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

This whole last minute guilt trip about kids waking up Saturday morning upset if it’s a no.

Basically telling us if we use our democratic vote not in the way the government likes we are all wrong and bad people.

Leo and co, what have you become.

Can't you read? Don't make me tap the sign again.

I said in my post that I spent a few hours researching it yesterday. I can't concisely put it into words as to why I voted no; it was a bit of everything from articles, debates, online commentary, etc etc. I just consistently found myself unconvinced by the Yes side.

For the first amendment, for me it ultimately boils down to the fact that 'durable relationship' means absolutely nothing and we have no guidance from anyone as to what the scope of it may be. I get that we don't want hard definitions in the Constitution and that's fine, but there should have been far more supplementary information at least on what even the intention of the term is. Right now I'm being asked to add a very loaded term to the Constitution with zero information as to the scope of it.

Secondly, if the amendment around mothers' duties was simply to take the sexist terminology out of it then it should have just changed that to 'a parent' or some other gender neutral terminology. Instead they've specifically changed it to the provision of care which again is very loaded, and replaced ensure with support. It doesn't go far enough for me and with the various care and disability groups out there advocating for no it just cements that decision.

Exactly, and it's no coincidence in the timing of the change of referendum. They fear a legal precedent.

There's far too many well meaning voters out there who are asleep at the wheel. They're bad fcuking actors this govt.

How did you not anything on the term durable relationship? There has been lots of information about it. Here's one from the Chair of the Electoral Commission...

Who has come out with that shite? If No is carried then nothing changes obviously.

Anyway, I've cast my no-no vote. As I have said previously, easiest No ever.

That's still not a well worded definition, it's far too subjective. I know they're just two off the cuff examples she gave and not to be taken literally as definition but that's simply her opinion and provides no scope. If we have examples from previous high court cases why not use them to illustrate the point? The answer is that they didn't want to because it's too vague. You can't leave it up to the regular voter to go hunting down legal decisions, put it in front of them.

What I would have liked to have seen was a document or something that said when you are being asked to vote, a durable relationship can be considered as... and then a list of potential things that could be characteristic of a durable relationship. In the absence of that certainty I had to vote no.

Helen said it on the debate Wednesday night as her closing punchline

I voted Yes Yes. Up here it's only Aontú campaigning so even if I hadn't already made up my mind that certainly wouldn't change it. Two factors have impacted votes towards No, I was shown a video claiming that divorcing women who worked in the home would have no rights over the family home. Clearly scaremongering but my reply was "who would legislate for that, even if it was possible through a loophole? The other is the muddying of the waters around the care referendum. I was a (male) carer for my parents before their deaths, and afaic the wording is an improvement.

Leo and Helen I’ve heard.

This is the world we live in now.

Decisions are made based on the messenger rather than the message, and polarisation of debate has led to a nonsense situation where many seem to think that just because someone is for or against a particular issue, that they must be on the same "side" for all other issues, related or not.

It's incredibly dangerous for debate and democracy in general - once again an example of importing America's divisive culture politics and Republican/Democrat divide.

I’m confused about that case- essentially the argument is not about the carers allowance but rather that carers allowance should not be means tested? As an extension of that, if the wording of the constitution remains as is, mothers should be able to claim an allowance for the work they do at home regardless of the means that are already coming into the home?

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the case but I cannot see how that could possibly be won.

Aontú are the result of Peadar Toibín splitting from Sinn Fein over the referendum to repeal the 8th so yeah they would be economically left and agree with a lot of what the leftist parties would sing about from that point of view while at the same time being quite conservative in other matters

It's funny, if you look at the thread on this on reddit Ireland, the majority are all yes/yes or at least yes/no, with the posters there generally being younger and more liberal compared to boards. Goes to show that the few remaining posters here are all male and conservative, so I'm not sure this thread is a good indication of the result, but I still wouldn't be surprised if No/No is the outcome, it will be very close I think.