that provides supports to any parent or family member caring in the home, etc.

If the constitution is read as an "absolute minimum" or our rights, then why would we think that any dilution of the constitution will increase rights in law?

If the government wanted to give non-married couples more rights around tax law, they can without the ammendment - so why dont they?

Likewise, support for carrers who arent women...

on the balance of probability, I think that voting yes can only lead to less rights with less ability to challange bad policy.

Care referendum: a definite vote NO.

The changes could be much broader not just include family members as carers. They should have followed option 2 from the Citizen Assembly as supported by the law society in my opinion.

See below:

“The State recognises that home and family life gives to society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall endeavour to support persons caring for others within the home as may be determined by law.”

As opposed to the option which we were given to vote on-

The new A42B

“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.”

--

Family referendum: I am 60/40 towards NO.

The first part is the least worst of the two in my view. However, there should, could have been more definitive statements instead of "durable relationships".

The second part (the removal of marriage) as the foundation of the family. I have strong reservations about. As if there is no marriage as the glue/or it is diluted in importance. What is the point of getting married in the first place or having the institution at all?

Also if I did not have these reservations I find it odd that the family will still be described as "moral institution" under the amended A41.1.1 even if it is passed as the need for marriage "on which the family is founded" will be removed in A41.3.1.

It seems like a real contraction in terms to me? Surely the phrase "moral institution" should also be removed for the descriptor of the family, if marriage is no longer the foundation for it?

--

That's fine, and you're entitled to view it that way. I would view it differently. None of us current generation voted to limit marriage to a man and woman - it predates us and was of its time. But if we voted (in this imaginary scenario) to extend the right only to two men, then we the current generation would be actively choosing to exclude lesbians. That would be wrong as I see it, irrespective of any gains made for gay men. And would amount to a net negative. But of course such a proposal would have been unthinkable anyway - as I feel the care proposal is on careful consideration.

Also regarding your posts on going to the back of the queue regardless if you choose to accept for minor progress, or reject for status quo - how come that wasn't the case when Lisbon was on the table? A referendum can certainly be rerun when it suits.

Regardless, my own view is that the proposed amendment is a significant step backwards and ableist - not a minor step forward at all.

And for those saying this amendment doesn't prescribe family care as the only care or doesn't exclude other care (in response to concerns that it undermines the rights of those needing care to be supported to live independently):

If it's important to remove the "woman's duties in the home" line from the constitution so that the constitution doesn't idealise that view of woman (even if it has no practical impact right now), then it's just as important that the new proposal is not inserted so that care within the family isn't enshrined as the ideal model of care - even if it doesn't explicitly exclude other care.

I was firmly voting Yes Yes until last week

I have read through the twitter #VoteYesNo discussion extensively.

I will now be voting Yes to Family, No to Care

The care referendum was an opportunity to remove a sexist/misogynist view from our constitution that devalued women. Instead the proposed wording is ableist and ends up rolling back disabled persons rights. It will now be the only place where disabled people are mentioned in the constitution. It frames them only being the subject of care and not as rights holders. It strips their autonomy and independence.

It's now a very firm #VoteYesNo from me.