IRELAND HAS REACHED many milestones over the course of its first hundred or so years as a sovereign nation.  

In 1937, Bunreacht na hÉireann was published and accepted by statewide plebiscite, codifying the principles by which this nascent democracy would be governed. In a move that was half groundbreaking constitutional law and half the way a cursed artefact would protect itself in an Indiana Jones movie, the document included a clause which decreed that the document could only be changed by popular referendum. 

Then, 87 years later, we ended up having a public conversation about throuples and how they fit into the rich tapestry that is modern day Ireland.

For those of you who struggle with portmanteaus, a throuple is a romantic dynamic in which there are three partners instead of the technically more traditional two.

While the throuple debate finally made it onto the Dáil floor this week, it’s actually been brewing since it was first announced last September that Ireland would be having two referendums on gender equality this spring. One of these referendums proposes broadening the constitutional definition of the word “family” so as to include families “founded on marriage or on other durable relationships”.

It appears to be that word “durable” which set off the ménage-à-trois alarm bells. 

Last week, former Minister for Justice and Attorney General Michael McDowell raised the ghastly spectre of constitutional recognition for throuples while speaking on radio, and it has become such a talking point that Minister for Equality Roderic O’Gorman was forced to deny in the Dáil this week that the new language would allow protected status for throuples, as polygamy is not legally recognised in Ireland. 

In a memorable exchange that highlights the extent to which we’ve become sidetracked, TD Michael McNamara misheard O’Gorman as saying ‘truffles’ and asked him to clarify what he meant.

In case you’re wondering: I have checked the Dáil record, and this was the first time that the word ‘throuples’ has ever been spoken aloud before a parliamentary session. The word ‘threesome’ is on the Dáil record a handful of times dating back to 1969, but none of the examples are especially exciting. 

The seeming unrealism of the throuples argument harks back to the same slippery slope logic seen in opposition to the marriage equality referendum of 2015, where warnings of parents marrying their children began to circulate among certain fringe activists. It begs the question: where are all of these throuples, threatening to upend the social fabric by claiming the same rights as traditional two-person marriages? Where are they, and how in God’s name can we stop them?

And if we can’t stop them, then how do we join one?

This will be our third referendum on a major social issue in the last nine years. There are those among us who feel as though, in some way or another, people like Michael McDowell have been trying to keep us out of throuples for our entire lives.

What will concern the Government, however, is that it is not only conservative (or at least the throuple-sceptics) fretting about the wording in the upcoming referendums, which are scheduled to take place on 8 March.

When it was first announced, the women in the home referendum was seen as something of a slam dunk. The kind of referendum the government could throw together rather than getting into the weeds of a more contentious social issue, such as the legalisation of drugs, emigrant voting rights, or a nebulous and technically complicated issue such as the right to housing.

What seemed to many analysts at first like a straightforward removal of an antiquated clause has quickly begun to throw up constitutional questions that require rather detailed unpicking.

Worry abounds over how the wording of the referendum could be used to spread misleading narratives. This week, the Free Legal Aid Centre has advised that the current proposed wording “said the proposed changes, as currently worded, are “symbolic” and “will not deliver meaningful enforceable rights and stronger constitutional protection for women, families and carers”.

Labour Party leader Ivana Bacik has been similarly critical, saying that while she wants constitutional amendments to prevail in March, she would rather the word “durable” be removed due to lack of clarity over what it entails. Bríd Smith of People Before Profit said she would vote Yes, but condemned the amendments as a “very weak set of proposals for constitutional change”. Independent TD and Leas Ceann Comhairle Catherine Connolly said she would “take her chances” with the current wording of the constitution over the proposed amendment.

It seems intuitive that at this extremely tense time – managing Ireland’s response to the crisis in Gaza abroad while facing intensifying anti-immigration sentiment at home – that the government would really rather not be fighting off opposition from the left and the right on what was once seen as an easy win. 

By trying to avoid something messy, the government has ended up in the very situation it had hoped to avoid.

With the date of the referendum now mere weeks away, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Greens will be hoping that they can assuage concerns across the board about their durable relationships, in more ways than one. Another throuple in trouble.