Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Listen?

How very ableist of you.

The archive links are shìt, I’ll give you that one 😂

But the point being that regardless of the outcome of the referendums one way or another, nobody will still be any the wiser as it will still be left to the Courts to determine what laws do or do not apply in each and every case, same as already happens in cases where the parents aren’t married to each other. In cases where they are married, that just makes things much more clear cut, as opposed to the current situation where parents have to go through the Courts to have their rights, or the rights of their children vindicated.

I notice they all seem assume “durable relationships” have implications for adults. Can it also have implications for familial relationship such as children?

It's so potentially messy. Why they had to add the term "durable relationship" into Article 41.1 really needs explanation from the government. Just deleting the link to the family based on marriage in Article 41.3 would have been much more uncontroversial:

41.1.1 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.

41.3 1° 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.

Just give up and admit it - this whole scenario of durable relationships, what might be and what mightn't be - is a complete shitshow.

Why would you vote yes for something that has not been defined? As we will be relying on the courts to define what a durable relationship is, then as you stated it is a complete shitshow.

So we should stick it to disabled people because virtue signalling is more important than tangible facts?

"Vote Yes/Yes if you're not a far right lunatic" is pretty much the tone of these referenda, and the usual suspects are falling in line behind it. I've never agreed with much that Annasopra has said on this site but at least they're looking at the care referendum logically, maybe give it a go yourself.

Polling card arrived today - can anyone give any tangible reason to vote yes at all?

Who asked for this ?

Do they really think Ireland will vote Yes/Yes ?

Irish Mammies are like no others.. So it's 3 No/No votes from this household.

I don't necessarily think a parent and a child will automatically be classified as a family once the child is born. Let's say the mother decides to give the child up for adoption, are her and her child still a family then?

That's the problem with the addition of the term durable relationship. No one knows what it means and even FLAC recommended an addition to the wording to say a durable relationship includes the relationship between a parent and a child (not their exact words). As far as I know once a child has been given up for adoption the parents relinquish all family rights.

In this scenario, what's the definition of family? Ultimately, you are still going to be asking the Supreme Court to determine that.

Why? They have never had to define the family before. It just means unmarried couples can also be considered a family with or without children. In fact I can't remember which Judge said it - I think it was Hogan - but he said that the lack of the use of the words "wife" or "wives" in the women and mother Articles was deliberate so that it included unmarried women! It has just never been tested in the courts.

I did a bit of searching trying to find a definition of “durable relationship” in Irish case case law.

I found the following case Pervaiz v Minister for Justice and equality (HIgh Court 2019)

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – Non-Eu national challenging decision refusing his application to be treated as a permitted family member within the meaning of the EC (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015 on foot of his relationship with a EU citizen - Minister not satisfied that it was a durable relationship duly attested - durable relationship not defined

What is a “durable relationship”?

‘The phrase is not defined in the Citizens’ Rights Directive, most likely so as to allow the various member states to proceed by reference to concepts of relationships/durability that suit their respective mores and traditions.

‘Nor is the phrase defined in the 2015 Regulations (the domestic legislation that seeks to transpose the Citizens’ Rights Directive). Nor has it separately been expounded upon, e.g -in departmental guidance.

‘Even so, the court does not accept that the phrase cannot be defined or amplified upon. By declining, when transposing the Directive, to define in law or separately to state as a matter of policywhat is, or what the Minister generally considers to be, subject to the application of discretion in any one case, a “durable relationship”, the Minister has allowed a situation to arise in which no-one (applicants, officials or indeed the court) quite knows what a “durable relationship” is.

‘It has emerged in these proceedings that a “durable relationship”, as conceived by the Minister, inter alia,involves a ‘sort of’ two-year benchmark (certainly that benchmark is mentioned, inter alia, in the Impugned Decision and in the application documentation); however a lower timeframe, it has been averred for the Minister in these proceedings, can be applied if that is considered to be merited.”

—

Summary - Basically the court stated legislation was required for the definition of “Durable relationship” and the justice minister should have done a better job giving guidance.

—

But I also found an article back in January where Justice Baker stated a “durable relationship” could be defined by a couple getting a Christmas Card as an example.

—

Seems like it really depends who gets to interpret it first. And sales of Christmas Cards are going to increase if yes? 😝

That is a deeply inaccurate misrepresentation of the facts, well done.

It absolutely does though.

You even said it yourself above that care applies to disabled people.

Independent Living Movement Ireland had agreed to support a Yes vote in the care referendum and have reversed that.

There are ZERO disabled persons organisations in the country supporting a Yes vote in the care referendum.

FLAC made a good statement on it.

Michael McDowell has mustered a handful of lawyers against the amendments. I thought far more would rally to the Senior Council, Senator and former AG whose criticisms of the amendments have proved unanswerable.

Where are the battalions of lawyers who were so visible for Yes in recent campaigns? Seems they haveN’t the stomach for inserting BS into Bunreacht na hÉireann but they are not willing to bite the hand that feeds them by challenging the political establishment on which so much of their business depends.

Emer McLysaght knows the amendments are BS but the prospect of siding with the Catholic Chirch is too much so she’s a Yeah,No.

Emer McLysaght: The Government has made a dog’s dinner of the whole referendum thing, no?

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-style/people/2024/03/01/ive-finally-moved-my-vote-up-to-dublin-just-in-time-for-a-dogs-dinner-of-a-referendum/

Lawyers group urge No vote in family and care referendums

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2024/02/29/lawyers-group-urge-no-vote-in-family-and-care-referendums/