Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

I just read the advice from the Attorney General. Unless I'm misreading he seems to say that grandparents etc are not intended to be included in the definition of durable relationships. On page 7:

"It is important to note that the role of the State where other relationships are concerned vis a vis caring for children, for example, grandparents, non parent guardians, step parents or blended families raise separate issues and a myriad of potential legal relationships. THE POLICY OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN NOT TO INCLUDE THOSE RELATIONSHIPS (my caps) in the amendment to Article 41.1.1 as benefiting from the Constitutional Protection given to the family. This is because the potentially varied permutations and competing rights that may present are more amenable to clarification by the comprehensive statutory regime in the Family and Children Relationship Act 2015 and the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964, as amended."

In other words the government were advised that legislation is already available for amendment to cater for the above relationships and there was no need for a Constitutional amendment. I think all Ministers told us this was the main need for the amendment. He then went on to warn:

"To avoid relationships which are clearly intended to be outside the intended effect of this amendment being discussed as falling within it in the course of the referendum campaign, it is of the utmost importance to clearly and consistently articulate what is intended to be included...."

Despite constant calls for clarification on the meaning of durable relationships none was forthcoming from any government Minister. We were told it was all about being more caring and inclusive. Reading the Attorney General's advice it seems it's intended purpose is much greater than that:

It is likely that issues relating to the application of Article 41 to non-marital families will be more heavily litigated than at present, for example it is foreseeable that the provision will be relied upon in the context of immigration and surrogacy.

Whilst denying it was anything to do with immigration, I don't recall one Minister saying that it would be used in litigation regarding surrogacy despite both issues being highlighted in the advice received from the Attorney General.

If there is a Yes result on either amendment there will have to be an inquiry before the Constitution is amended. I don't want to say we were lied to but the electorate were definitely mislead by the government.

The link to the Attorney General's advice can be found in this article by the Ditch

https://www.ontheditch.com/attorney-general-advice-in-full/

I think we can still cast a vote on it.

How did the Government turn a slam-dunk (get rid of sexist language) into a confusing and divisive set of amendments?

If this turns out as a No,No, our politicians will not just have “snatched defeat from the jaws of victory” like so many other deluded politicians, they will have achieved something which I believe is without parallel in the history of democracy: they will have handed victory to a small group of campaigners with whom the vast majority of Irish people wants nothing to do.

Let that sink in!

My problem is that it's a two part question for both. Do you want to remove this AND put this in. What if I want to remove what's but not add what's being added? For Marriage Equality and Reproductive Rights, it was a clear yes or no - do you want to make this legal or not. Same with divorce, blasphemy, presidential age, abolition of the Seanad, etc

Voted no no. My vote rural brisk wife's vote urban nearly empty galway

Voted NO NO and drew a swastika on both ballots. Job done

Read my post again - it says the exact opposite.

NO/NO campaigners represent very few No/No voters but the politicians may have contrived to hand them a victory.

Just back from polling, seemed like decent numbers coming and going. Dry weather helps, lots of people walking to the polling station too.

One thing I picked up on though, and whether intention or not, the women who handed me the card, seemed to gesture to the yes box as she gave it to me and was explaining what and where I needed to go. Bad form if that's what she actually was at.

Are the schools open today?

Usually the voting is in one of the big rooms or the lunchroom but today we were in a tiny little box room. A big queue out the door and its feckin baltic out! Asked is this the line for box 1 or 2, guy infront of me said its all the same but then as we got closer people were being sent over to another room.

Queing again to use the booth thing but was in and out bout 15minutes. Heard the staff saying turn out is very low. North East Galway

Anyone got the wording advocated by Citizen's Assembly?

You've invalidated your vote by drawing swastika..that'll be counted as spoiled vote now.

They saw you coming....

The woman with Leo is a Barrister and Senator. She should know better.

https://citizensassembly.ie/recommendations-of-the-citizens-assembly-on-gender-equality/

Here are the recommendations on The Constitution

The AG disliked the "gender equality" recommendation because it could create confusion about the existing equality provision (the one the Supreme Court used last month to grant a widower's pension to an unmarried father).

The Government, the AG (and the judges) hated the recommendation to "oblige the State to take reasonable measures to support care within the home and wider community." The courts would be swamped and judges would have to police the level of care given.

Everyone agreed to extend "family" beyond marriage but Roderick et al. wouldn't put any limits at all so we got "durable relationships"