Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

I don't want to associate myself with any group or demographic that might also be advocating for the position I personally am taking and I don't believe it appropriate or fair that you assign all people who chose to vote no the position of racists, anti imigration or indeed selfish.

Who is losing out at the moment that won't lose out from a tax perspective if this vote were to pass or indeed from any perspective?

Like many people these days, I know several families that are not founded on marriage and I dont think any of them feel they are not a family. They might be more determined to vote yes if the change meant parity with married families in areas like tax rules and inheritance but RoG said that will not happen.

I think the key to the narrative was/is the lowering of the status of the marriage "on which the family is founded"

So if you take marriage of the "pedestal" = then the theory is "diverse families" (non married etc) are not "excluded" symbolically.

--

But then the irony is not lost on me in the marriage referendum (same sex) there was untold joy about being able to marry.

Yet, now we have a scenario where the status of marriage as the "foundation" of the family is removed while "durable relationships" are implied as an alternative.

It all seems very confusing even from a philosophical societal viewpoint. And it does make me think, was the marriage referendum a waste of time?

Since now "durable relationships" would be placed in the constitution and the protection of marriage as the foundation is being removed.

Proposed to change Article 41.3.1° by deleting text shown with line through it:

“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.”

Regina 9 genders Doherty and the lies.

Your grasp of constitutional interpretation rivals Roderick’s but it is wonderful to see those who object to recognising only the family based on marriage have come around to arguing that “durable relationships” must resemble marriage.🤣

And how would you deal with this test case? Why should this woman’s “durable familial relationship” with her father prejudice her claim for social welfare?

Vote Yes and the State must “strive to support” the care she provides for her poor ageing Godfather.😡

Did Roderic study constitutional law?

I wouldn't look at that as constitutional issue based on the family as the main point of law. There are much more obvious issues, even before you get into the familial relationship question IMO.

I would view that as question did Gilligan's daughter benefit from the proceeds of her father's criminal activities to such an extent that it would preclude her from social welfare? Irregardless of their familial relationship?

As was pointed out way back in 2000 -

But it certainly is an interesting case.

Ivana Bacik debating earlier admitted the wording isn't perfect but said people should vote Yes anyway.

My view is it is on it they infer intimate relationship between two adults. The defacto heads of the family.

A non-sexual relationship would one founded on what two random people that met in a pub with no sexual interest, would not be a "family" in my eyes. That would be a club.

I looked at the electoral commission website again to see if there is any clarity.

Under the "effect of a YES vote":

"The Family founded on other durable relationships means a Family based on different types of committed and continuing relationships other than marriage."

--

But most notably to me under the same part the electoral commission (effect of a YES) states that:

"The Family founded on marriage means the unit based on a marriage between two people without distinction as to their sex."

There is no mention of a sexual relationship there but we all know for a marriage to be a valid one it has to be consummated.

A decree of nullity may be granted in respect of a voidable marriage if either party was unable to consummate the marriage or if either party was unable to enter and sustain a normal marital relationship.

--

Where the fun and games will start is the following statement of the electoral commission:

-- " So, different types of family units would have the same constitutional rights and protections."

That basically means to me lots of legislation and court cases from those within "durable relationships" to see how much rights they are entitled compared to the Married Couple.

I was having look at "durable relationship" as per EU law

I found this article -

Durable Relationship and Family Members “by Analogy” in the European Union - Tanel Feldman & Marco Mazzeschi - Review of European Studies; Vol. 10, No. 4; 2018

From the abstract of that paper:

"Rights of residence derived from a durable relationship with an EU citizen, are left to a relatively wide discretion of the Member States. Pursuant to Article 2.2 (b) Directive 2004/38/EC (“Directive”), “the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a Member State, if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State” qualifies as family member. Provided that they have a durable relationship (duly attested) with an EU citizen, pursuant to Article 3.2(b), unregistered partners are as well beneficiaries of the Directive.

The durable relationship was expressly excluded from the scope of Article 2(2)(b): “Unlike the amended proposal, it does not cover de facto durable relationships” (EU Commission, Document 52003SC1293).

Article 3 (2)(a) covers “other family members” (no restrictions as to the degree of relatedness) if material support is provided by the EU citizen or by his partner or where serious health grounds strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen. Pursuant to Article 3.2, “other family members” and unregistered partners can attest a durable relationship, must be facilitated entry and residence, in accordance to the host Member State‟s national legislation. In the light of Preamble 6 Directive, the situation of the persons who are not included in the definition of family members, must be considered “in order to maintain the unity of the family in a broader sense”

"The questions discussed in this paper are the following: (i) are Member States genuinely considering the concept of durable relationship in view of maintaining the unity of the family in a broader sense? and (ii) how to overcome legal uncertainty and which criteria, both at EU and at international level, can be taken into account in order to assess whether a durable relationship is genuine and should be granted the rights set forth by the Directive?"

--

The conclusion of the published article above stated:

"All Member States undertake an extensive examination of the personal circumstances and justify any denial of entry or residence to unmarried partners. Most of the Member States attach little importance to the maintenance of the unity of the family in a broader sense"

--

So interesting times ahead if this amendment to the Constitution passes for sure.

Sorry should have said disability rights organisations not care organisations. Been dragged down the rabbit hole again! I just googled some but I'm sure there are others:

While googling I also noted that Justice for Magdalenes and the Trinity Students Union are also calling for a No vote.

And of course the long term disability rights campaigner Tom Clonan:

https://twitter.com/TomClonan/status/1764347736420217171

Do you not realise that if this passes, there could be many unintended consequences for ordinary families in family law court cases. It's far too vague a term and I think it is reckless to expose families to unknown complications. Someone opined above that men with mistresses would be rushing to vote No. Maybe but in truth it'll be their married spouses who'll be queuing up to vote No first, to try and limit the dissipation of family resources among other or multiple durable relationships.

The Government decides to bribe the voters to get a Yes,Yes.

For over 80 years, the Government has simply ignored the State's obligation to "endeavour to support" mothers in the home. But the Minister for Social Protection promises that she will open the State's chequebook if we vote to make this obligation gender-neutral.

This is an egregious breach of the principles underlying the McKenna Judgement which held that spending public funds to promote a Yes vote is a breach of the democratic process and of the constitutional process for the amendment of the Constitution. In McKenna, the State had spent money on a publicity campaign. How much worse if the State offers money directly to the voters for Yes!

I agree with the principles of the referendum question, but will be voting no because the implementation has been drafted in such a way that rights are been withdrawn and no new rights are been offered as substitutes.

The government seems to have been caught out be the peoples council asking for more protections - said they had to do something but attempted to withdraw rights on the sly. Very dishonest of them.

Its a shame that I seem to be on the side of the bigots on this one.

I never got any bribe- I want my bribe please!!!! 🤪