Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

And that's why I'm voting No.

Since we don't know what the eventual consequences will be.

If the wording specifically referred to say single parent families in addition to married couple families, it would be a lot clearer. But they've tried to be too smart and to pull the wool over the publics eyes.

Lots of people in Ireland follow this pattern because they are afraid to think for themselves. And even more afraid of what people might think of them.

In the past, we called them craw-thumpers and Holy Joes but that game has changed. The weakness is most debilitating among party members, even elected rerepresentatives, not a single one of whom has voiced opposition to these nonsense amendments affecting profound social issues.

Ah the good 'ol Irish attitude of, "sure if he's agin, it I'm for so!"

Apparently 'oppositional defiant disorder' isn't just a mental defect, it's a voting strategy for some. One sure to work out well, to be sure, to be sure...

I'm wondering... Currently non-married couples would have to pay capital gains tax on life insurance on the death of either partner. Does the 'Family Referendum' remove this?

The Government is claiming that the referendum won't have any effect on anything to do with inheritance etc. as thats governed by legislation but personally I don't see how putting married couples and durable relationships on an equal footing wouldn't make that legislation unconsitutional, happy to be corrected if that wouldn't happen but to me the O'Meara ruling shows how a constitutional ammendment can make previously legal legislation unconstitutional.

A parent-child relationship is the most durable of all. You can't divorce your kids.

You can't explain anything on a poster ffs

Really cannot wait vote on this.

Saw my first "No" poster on way the the shop with the "Love Both" slogan.

The lazy cheapskates couldnt be arsèd making a new poster so are recycling the successful "No" from the 8th amendment. Or they actually think this is another abortion debate.

Jesus, another one.

Everyone knows what the poster is. It's telling you to vote yes, and giving you no reason to...my god, can you not see the problem?

The Catholic Church and Extreme Right Wing parties like "The Irish People" are calling for a No No

Voting yes, so do the opposite

I've not yet seen any senior minister taking part on any tv or radio debate about the referendum.

It looks like they don't want to be tainted by it.

Interesting videos and clearly explained reasons for a No vote from someone with legal knowledge. Is it typical that a bill to change the Constitution would be presented and passed in just 7 days of Dail sessions - would something so major not need a longer time for debate and discussion?

I'm still undecided.

For example, this is from the Citizens Info and outlines some different rules for married families vs cohabiting families. I'm assuming that widowed and divorced single parents are covered under the married family category but families of single never-married parents are obviously not included.

If the family amendment is passed, and all family units will be recognised and have the same constitutional rights, would all these legal difference have to be changed?

If nothing will change in terms of legislation (according to RO'G) then what is the reason to change the constitution at all? So many people I've spoken to about this think that if this amendment passes, then all family units must be treated the same.

I was doing a bit of reading on it in the local newspaper.

The article below covers the "state of play" for all the political parties, and advocacy groups on the referendum

It pointed out that in 2021 the citizen's assembly recommended the following amendments to the constitution - A40 - A41 and A42.

.

But to be honest what the Citizen Assembly proposed seem more sensible than what we are currently asked to vote on.

The Citizen's Assembly stated the following in 2021:

Insert a new clause into Article 40 to refer explicitly to gender equality and non-discrimination.

Delete and replace the text of Article 41.2 (woman in the home) with language that is not gender specific and obliges the State to take reasonable measures to support care within the home and wider community.

Amend Article 41 so that it would protect private and family life, with the protection afforded to the family not limited to the marital family

--

The Law Society of Ireland has commented on the Citizen's Assembly recommendations on Family as well as care.

On the Family:

The Law Society gave the following recommendations -

- That Article 41.1 is expressly amended to ensure that the recognition of a particular family unit is not contingent on the narrow protection contained in Article 41.3.1 i.e. limited to married couples.

- The amendment should expressly recognise the broader concept of family life

recognised in international human rights law and should be understood to include a wide range of family relationships and situations where family members do not live in the same home.

- The amendment should guarantee all individuals respect for their family life, subject to an express statement of the circumstances in which State intervention is permissible, modelled on Article 8(2) of the ECHR.

- The amendment should recognise the right for all persons to marry in accordance with the law and found a family, in line with Article 9 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, rather than afford preferential status as is currently the case.

--

On care - there were two options given by the citizen assembly -

Option 1-

“The State recognises that care provided by the home, family and community gives society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”

"This suggested amendment provides for the recognition of care in a broad and inclusive way. It notes the valuable work which is done by thousands of carers in a gender neutral way and extends the definition of care to include those who provide care in the home, outside the home and in the community. This form of wording represents a strong symbolic commitment and covers the broadest possible subset of vulnerable carers (which include lone parents, people with disabilities and those providing unpaid care). "

The Law Society preferred option 2-

Proposed Wording of Textual Amendment Option 2: “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.”

--

Law Society Recommendations - That

“Proposed Wording of Textual Amendment Option One”, or similar variations of same, should not be adopted as it ultimately offers nothing by way of a binding legal protection to these groups of people. -

That “Proposed Wording of Textual Amendment Option 2”, or similar variations of same, should be considered on the basis that it provides a broad and inclusive recognition of carers and a strong textual basis for the justiciable rights of carers in appropriate circumstances.

--

After reading all of that I feel the option 2 on the care referendum would have being much more preferable as to the choice we are being given. As the referendum option seems way too narrow a definition of "care".

The Citizen Assembly/Law Society "option 2" (on care) is not tied members of the family providing care unlike the proposed referendum - which deletes Article 41.2.1° and Article 41.2.2° and inserts a new Article 42B -

The key words to me are"

"provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them"

--

What were they thinking making the definition so narrow?

Surely care is societal in nature and it should be defined as "home and family life" as in the proposed option 2 from the citizen assembly as chosen by the law society.

To keep it so narrow is just doing similar for carers as was done with the previous articles, assuming it is the job for family alone for care.

--

In my opinion the proposed article for the Family referendum (if people agree with the premise that marriage is not the foundation of the family) does not seem to have specific enough of a definition, the opposite problem to the care referendum.