Referendums on 8th of March

[Itchy]

That's very helpful @Itchy - it's hard to evaluate all of this when people are projecting their fears/fantasies onto it.

The issues being considered are important to a lot of people, in particular certain groups who have not been well treated by society. They deserve to have these amendments considered in a respectful and serious manner, without facetious comments about wokeism and throuples.

It's unfortunate to hear people advocate protest votes, e.g. Sinéad Ryan: I’ll be voting No in the referendums as a protest – but not for the reasons you might think. Constitutional rights should never be weaponised to "punish the government" when the citizens are the ones affected.

We are lucky to live in a time and place where we have the protections of a written Constitution guaranteeing us freedoms that billions of other people could only dream of.

I would 100% echo your sentiments.

I don't know how you can say that (by the way I never suggested that gay marriage was a dilution of marriage, nor I do think anyone could argue that is the case and I voted for same sex marriage change).

Well I can say that because I know families very close to me who are no less of a family than mine, even though they are not founded on a marriage.

Marriage had a certain place in society, a certain value. This referendum appears to me to further erode those values. We already had tax individualisation before which had a negative financial impact on married couples.

I see the referendum as an elevation of families not founded on marriage, giving them parity of esteem with other families (founded on marriage) as articulated in the Constitution. I cited the same-sex marriage referendum as you are using the same argument used to oppose the referendum. Fundamentally, families based on marriage are unaffected by this (nothing gained, nothing lost). Giving recognition to different arrangements, in the same way as extending marriage rights to same sex couples, did not erode the existing value(s) of marriage.

You seem see the erosion of marriage values (of which family is one aspect) based on the extension of recognition to another's family, who have an unmarried relationship (of which family is also one aspect). This seems to me, that your marriage values are characterised by exclusion?

One critical piece of context is that this referendum is about the family. In constitutional terms, the Family as a unit group is "superior to all positive law" i.e. has rights that are afforded the highest level of protection. These rights are not articulated but relate to having an autonomous family/domestic life. This constitutional provision is unusual and is not common across other countries. Its based on the philosophy of 'Natural Law' that was popular in the early 20th century and Catholic social views obviously.

My understanding is that in practical terms, this means that there are rights within the home that are protected, having bodily autonomy, making decisions about your kids education/health etc. But that when you are considering the public domain these are not effective. A criminal cannot claim that they cannot be imprisoned because it will disrupt his family life. You make the point about tax individualisation where Article 41 required that married not be treated less favourably. I don't think this would be extended to 'durable relationships' for example. Rights will probably only flow to family decisions but I don't know. Hence, my question about social welfare entitlements and other discussions about succession etc.

Now it appears that the definition of family no longer depends on marriage. This is not a fear or fantasy, it is there in black and white in the proposed changes.

Correct. The family was never defined by marriage. This is the status quo and will be unchanged whether the referendum passes or falls.

One of the arguments made during the same sex marriage referendum was that gay couples was that civil partners do not enjoy the protection the Constitution gives to the family. If this referendum passes that argument would not have had any merit, so what was the point of the last referendum?

I don't understand your point? The argument was relevant at the time. That referendum was about marriage not the family (there were some family related implications but it was about the status of marriage). This referendum is about the family. This is another evolution of a related, but different issue.

What does that even mean Itchy? In real terms can you explain this one to me? What does this "special status" confer on married couples now?

Well it means that Article 41.3 is unchanged "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".

This singles out and specifically articulates the State's view that marriage is the preferred societal unit. It means that the State cannot make laws that are less favourable to married persons that it is to equivalent, non-married persons. Other situations relate to guardianship for example, rights of married/non-married fathers are different.

 

[Itchy]

Also by allowing judges to decide in the future is effectively downgrading and dumbing down the whole constitution. The constitution should be clear and concise not open to different interpretations by future judges. Of course that is their job to an extent but you don't put vague undefined terms and phrases into the constitution

We have a common law system. Interpretation of law is a feature, not a glitch in the system. The constitution is full of undefined terms and phrases. Marriage itself is undefined, the right to marry is not articulated and it also provides for a whole host of unenumerated rights.

 

[Ceist Beag]

This singles out and specifically articulates the State's view that marriage is the preferred societal unit.

You can try and frame my views whatever way your want Itchy but in summary I suppose I just have difficulty squaring that statement with a referendum that says to me "here's another reason why you don't need to get married".

 

[PMU]

We have a common law system. Interpretation of law is a feature, not a glitch in the system. The constitution is full of undefined terms and phrases. Marriage itself is undefined, the right to marry is not articulated and it also provides for a whole host of unenumerated rights.

So what? We have a parliamentary democracy – not rule by lawyers. If our parliamentarians cannot propose something as basic as a definition of what constitutes a ‘Family’ to the electorate, they really should hang their collective heads in shame. Leaving something as basic as this up to the courts is an admission of collective incapability.

 

[ClubMan]

That sounds very misogynistic, because it kind of is, but it does give women additional protections. For example it's the reason that Children's allowance is paid to mothers.

I'm a single separated father and sole custodian (under the judicial separation agreement) of a now adult leaving cert child and was paid his child benefit from about age 4 up to his 18th birthday, and will be again for a few months from May to September under the new rules.

I've been vacillating on the referendum issues but have been leaning towards no/no due to concerns about the seeming lack of clarity with the proposed new wording and lack of convincing arguments for change. I don't like the archaic/anachronistic/sexist language in the current constitution but I'm not convinced that the proposed changes make sense.

 

[Itchy]

You can try and frame my views whatever way your want Itchy but in summary I suppose I just have difficulty squaring that statement with a referendum that says to me "here's another reason why you don't need to get married".

I'm not framing your view at all. I am trying to understand it. I'm unsure on the merits of the proposal so I'm just working through the issues myself.

 

[mtk]

where do i find the betting on these ? cannot see it on paddy power or via google seach

 

[michaelm]

where do i find the betting on these ? cannot see it on paddy power or via google seach

https://www.boylesports.com/sports/politics

 

[Sophrosyne]

I realize that the constitution is aspirational.

However, a better attempt should be made to express those aspirations clearly in order to obviate the necessity for courts -or anyone else - to pour over the intention of the constitution on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Leo]

I realize that the constitution is aspirational.

However, a better attempt should be made to express those aspirations clearly in order to obviate the necessity for courts -or anyone else - to pour over the intention of the constitution on a case-by-case basis.

That's just not possible, no constitution ever aims to offer that level of detail.

 

[Purple]

The issues being considered are important to a lot of people, in particular certain groups who have not been well treated by society. They deserve to have these amendments considered in a respectful and serious manner, without facetious comments about wokeism and throuples.


It's unfortunate to hear people advocate protest votes, e.g. Sinéad Ryan: I’ll be voting No in the referendums as a protest – but not for the reasons you might think. Constitutional rights should never be weaponised to "punish the government" when the citizens are the ones affected.

I agree completely.

 

[Purple]

That's just not possible, no constitution ever aims to offer that level of detail.

That's the problem in a nut shell. The constitution should be a broad aspirational document, kind of like a mission statement. It shouldn't specify things like abortion or care or what is really just legislation.

 

[Purple]

I'm a single separated father and sole custodian (under the judicial separation agreement) of a now adult leaving cert child and was paid his child benefit from about age 4 up to his 18th birthday, and will be again for a few months from May to September under the new rules.

I'm a single separated father who is the sole carer and main financial provider for 3 of my 4 children. Despite that fact my ex-wife gets children's allowance and an additional tax free allowance by virtue solely to her gender.

 

[Purple]

The constitution should be clear and concise not open to different interpretations by future judges. Of course that is their job to an extent but you don't put vague undefined terms and phrases into the constitution

The job of the Supreme Court is (should be) to decide if legislation is constitutional in the context of a concise and succinct Constitution. The more the Constitution strays into areas which should be the remit of the legislature the more the line is blurred by the two.

 

[trajan]

Am I the only one in Ireland that sees perpetual favour go to married folk and folk with children regardless of constitutional status ?

People are routinely asked their marital status on application forms for jobs, housing, bank accounts, credit cards and God knows what else. We also see journalists detail a person's marital and family status in every story big or small. At times, Irish society is almost like travellers' society: every young fella with a van, beor and babby sees himself every bit as good as any other fella around - Einstein and Roosevelt included.

This is a cultural thing in Ireland that seems to supercede anything in the statute book about equality, discrimination or justice being blind to extraneous facts.

Far from patching up de Valera's vision for Ireland, I think we urgently need to write a whole new constitution - one that offers no unearned favour to any categories of our society.

And we should ignore the notion of keeping these changes till it's a card we can play to win over the Northerners.

 

[Purple]

I see the referendum as an elevation of families not founded on marriage, giving them parity of esteem with other families (founded on marriage) as articulated in the Constitution.

Marriage is a legal contract. That, in fact, is all it is. In cultural terms or in how it makes people feel about their relationship it may well be something different but in the context of this discussion it's a contract and nothing more. How we want to elevate families or relationships or family units or blended families or communes or whatever else is entirely irrelevant.

Quite soon my children and I will be living with my partner and her children. All under one roof. She can't get her name on the mortgage, she can't get life insurance against the mortgage, she can't inherit the house she lives in (until she's been living there for quite some time) without paying inheritance tax. We can't treat our children the same for inheritance purposes etc. There's a myriad of problems we'll face because we're not married. That's our tough luck. None of those issues lessen our emotional relationship or how we all feel about each other. If we want the obligations, rights and protections that come with marriage then we should enter into the legal contract that gives us those rights and obligations.

There should be no grey area around what, in legal contractual terms, constitutes a family. None.
If the proposed changes are made can we then share out inheritance between all our children equally despite being unmarried? When and where do we draw the line? I'd need that defined clearly and exactly before I'd even consider voting yes.

This seems to me, that your marriage values are characterised by exclusion?

Marriage equality was about giving everyone the right to access the same legal contract and therefore the rights that come with it.
This proposal is about giving people the rights that come with the contract even when they choose not to enter into that contract. Conflating the two is absurd.

 

[Leo]

People are routinely asked their marital status on application forms for jobs, housing, bank accounts, credit cards and God knows what else.

Really? Anyone asking for marital status on a job application these days leaves themselves wide open to a discrimination claim. For housing, does it not make absolute sense to ascertain housing needs?

 

[trajan]

Really? Anyone asking for marital status on a job application these days leaves themselves wide open to a discrimination claim. For housing, does it not make absolute sense to ascertain housing needs?

@Leo

Maybe they rationalize this info demand in terms of covering dependents under company-paid health insurance plans - though I've often seen it asked by firms with no health plan whatever.

Yet even if the application form doesn't ask for marital/family status many people automatically get asked during the interview. No reason is given. Clearly some people may view marriedness as an indicator of commitability, being a "steadier" guy/woman, experience of compromise, consideration for other types of people, having the focus of one's life outside oneself, etc. To each of these one could easily argue that marital/family status is no guarantee whatever of such attributes and such identification only tends to lead to an easier corruptability of the recruitment and promotion systems, viz, Bernard Looney's marriage of convenience to ease his upward ascent in BP.

On housing I cannot - in the present state of matters in Ireland - say that family status is an irrelevant consideration.
But that is solely because of our policy on housing and the mess that it has got us into today. Were Ireland to have a proper housing policy - even as good as Germany or France - we wouldn't have the poignant competition we have between all home buyers let alone between family buyers and singles.

@Purple Bon courage

 

[Leo]

Maybe they rationalize this info demand in terms of covering dependents under company-paid health insurance plans - though I've often seen it asked by firms with no health plan whatever.

My employers offer full private healthcare for spouses and dependants, and additional benefits like increased death-in-service cover for those who are married. The training mandated before anyone can sit on an interview panel makes it very clear you absolutely can't ask for status on any of the protected grounds.

 

[trajan]

My employers offer full private healthcare for spouses and dependants, and additional benefits like increased death-in-service cover for those who are married. The training mandated before anyone can sit on an interview panel makes it very clear you absolutely can't ask for status on any of the protected grounds.

Well, I wonder how the needs of the insurance cover and those of privacy/confidentiality can be reconciled. Clearly employers may be pressed by insurers to provide details like numbers of children, their ages and relevant med conditions.

Maybe direct communication by the employee with the health insurer may be the solution.

Anyway, it's good to know that someone is training their staff right today.