Referendums March 8 on 1 family and 2 carers

[The Boy Wonder]

Ok Main Street, can you enlighten us on the law that provides legal clarity to "other durable relationships" ?
No you cannot because no such law exists at present.

The amendment would leave it in the hands of the courts to define what "other durable relationships" means.
We elect members to The Oireachtas to frame our laws, not the courts.
People should know what "other durable relationships" means before enshrining it into our constitution.

Senator Michael McDowell is a legal professional and he advises that if the Yes vote wins on the Family Amendment (White Ballot Paper) we are buying a pig in a poke. Not being a expert myself I could not contradict him.

Rather then criticise Senator McDowell perhaps you should try and make a persuasive case as to why people should vote Yes to one or both ballots.

[The Boy Wonder]

McDowell Condemns O'Gorman's Department's FOI Cover Up

[Main Street]

Ok Main Street, can you enlighten us on the law that provides legal clarity to "other durable relationships" ?
No you cannot because no such law exists at present.

The amendment would leave it in the hands of the courts to define what "other durable relationships" means.
We elect members to The Oireachtas to frame our laws, not the courts.
People should know what "other durable relationships" means before enshrining it into our constitution.

Senator Michael McDowell is a legal professional and he advises that if the Yes vote wins on the Family Amendment (White Ballot Paper) we are buying a pig in a poke. Not being a expert myself I could not contradict him.

Rather then criticise Senator McDowell perhaps you should try and make a persuasive case as to why people should vote Yes to one or both ballots.

I am not in the business of attempting to persuade people to vote one way or the other. I have my opinions and I express them. Are you into the persuasion business? it would seem so. This is a discussion board.
If you are not inclined to contradict McDowell's stance merely because of his legal credentials, then have you no considered opinions on the issue?
 Have you considered other legal opinions on the referendum wording that would contradict McDowell's?
Are they of less value seeing as you have already expressed  fulsome appreciation for the standing of legal expertise? Seeing as you have admitted no legal expertise yourself, how would you have an objective opinion one way or the other?
is it possible that you already have decided on a NO vote because of your particular values, therefore you identify with McDowell's stance? Honesty is the best policy  

[seafoid]

McDowell said in a recent Irish times article that when the Constitution is unclear it gives rise to hard cases which turn up in the courts . And that hard cases make bad law.

[The Boy Wonder]

I stated previously on this thread "There may well be some equally non-biased and well-informed persons of proven reputation who would advocate voting Yes. Maybe some posters here might point us to such viewpoints".

I joined this discussion because, as seafoid's initial post implied, there is a lack of understanding regarding the pros and cons of voting Yes or No on these two ballots.

Main Street's question – "Have you considered other legal opinions on the referendum wording that would contradict McDowell's?"

I have invited posters to provide viewpoints other that Senator McDowell so that we have a balanced picture.

Main Street again – "Seeing as you have admitted no legal expertise yourself, how would you have an objective opinion one way or the other?"

The majority of the electorate would be in same boat as myself regarding legal expertise.

I am certainly not trying to influence people how to vote. I'm inclined to the view in this situation of "if it's not broken don't fix it". However I'm open to persuasion – that is why I invite those inclined to vote Yes to share their reasons. All the main political parties are advocating Yes votes so the electorate are not hearing from their elected representatives about possible downsides to these Constitutional changes.

[Main Street]

McDowell said in a recent Irish times article that when the Constitution is unclear it gives rise to hard cases which turn up in the courts . And that hard cases make bad law.

At times McDowell spouts (durable) nonsense, in a Senate debate  he questioned (fearmongering?)  "whether the definition of a durable relationship could include one involving more than two people" "if it is, don't just airily dismiss throuples or bigamy or polygamy or polyandry."


Durable relationship is a defined term in EU and EEA law, cohabiting unmarried couples living together for at least 2 years and single parents.

Decades ago I was able to gain residence and working visa as a formality on the basis of having a durable relationship.
There are a myriad of legal,tax and social issues where the civil rights,mobility and social welfare  of those living in a durable relationship are protected by relevant  laws.

[seafoid]

I stated previously on this thread "There may well be some equally non-biased and well-informed persons of proven reputation who would advocate voting Yes. Maybe some posters here might point us to such viewpoints".

I joined this discussion because, as seafoid's initial post implied, there is a lack of understanding regarding the pros and cons of voting Yes or No on these two ballots.

Main Street's question – "Have you considered other legal opinions on the referendum wording that would contradict McDowell's?"

I have invited posters to provide viewpoints other that Senator McDowell so that we have a balanced picture.

Main Street again – "Seeing as you have admitted no legal expertise yourself, how would you have an objective opinion one way or the other?"

The majority of the electorate would be in same boat as myself regarding legal expertise.

I am certainly not trying to influence people how to vote. I'm inclined to the view in this situation of "if it's not broken don't fix it". However I'm open to persuasion – that is why I invite those inclined to vote Yes to share their reasons. All the main political parties are advocating Yes votes so the electorate are not hearing from their elected representatives about possible downsides to these Constitutional changes.

It's really complicated. Referendums don't really work when voters haven't got a clue. This is why ignoring the citizens' assembly and Oireachtas committee proposals is important to note.

[seafoid]

A point about carers is that in Ireland families are responsible, not the State. Tom Clonan is very good on this because he is a carer. Debate with a yes voter starts at 1hr 11 minutes

https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/today-with-claire-byrne/2024/0208/1431180-today-with-claire-byrne-thursday-8-february-2024/

The Claire Byrne debate  the other day was quite interesting. It really sounds like a culture war
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22355941/

[Eamonnca1]

Actual wording of the changes:

Add bolded text to Article 41.1.1° "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

Delete text from 41.3.1°:  "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.

Delete the following: Article 41.2.1° "In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved." 

Delete the following: Article 41.2.2° "The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

Add the following: Article 42B: "The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision."

[seafoid]

Actual wording of the changes:

Add bolded text to Article 41.1.1° "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

Delete text from 41.3.1°:  "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.

Delete the following: Article 41.2.1° "In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved." 

Delete the following: Article 41.2.2° "The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

Add the following: Article 42B: "The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision."

Why was the word mother deleted ?

[seafoid]

1. They ignored the Citizens' Assembly recommendation for the State's responsibility for care to be recognised
Tom Clonan
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22352606/

2. There is no respite for mothers (or fathers). Listening to this would break your heart. 
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22357882/

[Eire90]

Is there any chance they cancel these referendums if they think its going to go against them.

[Eire90]

cant  find odds on these referendums is that a sign how low a turnout and how much people care.

[Last Man]

As an onlooker the policies of the current administration is disconcerting personally.
Interesting that Elon is weighing in some of the carry on
https://youtu.be/aYJGiXLZujk?si=JQY3MEVgtaIjwrAP

[Rossfan]

Cryptofascists closing ranks.....
Our Government must be doing something right!