Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Get in touch with them and ask.

I was firmly voting Yes Yes until last week

I have read through the twitter #VoteYesNo discussion extensively.

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.

Marriage Equality and Repeal were about expanding human rights. Family referendum is about expanding human rights. Care referendum rolls back disabled people's human rights.

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

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

If the No vote wins on the Care Amendment, only one headline will be seen in the international newspapers: "Ireland Votes To Keep Women In The Home". There won't be any nuance to be found. This in turn will provide a massive boost to the far-right with their perceived victory in the referendum.

It'll be like the Brexit referendum. Plenty of left wing people had grievances with the EU but chose to vote Remain because the Leave vote was pushed by racists. Now, 7 years later, we have Tories openly declaring that Islam has taken over the UK - sounds like something the BNP would have been condemned for 20 years ago!

And to think our women almost escaped from the kitchen, nice try ladies, they'll be looking for a vote next.

*being

No I wouldn't lol. That's an entirely different amendment

No one knows what effects the amendment on the family would have until the Supreme Court considers a relevant case. Anyone who claims otherwise - whether for Yes or No - is a fool or a liar. Astonishingly, the Government have dodged the entire issue, saying such matters can be dealt with by legislation. But, as everyone in Government must know, any legislation will be null and void if the Supreme Court finds that it offends the Court's interpretation of the Constitution (as amended).

The O'Meara judgement should have stopped this whole process in its tracks because it rejected the Government's understanding of the rights of unmarried families under our existing Constitution. The Court relied mainly on the equality clause of the Constitution (which has been unamended since 1938) in holding that the pension rules discriminated improperly against unmarried families which fulfilled the same social function as families based on marriage.

Should we give widow/ers' pensions to unmarried people? Who should we exempt from Capital Gains Tax? Whose interests should override the last will and testament of the deceased?

These are quintessentially political questions reflecting the society which we could choose democratically but, instead, we are being asked to hand these matters, and many more, to a group of Government-appointed Judges who must try to give meaning to a bunch of deliberately ambiguous words which we could introduce into the Constitution next week for purely symbolic reasons.

Read Roderick's brush-off to Holly Cairns queries about the legal implications of the family amendment. I can't think of any Government which pressed a proposal with such reckless disregard for the legal consequences.

No, there is no comparison with the Murphy case which, like the O'Meara case and many others, deemed long-standing legislation to be unconstitutional. Married couples rightly believed that they were being treated unfairly by the 1967 Tax Act but no one accused the Government of being irresponsible, incompetent or reckless. The Act was operated by successive governments and no AG ever advised that it was unconstitutional until the Murphy case caused a revolution in our Income Tax laws. Similar judicial shocks are experienced in many jurisdictions, notably the United States, without raising questions about the credibility or reliabilty of the Government.

In damning contrast, our Government is now urging us to introduce highly ambiguous language into the Constitution which will have imponderable, but potentially sweeping, effects on society in regard to the rights of families. Astonishingly, the Yes, Yes side do not claim that any direct benefits will flow from either of these amendments, least of all for the carers who are being fobbed of with an amendment which is gender-neutral but carefully crafted to avoid giving any grounds for effective legal action.

The Supreme Court yesterday gave TUSLA a judicial spanking for failing to meet its existing legal obligations to care for two vulnerable teenagers. TUSLA says it can't find the staff needed at the current rates of pay. In what world would the Government ask the People to impose additional Constitutional obligations on the State in regard to care?

Oh I agree - care is for everyone but this referendum enshrines care as only a family matter and not something the state should be concerned about. People with disabilities often want to be autonomous and independent. This referendum ironically strips away their rights to independence and autonomy.

This wording ignored all advice.

Agree totally and why it's safest to vote No.

What I find extraordinary among those campaigning for these to pass, is that they are prepared to be so reckless. In other circumstances, they'd be a lot more careful.

The ambiguous 'other durable relationships' in the family amendment is what's troubling most people I know. The more I read on this, the less clear it becomes. I was leaning towards a yes vote but since ROG said there will be no change to current laws that favour married families over cohabiting or single parent families, eg inheritance, tax etc. I'm not so sure. If these laws will not change, why is the amendment needed at all?

Nobody seems to know what durable refers to - is it how long a relationship lasts, if there are children, is it blood ties, an intimate relationship, shared parenting, co-living etc. Someone I met at the weekend jokingly wondered if the descriptor includes groups of un-related people who are co-living for possibly decades (religious, people with disabilities, children in care, old age).

Is the family amendment just so ROG can be seen to tick the box for 'diversity equality & inclusion' and the legal consequences can be sorted by all the other departments that this could impact like social protection, housing, justice, finance and others? The bill was hardly discussed or debated by our public representatives in the Dail before being rushed through in time for a vote on International Womens Day 😏😏

Absolutely. The doubt is that defining a durable relationship as that beween a parent and child throws up a few dilemmas. One possible issue:

Article 40.1 All persons are equal before the law. In order to comply, the definition of "durable" for all relationships would have to have no regard for the length of time the relationship was in existence for (as it would be instantaneous at birth).

It wasn't until the mid 1960's that married women were given the Constitutional right to automatic equal guardianship of their children. Unmarried mothers always had the sole right to guardianship and fought to keep that right so that the fathers of children who were born out of, for example, rape would not have any automatic right to guardianship.

If the Constitution changes so that the family is now defined by either marriage or a durable relationship what is stopping a man taking a case to the courts stating he has been denied his Constitutional right to develop a durable relationship with his child if the mother doesn't want it?

That is an extreme example but, as everyone knows, you do not put a baby in a bath without testing how hot the water is. The public have been denied any access to the deliberations between the various government departments regarding the possible consequences of the wording change so all possible outcomes are open to query.

A double whammy for Irish women. Remove all references to mothers from the constitution on Friday followed two days later by Mothers Day on Sunday!

If the Constitution changes so that the family is now defined by either marriage or a durable relationship what is stopping a man taking a case to the courts stating he has been denied his Constitutional right to develop a durable relationship with his child if the mother doesn't want it?

That is an extreme example but…

It’s an extreme example, and there was nothing stopping a man from taking a case to the courts stating he has been denied his Constitutional right to develop a durable relationship with his child then either when the mothers didn’t want it. The Courts didn’t quite see it in those terms, any more than they’d be any less likely to see it in different terms today - the best interests of the child taking precedence over the rights of the parents or people involved -

https://archive.ph/lesb1

There have been legislative changes made regarding custodial, guardianship, parental rights and the rights of the child in the interim since that case was heard, but there was never anything to stop anyone pursuing a legal case, nor would there be anything to stop them from doing so regardless of any outcomes of the referendums.

It’s one of the glaringly obvious faults with the whole idea of permitting the Courts to determine whether the circumstances before them constitute a family and should therefore be protected by legislation relating to the Family, whereas there’s no wiggle room in terms of what laws apply in cases where a couple are, or were at some point, married, and the protection which extends to the children of the marriage.