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

Just reminding people of what Martin has done to this country,his new incarnation over the recent years does not impress me and does not absolve him of the damage he did in the past,I will discount anything he says just the same as many will discount Steen because she is a member of the Iona group.

The care referendum takes the pressure off the state to support anyone "in the home". The could have worded this much better and without stoking the genuine issues that people have with it. It's not enough to say that the language is "sexist" and thats why it should be removed, if what it is being replaced with will potentially have worse practical implications.

Why are we looking at "adding to it in future"? Why not get it right this time? It's costing millions not to get it right and at this point if it doesn't go through not getting it right means it might be decades before it's reviewed again.

Half-a$$ed is the term I'd use.

I'm late to the party only trying to get into this today to be ready for Friday.

'Durable relationship'

'Strive'

I don't think use of either of these makes things clear enough.

I am looking for reasons to vote Yes mostly what I'm finding it 'because the main parties say so' or 'because X,Y,Z are saying No'

I only hear short clips of radio each day, unfortunately see bit more socal media and an leaning towards those carers who have spoken to say No. Those who have experience with the care system. Thankfully it is not something I have had to deal with so feel they are the best placed with views.

Family one ... Would not like to consider everyone who I had a durable relationship with as my family.

Think I must be missing out on something so will get reading now.

What pressure is on women at the moment to remain in the home and how exactly are the state endeavouring to ensure they stay there??

There's a large apetite for the government to actualy improve the real world outcomes for many sectors of society who currently struggle to get the best care care - there's countless examples of this not being done or being done inadequately. They'd be better off spending tens of millions on outcomes rather that fluffy constitutional amendments that wont have any actual positive outcomes from them and some questions around what "unintended" consequences might happen as a result of change.

I'd love to be able to take care of a family member if needed however back in the real world its not always possible for a plethora of reasons.

What is the constitutional basis for prioritising single mothers in the provision of social housing?

Could it be the article that is to be removed with a yes vote in the care referendum?

Would Fine Gael be happy to have less state responsibility regarding the provision of social housing?

Define that. Give us a time frame.

6 months? A year? 2 years?

What about a 1 night stand that results in a child being born, is that relationship durable because there is now a child in the mix?

It is so vague, and Michael Martin purposely avoided questions on defining a durable relationship on last night's Prime Time debate because nobody has a concrete answer. It's ridiculous.

This is our constitution, and people think it's OK to fill it with vague terms that are open to all sorts of interpretation.

But the point is its not defined, its based on a set of standards.

My 4 year relationship is more durable in my late 30s than my 10 year one in my 20s was. How? We own a home, planning a wedding, have a blended family.

If you cant tell the difference between a solid 2 yr relationship and a casual 4 yr one then thats on you but the courts will looks at whats making the 2 yr relationship differnet.

A one night stand isnt a relationship, one one can doubt that, but that parent and child are not right now considered a family.

Honest question what difference does it make to you that its defined or not thats not "its our constitution" cause do you understand every part of the constitution?

Michael Martin doesn't have to define it!

It's entirely for the courts to decide those matters. You or I won't ever need to decide what a durable relationship is.

Exactly and his unwillingness to elaborate isnt a lack of understanding on his behalf, its a lack of understanding on those looking for it.

Maybe you have 2 durable relationships. What's to stop that partner from your 20s coming back claing a durable relationship existed for you both.

What happens here with a Durable Relationship? He left his estate to his wife, but his girlfriend gets nothing.

Nothing his marriage would still be protected or did you not bother reading that part when looking into what the changes actually were.

Did the Citizen's Assembly preferred wording migrate verbatim to the current amendment proposal?

I have a feeling it didn't.