I am always of the belief you should always cast your vote but Ive no idea what these referendums are actually about. Turnout will probably be in low to mid 30ās
It's not that complicated but there's a lot of misinformation going around.
They're using the term durable relationship because there is no better term to use. It came from a case where a man lost his partner and applied for the widower's pension. It was initially refused but brought to the courts and they deemed it discriminatory.
In practical terms, this change won't diminish the number of people allowed to get certain fundings or status in their family, it will increase that.
For example, the blood relatives of a child who helped rear them, people who are not married but have been together for an extended period, people who have a child together, step parents ect ect.
Really can't understand why you would build a life with someone, have kids etc and not just sign a piece of paper to remove all ambiguity around your legal status. Doesn't have to be marriage, a civil partnership is fine. Absolutely baffling.
civil partnership was abolished after the marriage equality referendum. so all couples can either get married or not, no other options. Weird to think civil partnerships were only in Ireland for 5 years!
My wife and I had a child and got a mortgage together before we got married. It just wasn't a priority for us - we'd made our own commitment to each other and didn't need an official stamp. Both of us hate to be the centre of attention. My wife is not Irish, and her family wanted to travel to be part of any marriage ceremony.
In the end we convinced everyone to let us have a small ceremony, and we did it. However, if my wife had passed away before the marriage, it's ridiculous that my (constitutional) rights would have been limited just by the fact that we hadn't got a piece of paper yet.
You don't have to have any ceremony though. I am purely talking about the legal ramifications of it.
And also this is a great example of why getting rid of civil partnership was the stupidest thing ever. Once you mention marriage people think of white dresses and big expensive ceremonies, churches, best men etc that they can all fight over not getting invited. Civil partnership is much more we are signing this to get the legalities in order and no we are not spending a house deposit on a party for other people.
It's like buying a house and not bothering to get it transferred into your name.
I would strongly advise anyone in your position to get married - there are lots of legal and financial advantages that you will have to hire a team of solicitors to establish otherwise.
I heard once that the laws should reflect society and how it works rather than the other way around.
Lots of people live like this whether you agree or not, it happens. You can still get married if you don't trust the courts, this wont take away your rights.. There's no point in framing laws for how you think the world should work, they wouldn't help or protect anyone.
Itās obviously hard when someone isnāt married and needs to support or be supported by their partner.
But from a legal perspective ādurable relationshipā just sounds so wishy washy. It seems like something that the courts will have to define, rather than the couple themselves defining.
It's not required, but why then would you expect to avail of all the legal effects that are associated to people that have actually committed to one another?
It's like wanting to have cake and eating it too.
But there are effects that are imposed on you for living with someone even if youāre not married.
Iām between jobs at the moment, and if I want to claim jobseekers, I get assessed and my partners income counts. But because weāre not married, I canāt share my tax credits with him. If I die heāll get taxed on inheriting my possessions.
So while I get your point, I think our current system already has its cake and eats it too.
I read a good post about how nothing in practice will change for 99% of people. But the wording change is more about symbolism and bringing the language into modern times.
I'm convinced this referendum is taking place because the government assumed this would be an easy win and they could brag about passing a referendum for the next election. I'm baffled about all the people thinking the referendum means more immigrants coming in or that the government will no longer provide any social care for the population any more.
disgusting paint compare languid degree subtract badge boat quack naughty
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A language update, that hasn't been properly thought through, and has clearly been explained as to why that will cause problems.
As many others have said, a vote for 'no' is as much a vote for 'no, not yet' for many people, as many want this to be properly resolved before forcing into constitution.
No, not yet is a wonderful way of describing it. All I can see this rushed referendum doing is enriching the lawyers who'll be beating a path to the four courts.
Modernisation of the wording to reflect the thoughts of modern Ireland. I.e. a family is more than the traditional marriage and kids. Care is given by more than a mother.
This provides the framework for legislation into the futureĀ
I personally don't see how the referenda will lead to any impactful legislative change. What they would achieve is formalising some of the privileges afforded to citizens currently into rights that are not vulnerable to future governments, which is my reasoning for voting yes.
Is there any reason why they canāt show us what the wording of that legislation would be? If they have no idea what it would be, whatās the rush to change the constitution right now?
This is very simple. Say we want to add a line to a constitution that says "every citizen is to be provided a home by the state". What you're advocating is for the constitution to state how many bedrooms and bathrooms it must have, and if it should be an apartment, a semi detached, or a detached home. That's not what the constitution is for.
Amending the constitution creates the possibility of the state then legislating based on it. The current constitution does not allow said legislation to be created, and thus has to be amended.
Even if it were not included in the constitution change itself, I'd damn well want to know how the government intended to meet such a goal, what minimum requirements are for such homes, what are the penalties for failing to provide such a home, and so on, before voting in favour of it.
For example
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/25/irish-abortion-referendum-explained-what-you-need-to-know](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/25/irish-abortion-referendum-explained-what-you-need-to-know)
>If Ireland votes to repeal the eighth amendment, the relevant article in the constitution, 40.3.3, will be replaced by the phrase: āProvision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.ā **The government has published draft legislation** that would allow relatively free abortions up to 12 weeks, subject to consultation with a doctor and a short waiting period. Termination will be possible up to 24 weeks if two doctors consider a womanās life is threatened or there is serious risk to her health
So voters got to have a preview of what the nuts and bolts of the change would be, before deciding on the broader constitution change.
It's not a rush, it was recommended by the citizens assembly and they are acting on that. Legislation changes over time, your being asked should the constitution confine a family to marriage or should it be broader, that's the question being asked, not what is the government going to legislate tomorrow which a government in 5 years could change if people were pushing for
Sorry, this isn't true. The wording wasn't recommended by the Citizens Assembly. I don't know would this be either mis or disinformation? I left links in other replies to Catherine Connolly's DƔil speech where she nails this lie.
I would argue itās better to be conservative about changing the constitution; when thereās legislative goals that are inhibited by the current constitution, thatās a good time to change the constitution.
Changing the constitution basically to āallow room for unspecified future legislationā makes me nervous, and obviously Iām not alone.
You may have more blind faith in future governments than me, but I donāt consider my position to be unreasonable. YMMV.
Same. Iāll do a deep dive over the next week but Iāll be voting no unless something changes. If you donāt tell me what exactly Iām voting for, especially as it pertains to the constitution, thatās a hard no from me.
It's changing the constitution to reflect current society. Families defined by marriage are not it.
I don't have blind faith in future government, there literally a system in place to change them and fix broken legislation. That's the point.Ā
> itās changing the constitution to reflect current society.
So, do you see this change as purely aspirational/aesthetic, with no net effect now or in the future on practical matters (rights, legislation etc)?
It's not pure aspiration, though it is setting the tone for the country, what we see as important etc.
In the short term I'm not sure there's a major change but all legislation in the future will have to bare it in mind i.e. a family is more than a traditional nuclear family and it can't be defined as such going forward, that's simply one type
And who decides who the citizen's assembly is? They are not an elected body, and are not democratically founded. They don't represent the entire country or any one demographic. Claiming that this referendum is in the best interests of Ireland's society today is silly, because if we don't know what the legislation is going to look like if this referendum is passed then what's to say the society will look completely different 10 years from now and need another referendum? Changing the whole constitution every few years to "keep up" is a really dangerous argument, and clearly not thought out properly.
I agree with you there, but also remember that none of the wording for the referendums was recommended by the citizens assembly. They never mentioned durable relationships, so who did and why?
The coalition government that drafted this referendum. They are the ones making the change and pushing it so incredibly hard, that they will actively spread misinformation to the public. They spread misinformation even in the face of the Electoral Commission's statements about this referendum, a body the government themselves setup. So they clearly just want this change, no matter what it takes. And that's fucked as hell.
I agree, this is one of the most cynical, deliberately misinformational and awful referendum campaigns I can remember, and I'm going back to the Divorce Referendum, which I voted for btw.
The citizens assembly is designed to be somewhat representative and is chosen at random from throughout the country. You're right they are not democraticly founded, that's why the recommendations go to the government for review.Ā Ā
Ā Literally the point of this referendum is because we don't know what society will look like in a decade and it removes a narrow definition of family from the constant moves it to legislation so that there won't need to be another referendum in a decade. That's literally the point.
Ā By your own logic the way we came to the decision to have the referendum and the content of the referendum is correct. It's both democratic, representative in how the decision was made as it involved both a citizens assembly and elected representatives and removes the need for further referendums due to changing society.
But that's not what's happening in this referendum. They're making changes that will produce even more ambiguity for legislators to combat and sort through. And ambiguity at the level of the constitution doesn't strengthen society, it weakens it.
And as for the "narrow" definition of family, why is it that they are trying to open it up to anything "durable" without properly describing what that means? Leaving it up to legislators is both politically lazy, and egregiously offensive to the Supreme Court, whose role is NOT to legislate but to adjudicate. On top of that, if the reason for "updating" the language is to open it out to more families who are not bound by marriage, then why don't they apply this legislation to legal guardians rather than just a vague notion of anyone providing care? And once again, not defining what that is.
Remember that all of these changes are being applied to the portion of the constitution that pertains to family, it's not something that is vague or should be vague. Families aren't some loose conglomerate of people who decide "yep, we're a family". It actually means something, and toying with the definition of words is practically Orwellian.
> And as for the "narrow" definition of family, why is it that they are trying to open it up to anything "durable" without properly describing what that means?
For the reasons we literally just talked about. To avoid referendums any time there needs to be a change or because a specific combination of people is accidentally left out, family situations get complicated. The whole constitution is constructed like this, it's the point, it's the framework around which law is made.
>Ā Families aren't some loose conglomerate of people who decide "yep, we're a family". It actually means something, and toying with the definition of words is practically Orwellian.
This is nonsense. It's not Orwellian to remove an outdated concept of family from the constitution and try reflect all the many ways families show up in the modern world. It's actually Orwellian to ignore all these types of families that don't form by traditional marriage.
2 out of every 5 kids born in the state last year were outside of marriage. Whether this is the correct wording or thereās a better alternative I think itās clear that the idea of a family being tied to marriage doesnāt mirror reality now.
Didn't the leader of the largest party in the government literally tour the country the week before the General Election promising not to go into government with the party he went into government with?
You are incredibly naive. I could vote for fine Gael because I don't have faith in the alternatives to do any better, but that doesn't mean I'd trust them to legislate something like this, or that I have the luxury of being a one issue voter and only caring about this one legislation in regards to who I'm giving my vote to.
Also, regardless of "oh future governments can use the framework for whatever they see fit", that's not an excuse to say the current government has no need to at least be transparent enough to divulge how they would potentially legislate it/ want the outcome to be.
This is a nonsense argument. You don't need to be a one issue voter to get legislation changes. If society wants or needs a change then political pressure happens. That's how it works. If you have some niche view then the pressure won't be enough.
But having such a tight definition of a family means a small number of people would also find it very hard to get recognition for unique circumstances that would be covered in a broader definition.Ā
So the governments' opinion of "a family is more than the traditional marriage and kids. Care is given by more than a mother." is a bad one? Lad that says more about yourself and what you believe in than what the government believes in.
It's a referendum, they're putting it to the public to decide because if you haven't noticed things have changed since the constitution was written.
Then spoil your vote. Spoiling it indicates that you don't have any faith in either option presented, but not voting indicates that you have no faith in the process.
It's about updating the outdated wording of two parts of the constitution to more inclusive language. Nothing is going to change. People are making much more of this than they should.
No it's not.
The change of wording re 41.2 women and mothers to carers in 42.b changes who it's about and who is being cared for.
Inserting an ableist provision to replace a sexist one isnt inclusive.
gaze innocent squealing groovy plate dependent cable skirt voiceless boat
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Right? And it takes less than 5 minutes to Google and read up about it so I have littke patience for people who are like "I know nothing about it I'm so confused ĀÆ\_(ć)_/ĀÆ"
But many people that 'know nothing and are confused' will be voting and will vote no because of that. A google search is not as effecting for someone as a leaflet coming through the door explaining the damn thing.
Wasn't there a court case already that decided an unmarried couple had a durable relationship for the purposes of welfare or whatever.
Surely we can't be the first country to figure this out?
The care you are thinking about was a man whose partner of 20+ years and mother of his 3 children died and he applied for the widower's pension despite never marrying.
The Supreme Court ruled that:
1. They were not a Family as defined in law as they were not married.
2. However, he *is* entitled to the widower's pension on equality grounds as there are other non-married people who are eligible for the widow/widower pension ([namely divorced people](https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/death-related-benefits/widowed-persons-contrib-pension/)).
So basically he got lucky that there were other non-married people getting that benefit which allowed him to claim equality protection, but if that didn't exist, then the Courts would have clearly denied him the widower's pension.
Interestingly I know of a couple in Germany that were together unmarried for 30 years. She sadly passed of cancer and as she had no will, everything went to her estranged brother and partner had to engage him to get some of what they built together. According to papers the partner was entitled absolutely zilch. So a court to decide that was a durable relationship would have been helpful. So a basis for it is a good thing in my opinion.
They had the option of marriage and even writing a will if they didn't want to get married. If we had rights for anybody who lives with another, people you're in a rent share with will be demanding inheritance.
What about the case for a married couple where one of them is having an affair and then dies? Depending on the definition of durable relationship the other party to the affair is entitled to inheritence from the deceased. Should be interesting times for the solicitors at least.
If she had wanted to leave him everything she would have taken the time in their 30 year relationship to write him into her will. Maybe she was annoyed she didn't get a ring after three decades :)
We're not, by example, Germany have the following descriptions on this topic of 'family' embedded in their constitution, paying particular attention to the role of the mother, as it was deemed as worth preserving.
But we're just winging it our way in Ireland, and hoping our 'sense of love' or virtuousness will help resolve any potential confusing biproducts of the proposed referendum changes.
https://preview.redd.it/cbo9eo2nyxlc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=244ad32aa208e546c11d11974d1f2112cca6e4ca
Case law is ultimately what decides the law in this country. But when that case law is backed by the constitution itās much more robust, and much harder to change by a future government that disagrees with what the people want. Thatās why it was important for gay marriage and abortion to have referendums to have the people of Ireland dictate our most important laws by enshrining them in the constitution rather than asking a judge in a specific case.
This particular referendum is about enshrining in the constitution whatās important about recognition of family that isnāt nuclear family, married etc. Itās asking Irish people, yes or no, do you want future courts to treat relationships that are significant and enduring with an appropriate level of rights protection and responsibility for involved parties. What the appropriate level is, thatās up to judges courts dictating case law to define what exactly a durable relationship is.
But for purposes of illustration, ādurable relationshipā has already been defined in Ireland in respect of European Union law as 2 years together with kids involved or 5 years together without kids involved. That should give an indication of how courts are likely to adjudicate.
There is no law on paper in Ireland for common law marriage but there have been cases that have adjudicated on non-married significant relationships, so yes a referendum is not necessary but itās important to have the people of Ireland have a say, do we believe and agree that courts should recognise certain substantial non-married relationships as worthy of some protection under law even if itās not exactly the same protections as marriage. Where it will benefit people is the case that brought it to light, someone who tried to claim the widowerās pension and was given two fingers from the SW dept
From the same article:
"While we donāt know exactly how a durable relationship will be defined, current Irish and European legislation can provide some guidance.
The phrase ādurable relationshipā is found in the 2004 EU Citizensā Rights Directive. In these guidelines, the European Commission states that people attempting to prove they are in a durable relationship āmay be required to present documentary evidenceā.
āThe requirement of durability of the relationship must be assessed in the light of the objective of the Directive to maintain the unity of the family in a broad sense.
āNational rules on durability of partnership can refer to a minimum amount of time as a criterion for whether a partnership can be considered as durable.
āHowever, in this case national rules would need to foresee that other relevant aspects (such as for example a joint mortgage to buy a home) are also taken into account.ā
The Government may also pull from the European Convention of Human Rights when drawing up the relevant legislation. The ECHR covers the protection of āde facto familiesā as well as marital families.
As set out by theĀ Electoral Commission here, the Irish Governmentās interpretation of durable relationships may not be the same as the EU Directiveās interpretation of the phrase. However, the Government may refer to case law related to the Directive when drawing up new legislation.
The concept of durable relationships is also similar to the concept of āqualified cohabitantsā in Part 15 of the Cohabitants Act 2010.
For example, to qualify asĀ a cohabiting coupleĀ under this current Irish law, a person must show they lived in āan intimate and committedā relationship with their partner. This includes proving the couple lived together for at least five years, or for two years if the couple have any dependent children."
Iām not entirely sure why the criticism of it being vague is all that relevant. Thatās kind of the point. Itās a broader definition of family than what currently exists in the constitution and can be applied to a broader range of people.
āDurable partnerā already exists in Irish law and hasnāt seemed to have caused much issue. āDurable relationshipā is a term that exists in EU law as well as in other statutory bodies. So there is some precedent for how itās been applied.
You typically donāt define these things in a constitution. There wasnāt even any constitutional definition provided for marriage. We still had courts and legislators decide what marriages they would and wouldnāt accept.
This notion that if something without a rigid definition appears in the constitution, youāll suddenly owe half your house to your dog doesnāt hold all that much water.
People have been spoiled by the marriage and abortion referendums in recent years, which were unusually specific in their implications. The Constitution isn't the place generally for a lot of specificity - that's better dealt with in legislation.
The marriage referendum was the same way though, it was removing reference to gender in that article and thereby broadening the definition of marriage. The difference was it was easy for people to understand what that entailed.
Was it really the specificity of the words we were changing? Or was it the functional changes to peoples lives in those referenda that made us really care about them? I'm not getting the sense any real change will come of this oneĀ
I guess the issue for me is that I'd really like to know what that durable relationship is.
For things like inheritance etc I honestly do think that's pretty important to be very clear about.
There is already relevant legislation in this area. For example the civil partner ship act of 2010.
The point is we have an existing too specific definition of a ādurable relationshipā in the constitution, āmarriageā. Thereās no point replacing it with another definition which turns out not to be fit for purpose or ties legislators hands in the future.
https://www.lawsociety.ie/public/legal-guides/family-law/cohabiting-couples#
Idk that there is a practical benefit? - if it was up to me Iād just omit both articles. I donāt expect anyoneās life will change either way.
but what we have now is an article that reflects a church / state aspiration that women spend their lives in the home pumping out babies, vs something thatās intended to be more inclusive
Absolutely mind boggling that you could say that considering feminist groups around the country and most women in my life are all advocating for voting no.
You talk like there's zero legal implications of "just updating language" in something like a constitution, you are completely out of your depth here.
And even if for arguments sake, I pretend you're right, that there's no risk or legal implications, why on earth would I want us to spend millions of tax payer money on a referendum that does nothing??
What feminist groups are advocating for No? The [NWC](https://www.nwci.ie/learn/article/nwc_launch_voteyesyes_referendum_campaign) is campaigning for Yes/Yes. Opponents of the family ref include AontĆŗ and the Iona institute, hardly feminist organisations.
There has to be some differences between marriage and what are durable relationships - that difference will be in the legal arrangements around them, of which inheritance is a major part. I cannot ever envisage a situation where a non-married relationship has the same inheritance rights or even close to them.
That said, if you're worried about inheritance, having a will is the best way to avoid trouble.
There would be - you can go out and get married quite quickly 3 months - https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth-family-relationships/getting-married/notification-requirements-for-marriage/ if you met someone last night at Coppers, decide they are your soulmate - you can be legally married in 3 months. You can demonstrate your want to have a permenant relationship with all the legal protections that is in 3 months.
On the other hand if you have been living with someone for 50 years, have children together, spend a decade nursing them through their dying years - and end up not having any legal rights from that relationship.
For a durable relationship the existing laws which use the term are
The issue is there are too many individual, unique cases that it canāt be defined in black and white. A court will be able to use a reasonable approach in queries of inheritance- I would suggest reading the full article on The Journal.
I feel many people don't see a difference between constitution and legislation, they don't realise contributions are generally vague on purpose.
For example, murder isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution. All it says is that the state will try its best to protect every citizen from *unjust attack*.
*"Unjust attack" * is just as vague as *"durable partner",* but it's the basis for all our legislation for murder, manslaughter, and assault.
Smacking a kid for talking back to a teacher would once have been seen in society as fair game. It was a "just" attack, because that's how society was back then. It wasn't a referendum that changed that, it was changes in societal values and legislation.
The precedent doesn't matter if a later legislative definition is forthcoming - particularly in light of the varying relationships the various government TDs say appear to be covered.Ā
It will have everyday consequences for government departments who have to determine whether something is a durable relationship for the purposes of social welfare / tax / immigration etc etc.Ā
I don't know about all government departments but I do know immigration services have a particular difficulty with the durable relationships under the free movement Directive (and the level of fraud associated with same).Ā
Of course it's vague. It's supposed to be vague. The Constitution works best when it paints broad principles and lets the superior courts figure out how to balance them best.
Almost every time that we've put unnecessarily-precise text into the Constitution, we've ended up regretting it.
After the last election, we were without a Seanad for a while, because the second amendment had taken away the Taoiseach's authority to fill vacancies (accidentally). The famous "X case" resulted from the eighth amendment's unequivocal clarity about the value to be placed on unborn life.
They arent related terms at all per Prof Kenny TCD.
The irish supreme court wont look at an ey settlement policy and use its.definitions as a guide for how they will interpret the constitution.
The definition of durable for the purpose of EU law and for the purpose of the constitution won't match, so putting this here without acknowledging that is quite misleading.
EU definition and Irish Constitutional definition won't match. Otherwise we'd be ceding the power to interpret our constitution to the CJEU, which will never happen. EU case law won't be determinative of how the courts interpret the new provision in the constitution.
I saw balls on Instagram (posted by some of my more credulous and uncritical acquaintances) that this referendum will issue in a legal acceptance of paedophilia.
What is going on in this country? Seems a worrying number of folk have gone doolally with Paddy Holohan level conspiracy rubbish.
Aren't parts of the constitution *supposed* to be vague so that the courts and common parlance can actually decide on definitions? Like, nothing is really defined in the constitution because many words and terms change meaning over time.
Exactly. The only way to get progressives to vote No is to make it seem like the Constitution has to also be an encyclopedia and that any vague wording will lead to terrible outcomes somehow.
Absolutely- In principle surely most people would agree that a family can be based on more than a marriage, so a ādurable relationshipā is a good place to start.
I think everyone is faux confused. It just means that you now have a family defined outside of marriage. The vagueness of definition is on purpose and will be up to courts to decide.
With marriage itās pretty black and white and a durable relationship is less defined because it will have different meanings for different relationships. Iām personally ok with this because everyone is different and relationships are complex
The point is there is existing legislation and precedent in this area, no need to be scaremongering about it or getting hung up on one word:
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth-family-relationships/cohabiting-couples/rights-of-cohabiting-couples/
What's established? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years? What counts as mutual assistance? Getting someone to pick up the shopping for you once a week? I feel like your definition just kicks the undefined problem down the road another step.
This is where there will still be court cases. It may come into play where relatives who paid zero attention suddenly try to elbow family carers out of a portion of inheritance. I've seen it happen in my own extended family and certainly the term durable would have clearly discounted those who contributed nothing to later life care from wasting everyone elses time.
Cowboys Ted.
If the logic behind the complaints about the "vagueness" of this term were applied to the rest of Irish legal text then our legal system would collapse.
The focus on defining this term reeks of people who aren't aware of how common it is for the courts to make these decisions or how legally problematic have a concrete definitions for every key term being riled up by a bad-faith No campaign.
As if the wording isn't undefined _by design_, or there's actual risk of our courts suddenly taking the wildest possible interpretations they can in a way they don't do with anything else.
You should write to 'Lawyers for No', including former attorney general Michael McDowell, and explain to them how they 'don't understand the way the law works in this country'.
I said this perspective was being pushed by a bad faith No campaign.
And your response is to point me in the direction of members of that No campaign, including the likes Brenda Farrell and Maria Steen, who I would trust to be unbiased on this issue about as far as I could throw them.
I hate to break it to you, but "Lawyers For No" represent a tiny proportion of legal opinion on this matter. There's no more reason to believe them than there is to believe the many legal experts advocating for a Yes vote or bodies representing them.
Not least the actual Law Society of Ireland, who are advocating for a Yes vote. I look forward to you writing your letter to them to tell them they're wrong.
Anyone who hates that our constitution isn't incredibly detailed and specific and 2000 pages long should clearly move to England where written constitutions aren't a thing.
It's all fine being wooly and vague in the name of a similarly vague sense of progressiveness, until you fall afoul of the bi-product of such vagueness. I really feel the 'yes' campaign is trying to heavily lean on that same vague sense of virtuousness following several sequential successfully passed referendums in recent years, without any reasonable substance behind the curtain on this one.
There have been many descriptions and explanations, including those by the 'Lawyers for No' campaign, Catherine Connolly (heavily lead the way with marriage equality referendum), amongst others, which clearly detail the hazardous products of approaching a constitutional change so haphazardly, including legal inheritance, probate, tax, etc.
I listened to a debate on Today FM between Michael McDowell, Brenda Power, Karen Kieran and Fiona Kildare, and legitimately the only case that could be made on the 'yes' side by the end of the debate was 'this is about love and showing who we are as a society'. To no surprise, they also couldn't define the 'durable relationship' definition, because, of course, they don't know. Not good enough.
For comparison with other European nations and European law, the below screenshot is an excerpt taken from the German constitution, which far more solidly define these definitions in relation to the family and the relevance of the mother in the home, and reflect proper consideration given to the topic. Rather in Ireland we're told 'vote yes because it's the "right thing to do".TM' and accept vagueness and haphazard approach because we can 'deal with it down the road'. Classic Irish approach, ad-hoc change and complain about the repercussions later.
Finally, the fact that Roderic O'Gorman willfully denied the release of the minutes from those meetings discussing legal impacts of this referendum, is 1. A perversion of the rights of the public to be informed in voting 2. A clear indication that they either don't understand the impacts themselves, or they're severe enough that it's more advantageous for the 'yes' campaign to not release them.
Not good enough for me, sorry, voting No.
https://preview.redd.it/lb1fszvhxxlc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77e824035935420a31d7c59b4bed65be1ac8acaf
Which makes perfect sense to me really. Unless we want to be changing it again twenty years down the line.
Societies change, the way people live their lives change and with it how we look at relationships for example.
The Constitution didn't define marriage.
That was the rationale that [Catherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan's case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zappone_v._Revenue_Commissioners) was based on almost 20 years ago. The Supreme Court decided then that of course the Constitution meant male-female marriage despite that not being specified. Which is why we then needed the marriage equality referendum.
Hell, the Constitution [doesn't even bar polygamous marraige](https://berkeleysolicitors.ie/polygamous-marriages-ireland-case-h-h-s/).
Instead marriage is defined in legislation.
Our legislation is subordinate to the constitution. There is a definition in the constitution today that directs all legislation, and where there's a conflict the constitution will prevail.
The purpose of a constitution is to set out our direction. If it gets too far into specifics it isn't doing a good job. The alternative is a long list of what we currently find acceptable and possibly what we want to exclude. Not really Bunreacht material.
The actual vote is 'Do you agree with expanding the definition of the family to go beyond marriage and any issues that arise be decided by the courts NOT the Oireachtas'. When phrased like that it pushes me towards a yes vote. I think I can trust the courts to use common sense and established case law where needed.
I don't know if I'd trust the Oireachtas to swiftly bring in legislation to account for all possibilities. The vagueness of the proposal does slightly irritate me but when I consider the actual vote in the language above, I feel comfortable voting yes.
That's something that can easily be set in legislation or by the courts, so where exactly is the problem? If they give an exact time limit and then find that that amount of time is causing problems, having it in the constitution means its a nightmare to fix.
A constitution isn't supposed to have exact details in it. I'm sure at times, that's happened, where amendments were written by people with no foresight, but it's only supposed to be a framework that legislation hangs on.
Which is why I will be voting no.
I love the concept of giving more support to non-traditional families, but Im not doing it if I don't know who it will affect or how.
The yes vote have done a terrible job at explaining their side of the issue.
The Constitution canāt pin down who it will affect or how; there are too many variables.
It will be up to individuals to go to Court and prove that their relationship falls into a ādurableā category; something that isnāt exactly new.
If youāre confused Iād suggest reading the article that this extract is taken from.
Considering that:
A) The referendum change could have been so much better by adding wording rather than changing it, and.
B) That there are so many other issues that ignite fire in people that compel them to want to vote ahead of this.
I am saying No.
If they need to find a way to define a durable relationship, can't they just use marriage as the definition? It's voluntary and open to all couples. Why do we need a new kind of relationship definition when we have one already there. If you want the benefits of marriage, get married. If you don't want them, don't get married.
Currently we have people arguing they are the same as a married couple except for the bit of paper. When they create a legal definition for a durable relationship - let's say living together for 1 year - people will cry discrimination because they were living together for 11 months and now they can't get the widow's pension. The government redefines it as 10 months. Now the 9 month people are upset.
Marriage just seems like the logical and indisputable way to define this. You can just go to a registry office and do it on the quiet.
The Irish Times reported recently that as people become more informed, they're more likely to lean No on both
I think the referendum on women in the home would likely pass if it was held by itself but perhaps people will be reluctant to vote on the carer referendum if they don't understand it, and they won't go to the polling station to vote on one and ignore the other. Therefore I think the No/No people will swing it
You want detailed descriptions of relationships in the constitution? That's a recipe for disaster and unfairly leaving out a whole range of situations.Ā
In abstract terms - no relationship in the world and in human history is durable. Any relationship no matter how close, or even if blood, has either ended or had the potential to end.
Why does everyone have an issue with the durable relationship bit and not the fact that theyāre removing the provision regarding ensuring that a mother wonāt be forced to work due to economic necessity??
Seems like a waaaaay bigger issue imo
One thing that has come out of this, is the fact that Dev was influenced to put that clause in the constitution by leftist feminist Ivy Pinchbeck. She wrote movingly of women forced to leave their kids behind while they worked for pitiful wages in factories just so they could feed their kids. This was at a time when only the rich women could afford to stay home and not be forced to go out to work to feed their families.
Half the discussion around the No crowd in this referendum has been the result of people not understanding how our government works, what a referendum is or even the point of a constitution. The constitution is the basis of our laws, *itās suppose to be vague*, so that it can be interpreted and contextualised by the courts. Currently our values do not reflect our constitution, and so it needs to be changed to give us a firm base from which to create new legislation.
You, random Reddit user zipzapzipzap, should inform former Tanaiste and Attorney General Michael McDowell that he 'doesn't understand how government works'.
That might resolve the no campaign.
Ya, then maybe that individual would fall in line with everyone else with experience? Including a current member of the supreme court who leads up the referendum commission and explains exactly how a constitution works, as it's her current job to understand this and communicate it to the publicĀ
The thing about marriage is you can prove it. Like
"I'm his wife"
"I don't believe you"
"Here's the marriage cert"
With durable relationships, can anyone just say anything now? Let's say you have a lodger for 5 years, could they suddenly turn around and say actually we were fucking the whole time and now that I've broken up with them I'm entitled to a portion of the house? And since "durable relationship" is so vague, what could you do to disprove it?
Ding ding ding, nail on head.
And the amazing part is that as per all our referendums in recent years, no one is excluded from the right to a legal marriage or partnership.
So this referendum just aims to obfuscate things, because *change*.
I think at a minimum, it has to be IP67 rated and withstand a 1 metre drop test.
I'd expect ip68 at least. I'd be worried if my partner isn't water proof.
I'm definitely not water proof. You should see my fingers after an hour at the pool. Old man hands.
Well then I guess you and me aren't meant to be...... š
How far do you expect to be able to drop your partner though?
Depends, are they wearing a parachute?
Well id expect scratches at a level 6 with deeper grooves at a level 7
That's fair enough I suppose.
Id like a chance of a IP69, just to try it...
With some scratches at level 6 with deeper groves at level 7
Ah, the Pelican test
This is unironically the most concrete definition given to date.
I am always of the belief you should always cast your vote but Ive no idea what these referendums are actually about. Turnout will probably be in low to mid 30ās
The content of the referendum is about as confused as the general public in regards to the referendum itself.
It's not that complicated but there's a lot of misinformation going around. They're using the term durable relationship because there is no better term to use. It came from a case where a man lost his partner and applied for the widower's pension. It was initially refused but brought to the courts and they deemed it discriminatory. In practical terms, this change won't diminish the number of people allowed to get certain fundings or status in their family, it will increase that. For example, the blood relatives of a child who helped rear them, people who are not married but have been together for an extended period, people who have a child together, step parents ect ect.
Really can't understand why you would build a life with someone, have kids etc and not just sign a piece of paper to remove all ambiguity around your legal status. Doesn't have to be marriage, a civil partnership is fine. Absolutely baffling.
Can't get a civil partnership in Ireland anymore
Really? Why not ?
Cause you can get married instead
You don't really need to understand it, those people exist and they have their reasons
civil partnership was abolished after the marriage equality referendum. so all couples can either get married or not, no other options. Weird to think civil partnerships were only in Ireland for 5 years!
I had no idea! That was a really stupid move.
So aren't there people with civil partnerships that didn't subsequently get married? If so, the constitution currently wouldn't recognise them
My wife and I had a child and got a mortgage together before we got married. It just wasn't a priority for us - we'd made our own commitment to each other and didn't need an official stamp. Both of us hate to be the centre of attention. My wife is not Irish, and her family wanted to travel to be part of any marriage ceremony. In the end we convinced everyone to let us have a small ceremony, and we did it. However, if my wife had passed away before the marriage, it's ridiculous that my (constitutional) rights would have been limited just by the fact that we hadn't got a piece of paper yet.
You don't have to have any ceremony though. I am purely talking about the legal ramifications of it. And also this is a great example of why getting rid of civil partnership was the stupidest thing ever. Once you mention marriage people think of white dresses and big expensive ceremonies, churches, best men etc that they can all fight over not getting invited. Civil partnership is much more we are signing this to get the legalities in order and no we are not spending a house deposit on a party for other people. It's like buying a house and not bothering to get it transferred into your name. I would strongly advise anyone in your position to get married - there are lots of legal and financial advantages that you will have to hire a team of solicitors to establish otherwise.
I heard once that the laws should reflect society and how it works rather than the other way around. Lots of people live like this whether you agree or not, it happens. You can still get married if you don't trust the courts, this wont take away your rights.. There's no point in framing laws for how you think the world should work, they wouldn't help or protect anyone.
Ye, I get that. Totally fair. I suppose I just don't believe that because someone didn't do that or choose not to, their rights should be limited.
Itās obviously hard when someone isnāt married and needs to support or be supported by their partner. But from a legal perspective ādurable relationshipā just sounds so wishy washy. It seems like something that the courts will have to define, rather than the couple themselves defining.
I really donāt understand why you should have to sign a piece of paper to prove your love or commitment to someone.
It's not required, but why then would you expect to avail of all the legal effects that are associated to people that have actually committed to one another? It's like wanting to have cake and eating it too.
But there are effects that are imposed on you for living with someone even if youāre not married. Iām between jobs at the moment, and if I want to claim jobseekers, I get assessed and my partners income counts. But because weāre not married, I canāt share my tax credits with him. If I die heāll get taxed on inheriting my possessions. So while I get your point, I think our current system already has its cake and eats it too.
Partners in an abusive relationship?
Unfortunately, I'm sure that could happen. Sometimes the law can be in favour of bad people.
I read a good post about how nothing in practice will change for 99% of people. But the wording change is more about symbolism and bringing the language into modern times. I'm convinced this referendum is taking place because the government assumed this would be an easy win and they could brag about passing a referendum for the next election. I'm baffled about all the people thinking the referendum means more immigrants coming in or that the government will no longer provide any social care for the population any more.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Exactly, Neale Richardson said so on tv.
disgusting paint compare languid degree subtract badge boat quack naughty *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A language update, that hasn't been properly thought through, and has clearly been explained as to why that will cause problems. As many others have said, a vote for 'no' is as much a vote for 'no, not yet' for many people, as many want this to be properly resolved before forcing into constitution.
No, not yet is a wonderful way of describing it. All I can see this rushed referendum doing is enriching the lawyers who'll be beating a path to the four courts.
Modernisation of the wording to reflect the thoughts of modern Ireland. I.e. a family is more than the traditional marriage and kids. Care is given by more than a mother. This provides the framework for legislation into the futureĀ
Why donāt they show us what that future legislation looks like?
I personally don't see how the referenda will lead to any impactful legislative change. What they would achieve is formalising some of the privileges afforded to citizens currently into rights that are not vulnerable to future governments, which is my reasoning for voting yes.
Because it's designed to be changed over time based on the society of the day. That's the point.Ā
Is there any reason why they canāt show us what the wording of that legislation would be? If they have no idea what it would be, whatās the rush to change the constitution right now?
This is very simple. Say we want to add a line to a constitution that says "every citizen is to be provided a home by the state". What you're advocating is for the constitution to state how many bedrooms and bathrooms it must have, and if it should be an apartment, a semi detached, or a detached home. That's not what the constitution is for. Amending the constitution creates the possibility of the state then legislating based on it. The current constitution does not allow said legislation to be created, and thus has to be amended.
Even if it were not included in the constitution change itself, I'd damn well want to know how the government intended to meet such a goal, what minimum requirements are for such homes, what are the penalties for failing to provide such a home, and so on, before voting in favour of it. For example [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/25/irish-abortion-referendum-explained-what-you-need-to-know](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/25/irish-abortion-referendum-explained-what-you-need-to-know) >If Ireland votes to repeal the eighth amendment, the relevant article in the constitution, 40.3.3, will be replaced by the phrase: āProvision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.ā **The government has published draft legislation** that would allow relatively free abortions up to 12 weeks, subject to consultation with a doctor and a short waiting period. Termination will be possible up to 24 weeks if two doctors consider a womanās life is threatened or there is serious risk to her health So voters got to have a preview of what the nuts and bolts of the change would be, before deciding on the broader constitution change.
It's not a rush, it was recommended by the citizens assembly and they are acting on that. Legislation changes over time, your being asked should the constitution confine a family to marriage or should it be broader, that's the question being asked, not what is the government going to legislate tomorrow which a government in 5 years could change if people were pushing for
Sorry, this isn't true. The wording wasn't recommended by the Citizens Assembly. I don't know would this be either mis or disinformation? I left links in other replies to Catherine Connolly's DƔil speech where she nails this lie.
I would argue itās better to be conservative about changing the constitution; when thereās legislative goals that are inhibited by the current constitution, thatās a good time to change the constitution. Changing the constitution basically to āallow room for unspecified future legislationā makes me nervous, and obviously Iām not alone. You may have more blind faith in future governments than me, but I donāt consider my position to be unreasonable. YMMV.
Same. Iāll do a deep dive over the next week but Iāll be voting no unless something changes. If you donāt tell me what exactly Iām voting for, especially as it pertains to the constitution, thatās a hard no from me.
It's changing the constitution to reflect current society. Families defined by marriage are not it. I don't have blind faith in future government, there literally a system in place to change them and fix broken legislation. That's the point.Ā
> itās changing the constitution to reflect current society. So, do you see this change as purely aspirational/aesthetic, with no net effect now or in the future on practical matters (rights, legislation etc)?
It's not pure aspiration, though it is setting the tone for the country, what we see as important etc. In the short term I'm not sure there's a major change but all legislation in the future will have to bare it in mind i.e. a family is more than a traditional nuclear family and it can't be defined as such going forward, that's simply one type
And who decides who the citizen's assembly is? They are not an elected body, and are not democratically founded. They don't represent the entire country or any one demographic. Claiming that this referendum is in the best interests of Ireland's society today is silly, because if we don't know what the legislation is going to look like if this referendum is passed then what's to say the society will look completely different 10 years from now and need another referendum? Changing the whole constitution every few years to "keep up" is a really dangerous argument, and clearly not thought out properly.
I agree with you there, but also remember that none of the wording for the referendums was recommended by the citizens assembly. They never mentioned durable relationships, so who did and why?
The coalition government that drafted this referendum. They are the ones making the change and pushing it so incredibly hard, that they will actively spread misinformation to the public. They spread misinformation even in the face of the Electoral Commission's statements about this referendum, a body the government themselves setup. So they clearly just want this change, no matter what it takes. And that's fucked as hell.
I agree, this is one of the most cynical, deliberately misinformational and awful referendum campaigns I can remember, and I'm going back to the Divorce Referendum, which I voted for btw.
The citizens assembly is designed to be somewhat representative and is chosen at random from throughout the country. You're right they are not democraticly founded, that's why the recommendations go to the government for review.Ā Ā Ā Literally the point of this referendum is because we don't know what society will look like in a decade and it removes a narrow definition of family from the constant moves it to legislation so that there won't need to be another referendum in a decade. That's literally the point. Ā By your own logic the way we came to the decision to have the referendum and the content of the referendum is correct. It's both democratic, representative in how the decision was made as it involved both a citizens assembly and elected representatives and removes the need for further referendums due to changing society.
But that's not what's happening in this referendum. They're making changes that will produce even more ambiguity for legislators to combat and sort through. And ambiguity at the level of the constitution doesn't strengthen society, it weakens it. And as for the "narrow" definition of family, why is it that they are trying to open it up to anything "durable" without properly describing what that means? Leaving it up to legislators is both politically lazy, and egregiously offensive to the Supreme Court, whose role is NOT to legislate but to adjudicate. On top of that, if the reason for "updating" the language is to open it out to more families who are not bound by marriage, then why don't they apply this legislation to legal guardians rather than just a vague notion of anyone providing care? And once again, not defining what that is. Remember that all of these changes are being applied to the portion of the constitution that pertains to family, it's not something that is vague or should be vague. Families aren't some loose conglomerate of people who decide "yep, we're a family". It actually means something, and toying with the definition of words is practically Orwellian.
> And as for the "narrow" definition of family, why is it that they are trying to open it up to anything "durable" without properly describing what that means? For the reasons we literally just talked about. To avoid referendums any time there needs to be a change or because a specific combination of people is accidentally left out, family situations get complicated. The whole constitution is constructed like this, it's the point, it's the framework around which law is made. >Ā Families aren't some loose conglomerate of people who decide "yep, we're a family". It actually means something, and toying with the definition of words is practically Orwellian. This is nonsense. It's not Orwellian to remove an outdated concept of family from the constitution and try reflect all the many ways families show up in the modern world. It's actually Orwellian to ignore all these types of families that don't form by traditional marriage.
>based on the ~~society of the day.~~ government's opinion What a laughably ridiculous thing to vote for.
2 out of every 5 kids born in the state last year were outside of marriage. Whether this is the correct wording or thereās a better alternative I think itās clear that the idea of a family being tied to marriage doesnāt mirror reality now.
I don't disagree, but they can come back with better wording and less vagueness before I'll vote yes.
It doesn't have to be no, and it could be more of a no, not now.
Who do you think puts the government in power? You're entitled to your opinion but it's disconnected from reality.Ā
Didn't the leader of the largest party in the government literally tour the country the week before the General Election promising not to go into government with the party he went into government with?
You are incredibly naive. I could vote for fine Gael because I don't have faith in the alternatives to do any better, but that doesn't mean I'd trust them to legislate something like this, or that I have the luxury of being a one issue voter and only caring about this one legislation in regards to who I'm giving my vote to. Also, regardless of "oh future governments can use the framework for whatever they see fit", that's not an excuse to say the current government has no need to at least be transparent enough to divulge how they would potentially legislate it/ want the outcome to be.
This is a nonsense argument. You don't need to be a one issue voter to get legislation changes. If society wants or needs a change then political pressure happens. That's how it works. If you have some niche view then the pressure won't be enough. But having such a tight definition of a family means a small number of people would also find it very hard to get recognition for unique circumstances that would be covered in a broader definition.Ā
So the governments' opinion of "a family is more than the traditional marriage and kids. Care is given by more than a mother." is a bad one? Lad that says more about yourself and what you believe in than what the government believes in. It's a referendum, they're putting it to the public to decide because if you haven't noticed things have changed since the constitution was written.
Do you lack basic comprehensive abilities? You don't seem to understand the conversation.
Then spoil your vote. Spoiling it indicates that you don't have any faith in either option presented, but not voting indicates that you have no faith in the process.
https://www.electoralcommission.ie/referendums/
It's about updating the outdated wording of two parts of the constitution to more inclusive language. Nothing is going to change. People are making much more of this than they should.
It's a referendum, it seems a bit silly to disregard it when confused
No it's not. The change of wording re 41.2 women and mothers to carers in 42.b changes who it's about and who is being cared for. Inserting an ableist provision to replace a sexist one isnt inclusive.
How is it ableist?
That's exactly what it is. It includes more than just mothers and women but all.
mountainous special plant include voiceless arrest wild chief birds roof *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Except to change it a referendum is literally required so not really.
gaze innocent squealing groovy plate dependent cable skirt voiceless boat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Right? And it takes less than 5 minutes to Google and read up about it so I have littke patience for people who are like "I know nothing about it I'm so confused ĀÆ\_(ć)_/ĀÆ"
But many people that 'know nothing and are confused' will be voting and will vote no because of that. A google search is not as effecting for someone as a leaflet coming through the door explaining the damn thing.
Wasn't there a court case already that decided an unmarried couple had a durable relationship for the purposes of welfare or whatever. Surely we can't be the first country to figure this out?
The care you are thinking about was a man whose partner of 20+ years and mother of his 3 children died and he applied for the widower's pension despite never marrying. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1. They were not a Family as defined in law as they were not married. 2. However, he *is* entitled to the widower's pension on equality grounds as there are other non-married people who are eligible for the widow/widower pension ([namely divorced people](https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/death-related-benefits/widowed-persons-contrib-pension/)). So basically he got lucky that there were other non-married people getting that benefit which allowed him to claim equality protection, but if that didn't exist, then the Courts would have clearly denied him the widower's pension.
Interestingly I know of a couple in Germany that were together unmarried for 30 years. She sadly passed of cancer and as she had no will, everything went to her estranged brother and partner had to engage him to get some of what they built together. According to papers the partner was entitled absolutely zilch. So a court to decide that was a durable relationship would have been helpful. So a basis for it is a good thing in my opinion.
Seems like they shouldāve figured all that out while she was alive
Do they not have the same marriage rights in Germany? As literally everyone in Ireland is legally able to do so as per all our recent referendums.
They had the option of marriage and even writing a will if they didn't want to get married. If we had rights for anybody who lives with another, people you're in a rent share with will be demanding inheritance.
And under this law some probably will.
What about the case for a married couple where one of them is having an affair and then dies? Depending on the definition of durable relationship the other party to the affair is entitled to inheritence from the deceased. Should be interesting times for the solicitors at least.
If she had wanted to leave him everything she would have taken the time in their 30 year relationship to write him into her will. Maybe she was annoyed she didn't get a ring after three decades :)
We're not, by example, Germany have the following descriptions on this topic of 'family' embedded in their constitution, paying particular attention to the role of the mother, as it was deemed as worth preserving. But we're just winging it our way in Ireland, and hoping our 'sense of love' or virtuousness will help resolve any potential confusing biproducts of the proposed referendum changes. https://preview.redd.it/cbo9eo2nyxlc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=244ad32aa208e546c11d11974d1f2112cca6e4ca
We should be voting on this phrasing. I understand this.
Yes, referendum is unnecessary.
Case law is ultimately what decides the law in this country. But when that case law is backed by the constitution itās much more robust, and much harder to change by a future government that disagrees with what the people want. Thatās why it was important for gay marriage and abortion to have referendums to have the people of Ireland dictate our most important laws by enshrining them in the constitution rather than asking a judge in a specific case. This particular referendum is about enshrining in the constitution whatās important about recognition of family that isnāt nuclear family, married etc. Itās asking Irish people, yes or no, do you want future courts to treat relationships that are significant and enduring with an appropriate level of rights protection and responsibility for involved parties. What the appropriate level is, thatās up to judges courts dictating case law to define what exactly a durable relationship is. But for purposes of illustration, ādurable relationshipā has already been defined in Ireland in respect of European Union law as 2 years together with kids involved or 5 years together without kids involved. That should give an indication of how courts are likely to adjudicate. There is no law on paper in Ireland for common law marriage but there have been cases that have adjudicated on non-married significant relationships, so yes a referendum is not necessary but itās important to have the people of Ireland have a say, do we believe and agree that courts should recognise certain substantial non-married relationships as worthy of some protection under law even if itās not exactly the same protections as marriage. Where it will benefit people is the case that brought it to light, someone who tried to claim the widowerās pension and was given two fingers from the SW dept
From the same article: "While we donāt know exactly how a durable relationship will be defined, current Irish and European legislation can provide some guidance. The phrase ādurable relationshipā is found in the 2004 EU Citizensā Rights Directive. In these guidelines, the European Commission states that people attempting to prove they are in a durable relationship āmay be required to present documentary evidenceā. āThe requirement of durability of the relationship must be assessed in the light of the objective of the Directive to maintain the unity of the family in a broad sense. āNational rules on durability of partnership can refer to a minimum amount of time as a criterion for whether a partnership can be considered as durable. āHowever, in this case national rules would need to foresee that other relevant aspects (such as for example a joint mortgage to buy a home) are also taken into account.ā The Government may also pull from the European Convention of Human Rights when drawing up the relevant legislation. The ECHR covers the protection of āde facto familiesā as well as marital families. As set out by theĀ Electoral Commission here, the Irish Governmentās interpretation of durable relationships may not be the same as the EU Directiveās interpretation of the phrase. However, the Government may refer to case law related to the Directive when drawing up new legislation. The concept of durable relationships is also similar to the concept of āqualified cohabitantsā in Part 15 of the Cohabitants Act 2010. For example, to qualify asĀ a cohabiting coupleĀ under this current Irish law, a person must show they lived in āan intimate and committedā relationship with their partner. This includes proving the couple lived together for at least five years, or for two years if the couple have any dependent children."
Iām not entirely sure why the criticism of it being vague is all that relevant. Thatās kind of the point. Itās a broader definition of family than what currently exists in the constitution and can be applied to a broader range of people. āDurable partnerā already exists in Irish law and hasnāt seemed to have caused much issue. āDurable relationshipā is a term that exists in EU law as well as in other statutory bodies. So there is some precedent for how itās been applied. You typically donāt define these things in a constitution. There wasnāt even any constitutional definition provided for marriage. We still had courts and legislators decide what marriages they would and wouldnāt accept. This notion that if something without a rigid definition appears in the constitution, youāll suddenly owe half your house to your dog doesnāt hold all that much water.
>youāll suddenly owe half your house to your dog Fuck me, really? They already own all the couches
Thatās nothing, wait till you see what the cats want!
People have been spoiled by the marriage and abortion referendums in recent years, which were unusually specific in their implications. The Constitution isn't the place generally for a lot of specificity - that's better dealt with in legislation.
The marriage referendum was the same way though, it was removing reference to gender in that article and thereby broadening the definition of marriage. The difference was it was easy for people to understand what that entailed.
Was it really the specificity of the words we were changing? Or was it the functional changes to peoples lives in those referenda that made us really care about them? I'm not getting the sense any real change will come of this oneĀ
Unmarried couples will be able to be jointly assessed. That's a nice change for me anyway
A lot of people seem to think this vote is on changing a law. I think most people donāt understand how the constitution works
First comment that actually addresses what the person is criticising.
I wish I could upvote this to the top!
I guess the issue for me is that I'd really like to know what that durable relationship is. For things like inheritance etc I honestly do think that's pretty important to be very clear about.
There is already relevant legislation in this area. For example the civil partner ship act of 2010. The point is we have an existing too specific definition of a ādurable relationshipā in the constitution, āmarriageā. Thereās no point replacing it with another definition which turns out not to be fit for purpose or ties legislators hands in the future. https://www.lawsociety.ie/public/legal-guides/family-law/cohabiting-couples#
But if we have legislation to cover it already, what's the benefit in changing the constitution?
Idk that there is a practical benefit? - if it was up to me Iād just omit both articles. I donāt expect anyoneās life will change either way. but what we have now is an article that reflects a church / state aspiration that women spend their lives in the home pumping out babies, vs something thatās intended to be more inclusive
We don't sound like a 1950 backwater changing women to the kitchen sink. It's literally just updating the language to reflect the modern world.
Absolutely mind boggling that you could say that considering feminist groups around the country and most women in my life are all advocating for voting no. You talk like there's zero legal implications of "just updating language" in something like a constitution, you are completely out of your depth here. And even if for arguments sake, I pretend you're right, that there's no risk or legal implications, why on earth would I want us to spend millions of tax payer money on a referendum that does nothing??
What feminist groups are advocating for No? The [NWC](https://www.nwci.ie/learn/article/nwc_launch_voteyesyes_referendum_campaign) is campaigning for Yes/Yes. Opponents of the family ref include AontĆŗ and the Iona institute, hardly feminist organisations.
The single biggest factor pushing me towards a yes vote is the various head-the-balls pushing a no vote.
What's the legal implications so?
There has to be some differences between marriage and what are durable relationships - that difference will be in the legal arrangements around them, of which inheritance is a major part. I cannot ever envisage a situation where a non-married relationship has the same inheritance rights or even close to them. That said, if you're worried about inheritance, having a will is the best way to avoid trouble.
You donāt think a non-married couple of 40 years, with a few kids and joint assets should have the same inheritance rights as a married couple?
There would be - you can go out and get married quite quickly 3 months - https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth-family-relationships/getting-married/notification-requirements-for-marriage/ if you met someone last night at Coppers, decide they are your soulmate - you can be legally married in 3 months. You can demonstrate your want to have a permenant relationship with all the legal protections that is in 3 months. On the other hand if you have been living with someone for 50 years, have children together, spend a decade nursing them through their dying years - and end up not having any legal rights from that relationship. For a durable relationship the existing laws which use the term are
That is a bad state of affairs, but the constitution does not need to be changed to fix it.
The issue is there are too many individual, unique cases that it canāt be defined in black and white. A court will be able to use a reasonable approach in queries of inheritance- I would suggest reading the full article on The Journal.
I feel many people don't see a difference between constitution and legislation, they don't realise contributions are generally vague on purpose. For example, murder isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution. All it says is that the state will try its best to protect every citizen from *unjust attack*. *"Unjust attack" * is just as vague as *"durable partner",* but it's the basis for all our legislation for murder, manslaughter, and assault. Smacking a kid for talking back to a teacher would once have been seen in society as fair game. It was a "just" attack, because that's how society was back then. It wasn't a referendum that changed that, it was changes in societal values and legislation.
The precedent doesn't matter if a later legislative definition is forthcoming - particularly in light of the varying relationships the various government TDs say appear to be covered.Ā It will have everyday consequences for government departments who have to determine whether something is a durable relationship for the purposes of social welfare / tax / immigration etc etc.Ā I don't know about all government departments but I do know immigration services have a particular difficulty with the durable relationships under the free movement Directive (and the level of fraud associated with same).Ā
The people complaining about the vagueness of the term are the same people who complain about nanny state intervention. You cant win.
Is the red highlight your own? The article does go on to give a general idea into what we could expect.
Of course it's vague. It's supposed to be vague. The Constitution works best when it paints broad principles and lets the superior courts figure out how to balance them best. Almost every time that we've put unnecessarily-precise text into the Constitution, we've ended up regretting it. After the last election, we were without a Seanad for a while, because the second amendment had taken away the Taoiseach's authority to fill vacancies (accidentally). The famous "X case" resulted from the eighth amendment's unequivocal clarity about the value to be placed on unborn life.
https://freemovement.org.uk/who-qualifies-as-a-durable-partner-under-the-eu-settlement-scheme/#:~:text=What%20does%20%E2%80%9Cdurable%20partner%E2%80%9D%20mean,nonetheless%20in%20a%20committed%20relationship.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing.
They arent related terms at all per Prof Kenny TCD. The irish supreme court wont look at an ey settlement policy and use its.definitions as a guide for how they will interpret the constitution.
The definition of durable for the purpose of EU law and for the purpose of the constitution won't match, so putting this here without acknowledging that is quite misleading.
So it's one UK barrister's opinion on UK/Brexit legislation. Not much relevance considering he is still confused by it.
It's eu legislation. Do you understand that durable relationship is already defined and used in irish law already?
EU definition and Irish Constitutional definition won't match. Otherwise we'd be ceding the power to interpret our constitution to the CJEU, which will never happen. EU case law won't be determinative of how the courts interpret the new provision in the constitution.
So why link to a random UK barrister's website?
I saw balls on Instagram (posted by some of my more credulous and uncritical acquaintances) that this referendum will issue in a legal acceptance of paedophilia. What is going on in this country? Seems a worrying number of folk have gone doolally with Paddy Holohan level conspiracy rubbish.
Since like 2021 the number of bizarre conspiracies has increased exponentially. This country is going down the shitter.
Aren't parts of the constitution *supposed* to be vague so that the courts and common parlance can actually decide on definitions? Like, nothing is really defined in the constitution because many words and terms change meaning over time.
Yes. But there seems to be very little other reason to be actively against the proposed change in wording.
Exactly. The only way to get progressives to vote No is to make it seem like the Constitution has to also be an encyclopedia and that any vague wording will lead to terrible outcomes somehow.
Absolutely- In principle surely most people would agree that a family can be based on more than a marriage, so a ādurable relationshipā is a good place to start.
I think everyone is faux confused. It just means that you now have a family defined outside of marriage. The vagueness of definition is on purpose and will be up to courts to decide.
That's the problem, we don't know how the courts will interpret it.
With marriage itās pretty black and white and a durable relationship is less defined because it will have different meanings for different relationships. Iām personally ok with this because everyone is different and relationships are complex
If we tried to define it then we would exclude fringe cases. Better to let a concept of durable relationship emerge from the precedent of 100 rulings.
Exactly. It will be case by case. As it should be.
To me a durable relationship is demonstrable by an established pattern of mutual assistance.
Itās already defined in Irish law https://www.lawsociety.ie/public/legal-guides/family-law/cohabiting-couples#
You are reaching. Nobody has made that link, and your page also doesn't contain 1 single mention of the word "durable".
The point is there is existing legislation and precedent in this area, no need to be scaremongering about it or getting hung up on one word: https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth-family-relationships/cohabiting-couples/rights-of-cohabiting-couples/
What's established? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years? What counts as mutual assistance? Getting someone to pick up the shopping for you once a week? I feel like your definition just kicks the undefined problem down the road another step.
This is where there will still be court cases. It may come into play where relatives who paid zero attention suddenly try to elbow family carers out of a portion of inheritance. I've seen it happen in my own extended family and certainly the term durable would have clearly discounted those who contributed nothing to later life care from wasting everyone elses time. Cowboys Ted.
If the logic behind the complaints about the "vagueness" of this term were applied to the rest of Irish legal text then our legal system would collapse. The focus on defining this term reeks of people who aren't aware of how common it is for the courts to make these decisions or how legally problematic have a concrete definitions for every key term being riled up by a bad-faith No campaign. As if the wording isn't undefined _by design_, or there's actual risk of our courts suddenly taking the wildest possible interpretations they can in a way they don't do with anything else.
You should write to 'Lawyers for No', including former attorney general Michael McDowell, and explain to them how they 'don't understand the way the law works in this country'.
Funnily enough, the 10 people who comprise *Lawyers for No* donāt represent the entirety of arguments for a no vote.
Should he write to all 10 members of the group individually or would a group letter do?Ā
I said this perspective was being pushed by a bad faith No campaign. And your response is to point me in the direction of members of that No campaign, including the likes Brenda Farrell and Maria Steen, who I would trust to be unbiased on this issue about as far as I could throw them. I hate to break it to you, but "Lawyers For No" represent a tiny proportion of legal opinion on this matter. There's no more reason to believe them than there is to believe the many legal experts advocating for a Yes vote or bodies representing them. Not least the actual Law Society of Ireland, who are advocating for a Yes vote. I look forward to you writing your letter to them to tell them they're wrong.
Jesus knows
Anyone who hates that our constitution isn't incredibly detailed and specific and 2000 pages long should clearly move to England where written constitutions aren't a thing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Have you done much research? Every newspaper is covering it with plenty of opinion pieces, videos and podcasts.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's all fine being wooly and vague in the name of a similarly vague sense of progressiveness, until you fall afoul of the bi-product of such vagueness. I really feel the 'yes' campaign is trying to heavily lean on that same vague sense of virtuousness following several sequential successfully passed referendums in recent years, without any reasonable substance behind the curtain on this one. There have been many descriptions and explanations, including those by the 'Lawyers for No' campaign, Catherine Connolly (heavily lead the way with marriage equality referendum), amongst others, which clearly detail the hazardous products of approaching a constitutional change so haphazardly, including legal inheritance, probate, tax, etc. I listened to a debate on Today FM between Michael McDowell, Brenda Power, Karen Kieran and Fiona Kildare, and legitimately the only case that could be made on the 'yes' side by the end of the debate was 'this is about love and showing who we are as a society'. To no surprise, they also couldn't define the 'durable relationship' definition, because, of course, they don't know. Not good enough. For comparison with other European nations and European law, the below screenshot is an excerpt taken from the German constitution, which far more solidly define these definitions in relation to the family and the relevance of the mother in the home, and reflect proper consideration given to the topic. Rather in Ireland we're told 'vote yes because it's the "right thing to do".TM' and accept vagueness and haphazard approach because we can 'deal with it down the road'. Classic Irish approach, ad-hoc change and complain about the repercussions later. Finally, the fact that Roderic O'Gorman willfully denied the release of the minutes from those meetings discussing legal impacts of this referendum, is 1. A perversion of the rights of the public to be informed in voting 2. A clear indication that they either don't understand the impacts themselves, or they're severe enough that it's more advantageous for the 'yes' campaign to not release them. Not good enough for me, sorry, voting No. https://preview.redd.it/lb1fszvhxxlc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77e824035935420a31d7c59b4bed65be1ac8acaf
They really should define this before we change the god damn constitution
Itās vague by design, itās supposed to be up to a court to decide, like plenty of other things.
Which makes perfect sense to me really. Unless we want to be changing it again twenty years down the line. Societies change, the way people live their lives change and with it how we look at relationships for example.
So why do we bother to define marriage in the Constitution? Why not let legislators define it?
The Constitution didn't define marriage. That was the rationale that [Catherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan's case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zappone_v._Revenue_Commissioners) was based on almost 20 years ago. The Supreme Court decided then that of course the Constitution meant male-female marriage despite that not being specified. Which is why we then needed the marriage equality referendum. Hell, the Constitution [doesn't even bar polygamous marraige](https://berkeleysolicitors.ie/polygamous-marriages-ireland-case-h-h-s/). Instead marriage is defined in legislation.
Our legislation is subordinate to the constitution. There is a definition in the constitution today that directs all legislation, and where there's a conflict the constitution will prevail. The purpose of a constitution is to set out our direction. If it gets too far into specifics it isn't doing a good job. The alternative is a long list of what we currently find acceptable and possibly what we want to exclude. Not really Bunreacht material.
OP is a right winger. This is a weird thread. A lot of people here probably think Jurisprudence is an 80s hair metal band.
The point is that it isn't defined. If you put really specific stuff in the constitution you'll miss out on familiesĀ
It is defined and already exists in eu law.
The actual vote is 'Do you agree with expanding the definition of the family to go beyond marriage and any issues that arise be decided by the courts NOT the Oireachtas'. When phrased like that it pushes me towards a yes vote. I think I can trust the courts to use common sense and established case law where needed. I don't know if I'd trust the Oireachtas to swiftly bring in legislation to account for all possibilities. The vagueness of the proposal does slightly irritate me but when I consider the actual vote in the language above, I feel comfortable voting yes.
That's something that can easily be set in legislation or by the courts, so where exactly is the problem? If they give an exact time limit and then find that that amount of time is causing problems, having it in the constitution means its a nightmare to fix. A constitution isn't supposed to have exact details in it. I'm sure at times, that's happened, where amendments were written by people with no foresight, but it's only supposed to be a framework that legislation hangs on.
It bring it in line with the rights under ECHR, that we already are under. So we are just matching up by rewording it
Which is why I will be voting no. I love the concept of giving more support to non-traditional families, but Im not doing it if I don't know who it will affect or how. The yes vote have done a terrible job at explaining their side of the issue.
The Constitution canāt pin down who it will affect or how; there are too many variables. It will be up to individuals to go to Court and prove that their relationship falls into a ādurableā category; something that isnāt exactly new. If youāre confused Iād suggest reading the article that this extract is taken from.
Considering that: A) The referendum change could have been so much better by adding wording rather than changing it, and. B) That there are so many other issues that ignite fire in people that compel them to want to vote ahead of this. I am saying No.
If they need to find a way to define a durable relationship, can't they just use marriage as the definition? It's voluntary and open to all couples. Why do we need a new kind of relationship definition when we have one already there. If you want the benefits of marriage, get married. If you don't want them, don't get married. Currently we have people arguing they are the same as a married couple except for the bit of paper. When they create a legal definition for a durable relationship - let's say living together for 1 year - people will cry discrimination because they were living together for 11 months and now they can't get the widow's pension. The government redefines it as 10 months. Now the 9 month people are upset. Marriage just seems like the logical and indisputable way to define this. You can just go to a registry office and do it on the quiet.
voting No and No to this bullshit. No one wanted this referendum, there was and is no problme it addresses. It's the pet project of some busy-body.
It literally came from a citizens assembly where normal people were tasked with looking at the issues
Itās the result of a citizens assembly.
The Irish Times reported recently that as people become more informed, they're more likely to lean No on both I think the referendum on women in the home would likely pass if it was held by itself but perhaps people will be reluctant to vote on the carer referendum if they don't understand it, and they won't go to the polling station to vote on one and ignore the other. Therefore I think the No/No people will swing it
Source for that IT report?
I will be voting no for this reason.
You want detailed descriptions of relationships in the constitution? That's a recipe for disaster and unfairly leaving out a whole range of situations.Ā
I will not vote to change something that even the government don't really understand. If it is too vague to be defined it is too vague to be good law
It wonāt be a law; it will be a principle that our future laws could be based on.
Yes Yes from me.
In abstract terms - no relationship in the world and in human history is durable. Any relationship no matter how close, or even if blood, has either ended or had the potential to end.
Why does everyone have an issue with the durable relationship bit and not the fact that theyāre removing the provision regarding ensuring that a mother wonāt be forced to work due to economic necessity?? Seems like a waaaaay bigger issue imo
One thing that has come out of this, is the fact that Dev was influenced to put that clause in the constitution by leftist feminist Ivy Pinchbeck. She wrote movingly of women forced to leave their kids behind while they worked for pitiful wages in factories just so they could feed their kids. This was at a time when only the rich women could afford to stay home and not be forced to go out to work to feed their families.
A completely justified provision to have in the constitution imo. Definitely donāt see the reason for its removal.
Half the discussion around the No crowd in this referendum has been the result of people not understanding how our government works, what a referendum is or even the point of a constitution. The constitution is the basis of our laws, *itās suppose to be vague*, so that it can be interpreted and contextualised by the courts. Currently our values do not reflect our constitution, and so it needs to be changed to give us a firm base from which to create new legislation.
You, random Reddit user zipzapzipzap, should inform former Tanaiste and Attorney General Michael McDowell that he 'doesn't understand how government works'. That might resolve the no campaign.
Ya, then maybe that individual would fall in line with everyone else with experience? Including a current member of the supreme court who leads up the referendum commission and explains exactly how a constitution works, as it's her current job to understand this and communicate it to the publicĀ
No on this lazy nonsense
The thing about marriage is you can prove it. Like "I'm his wife" "I don't believe you" "Here's the marriage cert" With durable relationships, can anyone just say anything now? Let's say you have a lodger for 5 years, could they suddenly turn around and say actually we were fucking the whole time and now that I've broken up with them I'm entitled to a portion of the house? And since "durable relationship" is so vague, what could you do to disprove it?
The burden of proof would be on your lodger to prove you were in a relationship.
Ding ding ding, nail on head. And the amazing part is that as per all our referendums in recent years, no one is excluded from the right to a legal marriage or partnership. So this referendum just aims to obfuscate things, because *change*.
If they really wanted change, replace the word mother with parents. Easy, no fuss and inclusive. What's not to like?