Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

I can't think of a situation where it would have came up in case law. The term durable relationship is EU law only refers to situations where an EU citizen wnats their non-EU partner to come live with them.

All legislation does have to be compatible with the constitution, doesn't mean it is though.

I'm sorry but I don't get what you mean there.

Also, leaving it to legislation means that the government of the day can do whatever they want. That provides no Constitutional protection for anyone.

But that is exactly what is happening with this proposed amendment. The government have already said that it will be up to the courts to define.

No one on the No side can explain why a mother and her 5 year child who have been living together sinc birth isn't an example of a durable relationship either. Can you?

No I can't because the government have not defined what a durable relationship is in regards to the proposed amendment. Can you explain when a durable relationship starts? I would say it is instantaneous if it is to include a parent/child relationship.

An extreme example but let's say that same mother had been living first with a partner for two years, split up and both lived with a different partner for another two years, split up and both are now living with a new different partner then are they all durable relationships? Does that child have three possible families? There is no defined time limit and I'm sure each relationship was entered into with the intention that it would be "durable".

I haven't seen anyone claim it will have a legal effect. However, it will provide Constitutional protection for them.

Of course it will have a legal effective as all family legislation at present is based on marriage. No one on the Yes side can explain what Constitutional protection it will provide. Can you?

It's up to the Supreme Court to determine if something is compatible with the Constitution, not the government. Just because the government bring in legislation does not mean it is compatible with the constitution.

No it isn't. The Courts are not the Government.

I don't think there should be a specific start point. I believe it should be judged on a case by case basis by the courts, like they do with many family issues that go before the courts currently. For example, a father has an 15 year old daughter but he has never met her. You would consider that father and daughter as a family? I wouldn't, personally.

I don't think many people would consider something that broke or doesn't exist after two years as being durable tbh. But I would be genuinely fascistned to hear how you would argue they are a durable relationship in front of the Supreme Court. Or would you say something along the line so "There's no definition of durable relationship, so no one can say they aren't durable relationships."?

Explain then, what legal effect will it for a single parent and their child? It will provide the constitutionional protection for them to be viewed as a family, like people who are married are.

It's up to the Supreme Court to determine if something is compatible with the Constitution, not the government. Just because the government bring in legislation does not mean it is compatible with the constitution.

Yes that's correct. But the legislation is checked for it's compatibility and can be referred to the Supreme Court by the President or, if it manages to get through, by a citizen bringing a challenge to the Supreme Court. I suspect we are saying the same thing here.

No it isn't. The Courts are not the Government

Again you have me confused. When asked by several TD's in the Dail during the discussion O'Gorman said that it will be up to the courts to define. I'll have a look for a link and post it.

I don't think there should be a specific start point. I believe it should be judged on a case by case basis by the courts, like they do with many family issues that go before the courts currently. For example, a father has an 15 year old daughter but he has never met her. You would consider that father and daughter as a family? I wouldn't, personally.

Are you saying that a durable relationship will not be equal to a marriage under the Constitution? As it stands at the moment as soon as a couple sign the marriage register they are a family. Once a Constitutional Family is no longer defined as being solely founded on marriage but also on durable relationships they have to have equal status therefore a durable relationship has to have a similar start point.

For example, a father has an 15 year old daughter but he has never met her. You would consider that father and daughter as a family? I wouldn't, personally.

I also wouldn't but if he was married to her mother when she was born he is her automatic legal guardian and she has all the family rights such as succession, inheritance etc as if she had seen him every day. If they were unmarried and the parents relationship was very short (as far as I know) he would have no guardianship rights and she would have no family rights.

I don't think many people would consider something that broke or doesn't exist after two years as being durable tbh.

I agree most people woudn't but you could say the same about 6 months, two and a half years, three years etc. It has not been defined.

But I would be genuinely fascistned to hear how you would argue they are a durable relationship in front of the Supreme Court. Or would you say something along the line so "There's no definition of durable relationship, so no one can say they aren't durable relationships."?

I wouldn't in a million years attempt to argue anything in either support of or defence of the definition of a durable relationship because I think it's ridiculous terminology and does not belong in the Constitution.

Explain then, what legal effect will it for a single parent and their child? It will provide the constitutionional protection for them to be viewed as a family, like people who are married are.

I have no idea! That is why I am asking for someone who supports the wording to explain it. What do you mean by "to be viewed as a family"? I certainly can't tell by looking at a family whether the parents are married or not. If you mean to be viewed in law as a family then can you explain what will change if the amendment passes?

The courts will determine the definition of durable relationship. In your proposal the government would have defined it. So there would be nothing stopping the government, either a current or any future one, saying family is only based on marraige.

In what sense do you mean equal to a marraige? For example a durable relationship between a mother and daughter is not going to be considered a marraige. Recently the Supreme Court said an unmarried couple were basically the same as a married couple so that will be the case going forward when it comes to the windows pension.

When you say "she" I assume you mean the child? AFAIK, a child will always be legally entitled to inheritance even if there was no relationship between her snd he father and the child's mother and father never married.

But you are also implying that those durable relationships are permenant even when they are finizhed. How is that possible? Surely that must null and void the whole "durable aspect".

I cant see you getting very far with that argument.

You know it will have an effect but you have no idea what that is going to be? Come on, that doesn't make a huge amount of sense. Also, what exactly is "family legilsation"? I've already said nothing will change as things currently stand for a single parent and their child, it is a symbol referendum in that regard. But it will provide that single parent and children recognisition in the Constitution going forward, which would reduce any governments ability to erode their rights.

When you think about it that is the thing about marriage you are either married or you are not. It is definitive and finite. Much easier to define in law.

If this "durable relationships" phrase is passed the legislators will be worn out, anything that has marriage in it will have questions from those who want "durable relationships" given some form of parity.

--

I am just laughing at the scenes if men started asking women for "durable relationships" instead of marriage they would want to get ready to duck. It would save on the ring though.

Another example that nobody seems to have a clue what they're talking about, apparently now durable relationships won't be akin to marriage and also Varadkar seems to be implying that it should be based on the 2010 legislation about cohabitation when the way the courts have interpreted durable relationships in the EU context doesn't have any kind of duration at all. I don't care how many meetings they had on this wording, the only ones that count are the ones they had in public especially because they refused under FOI to release details of those meetings. Its a mess

"“There’s no perfect language and we spent years and endless meetings trying to figure out what the best wording is,” Mr Varadkar said on Virgin Media’s The Six O’Clock Show.

“So the relationship that exists between a child and their mother or father when they’re born, that’s the one-parent family – that’s pretty immediate, it’s committed, it’s caring, it’s long lasting.

“For people who are co-habiting it’s a bit more complicated, but we’ve actually set that out in a law back in 2010 already, and that says that somebody is co-habiting if they’re together for more than five years, or two years if there’s a child involved.

“But what (the wording) doesn’t say is that durable relationships are the same as marriage. Marriage will still have a special value or special protection, but you can have a family that’s based on durable relationships.

“Now, that doesn’t mean that every durable relationship is a family… it’s not just a durable relationship on its own. It still has to be a social unit and operate on that basis.”"

Maybe because he is right.

By putting Maria Steen front and centre the IT knows it will encourage less people to vote no. This was intentional, because if they had used Michael McNamara instead they know less people would vote yes.,

..

—-

deleted

—/

Why would anyone who is married vote for removing their Constitutional protection? Whats the benefit?

There are already divisions before of the Constitutions wording. Single parents and their kids aren't a family, unmarried parents aren't a family wheres people who are married are a family. That's hardly an inclusive situation.

The courts will determine the definition of durable relationship. In your proposal the government would have defined it. So there would be nothing stopping the government, either a current or any future one, saying family is only based on marraige.

Exactly it is being left to the courts to define. In my proposal the term "durable relationship" would not exist.

In what sense do you mean equal to a marraige? For example a durable relationship between a mother and daughter is not going to be considered a marraige. Recently the Supreme Court said an unmarried couple were basically the same as a married couple so that will be the case going forward when it comes to the windows pension.

Equal in law e.g. tax allowances, PRSI benefit sharing etc. The O'Meara widowers challenge you refer to is a perfect example of the sharing of accrued PRSI payments. The case was won on the children's rights to equal treatment despite their parents not being married....another reason for the non necessity of inserting the undefinable durable relationship phrase into the Constitution.

When you say "she" I assume you mean the child? AFAIK, a child will always be legally entitled to inheritance even if there was no relationship between her snd he father and the child's mother and father never married

Oh OK. I assumed it was only if the unmarried father was either on the birth cert or had signed a statutory declaration that he was the father.

But you are also implying that those durable relationships are permenant even when they are finizhed. How is that possible? Surely that must null and void the whole "durable aspect".

Who knows? As I keep saying, there is no definition of what constitutes a durable relationship so a time scale can only be guessed at.

I cant see you getting very far with that argument.

Indeed! Which is why I said I wouldn't attempt to support or defend it.

You know it will have an effect but you have no idea what that is going to be? Come on, that doesn't make a huge amount of sense.

Nobody knows what effect it is going to have - that's the problem.

Also, what exactly is "family legilsation"?

Law relating to the family e.g. divorce, maintenance, child care responsibilities etc.

I've already said nothing will change as things currently stand for a single parent and their child, it is a symbol referendum in that regard. But it will provide that single parent and children recognisition in the Constitution going forward, which would reduce any governments ability to erode their rights.

What rights do you foresee potentially being eroded?

Some good clarity on durable relationships here

All the serious issues that are currently going on in this country and the government have us voting on this crap. A clown show.

The most pointless and unnecessary referendum of all time, will be 'no no' from me simply as a protest.