March 8th - What’s your vote? **Mod Note In Post #677**

In fairness that's a fairly childish reason for voting for anything.

Judge Marie Baker is on with Pat Kenny at the moment.

Doing an excellent job at dispelling the nonsense and answering all the questions around what a durable relationship is and how a Yes vote won’t open the door to men bringing in multiple wives.

Well worth a listen back for those who are governed by fear and voting No as a result.

The family amendment will include this:

So it states that there is guarding for marriage as an institution. How does this mean that a mistress can make a claim against her lover's estate?

Regarding the care amendment - currently there is nothing in the constitution about carers and the disabled. Currently there is nothing forcing the government to do anything extra, but there is also nothing preventing them from doing less. Adding the new clause will, in my view, do literally nothing to the benefit of disabled people or carers. It will also not, in my view, do anything to the detriment of disabled people or carers. But it will remove outdated language about women in the home, so that's a plus.

Note - just to be clear: My son has an intellectual disability and his mother is a carer, so we're well versed in what the state does and doesn't do.

Because it only matters what the judges think.

Why does it matter to people who will never have to decide on whether something is a durable relationship or not?

Certain peoples views are guaranteed to trigger some voters to vote the opposite way- - not an accidental invite. .

Maria Steen and Iona should not be advocates in TV debates.

Agreed. Just because something isn't right doesn't mean you fix it with garbage. Hopefully this will be voted no on both counts, and sent back to the drawing board.

Imagine a scenario in work or at home where you identify something that needs to be fixed, and say ah we'll just go with this effort which isn't great but sure it'll do. Why not fix it properly?

After giving the proposed changes careful consideration I have decided on No to both amendments.The wording is vague and and the unintended consequences of the new wording could swamp the courts for years, the real beneficiaries of these changes would be the legal profession and other vested interest groups.

The government needs to tackle the pressing issues like housing,health,transport, tourism,and the immigration mess we currently have.

Martin was a teacher for less than a year,a more accurate description for Micheal should be failed health minister and a cabinet member of a government that bankrupted the country, not to mention his abysmal handling of the Lisbon Treaty.

Its amazing that the people who are voting no because 'it doesn't change anything' and 'is a waste of time' are on the same side as the people who are voting no because it leaves the door open for someone's illegitimate mistress to come in and destroy families...

It's the Schrodinger's amendment, both destroys families, and has zero effect both at the same time.

There is perfect clarity on the changes to the constitution, everyone got the exact text of the changes sent to their houses from an independent body

If you think there's a 'hidden agenda' here, then could that possibly be? What is the Citizen Assembly trying to sneak in through the back door as part of some kind of deeper agenda?

And how could that possibly work?