Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THERE’S A LOT going on in the two referendums Ireland will be voting on this Friday.
Speaking to people on the street, it’s clear there’s much confusion about what they’re both about.
So in an effort to change that, this is The Journal’s go at summarising the votes in 500 words or less.
The summary is not about the arguments on either side, of which there are many and available here, but rather it’s a quick guide to what the votes are about.
The referendums are separate but are connected because one is about how the Constitution defines the family and the other is about how it recognises care.
The Family Amendment
Essentially, this would mean that a family doesn’t have to involve a marriage.
As it stands, the Constitution explicitly links ‘the family’ solely with ‘marriage’ and voting Yes to this referendum extends the definition beyond marriage.
The meaning of marriage won’t change either way and the family is still considered ‘the fundamental unit group of Society’. Indeed, the Constitution says the State must ‘guard’ marriage ‘with special care’.
What the proposal does do is change the definition of the family, saying it would instead be ‘founded on marriage or on other durable relationships’.
The phrase ‘durable relationships’ is not defined as part of the referendum wording but the independent Electoral Commission says it means ”different types of committed and continuing relationships other than marriage”.
If this referendum is passed, families based on durable relationships would have the same constitutional rights as families based on marriage.
If a case comes before the Courts, a judge may have to decide if a relationship is ‘durable’ and in doing so they would take account of existing laws.
No new legislation has been proposed in tandem with this referendum.
In some previous referendums, such as the Eighth Amendment, proposed new laws were published in advance. In others, such as the Blasphemy referendum, they were not.
The Care Amendment
As it stands, the Constitution has a specific section dedicated to women and their ‘life within the home’.
The section is in two sentences and, though it does not specifically mention care, it says that this ‘life within the home’ is good for society because it assists ‘the common good’.
The Constitution adds that the State should try to make it so that women are not forced to do any work ‘to the neglect of their duties in the home’.
This current wording has little, if any, legal effect as women are not prevented from taking up work outside the home, nor are they supported to the extent that every woman who wishes to work only at home is able to do so.
If there is a No vote, the two sentences will remain in the Constitution. If it’s a Yes they will be removed and replaced with the following sentence:
The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.
So essentially,“care” is referenced for the first time in the Constitution. It says that care is provided by “members of a family to one another” and that where this is the case the State must “strive to support” this.
Again, the Courts may be asked at some point to decide if a government has sufficiently strived to support care in a particular case.
Electoral Commision chair Justice Marie Baker has said that there is no legal definition for ‘strive’ but that “obviously it means try or try very hard”.
“Courts would look at the general use in language, and it is a strong word,” she said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I will be voting No and No on Friday.
1, Any stay at home mother that relies on the state could be targeted if a yes vote is passed. The provision in the constitution that states ” that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour” WILL BE ABOLISHED .
2, The term “MOTHER” will be erased from the definition of family
3, Marriage, on which a family is founded, which is protected in art 41.3.1 from attack is indeed being attacked, on which a family is founded will be erased,
4, WTF is durable.
5, endeavour replaced by strive.
It’s all full of wishy washy rubbish
It’s big NO NO from me
Many families are not founded on marriage, but they are still families, even though the constitution doesn’t recognise them as families just because there was no marriage.
@Joe Mc Dermott: sorry but this is nonsense.
I’ve never met a single mother who wasn’t forced out to work to keep food on the table regardless of the wording of the current legislation.
I’m still voting no on the care referendum but don’t act like this legislation has ever done anything but hold women back.
@Joe Mc Dermott:
1. Lots of mothers are already obligated to work, as are many fathers, single dads, non-parent caregivers (e.g. grandparents).
2. The term “mother” doesn’t need to be specified, that’s the point. Nor does father or any of the other family members that get lost and ignored in all this angry yelling. Acknowledging that care may be provided by multiple family members is just reality.
3. Marriage still exists and isn’t going anywhere. Voting yes just acknowledges that some families don’t involve a marriage, which is true and not scary.
4. The word durable can be looked up in any dictionary. Many people are raised by a grandparent or relative, for example. Those relationships are durable, but not currently recognised.
5. Both are words that mean “try”. Not seeing the issue.
No, No, No way..
Shame on the journal trying to push a yes vote, it’s no/no!!
@Andrew Martin: Yes it is…That’s RTEs job!!!
@Andrew Martin: Pushing a yes vote? They had Aontú on one article so as to provide some balance… Aontú don’t even reside in the same century as most.
@Mick Hanna: Irish Media is by and large one voice – the Governments voice.
Actually thankfully I don’t, it’s a huge NO NO from me. How anyone can vote Yes after watching Michael’s car crash debate last night is beyond me. He was unable to answer any valid concerns or questions , he is just as uncertain on the wording and consequences as the rest of us. How can anyone have any confidence in the Government? The complete waste of money on a referendum that no one asked for is disgraceful. Shame on this Government. If anyone has any uncertainties vote NO NO!
@Peter Somers: even HE KNEW himself it was ‘car crash’ television…… actually felt embarrassed for the guy!!! NO + NO
Jeekurs! Comments open??!! U ok journal? Vote no no.
DON’T NEED IT AT ALL….A DEFI NO/ NO FOR ME, thanks anyhow
@Ken Mc Carthy: Really? I had you down as a yes/yes. You think you know someone, eh?
Vote NO!
Interviewed the other night, “LEO” said he didn’t think it was the responsibility of the state to be a carer. It’s a no from me.
If these changes come in it will be a huge win for the law society down the line as people will have to fight for clarification on these ambiguous words like ‘Strive’ and ‘Durable’
NO & NO
@James Comerford: Agreed – this, if passed, will serve nobody in society bar the legal sector who will make millions from it.
I won’t need it, it’s a no no!
Vote no no no
If you have any doubts listen to Michael McDowell who is advising everyone to Vote NO NO, as a former Attorney General, Minister for Justice and Barrister, when it comes to the law and legal implications he knows what he’s talking about and has been the voice of sanity in all of this as has Tom Cloonan. Michael Martin last night was unable to answer any genuine concerns and seems just as confused as the rest of us.
If still unsure Vote NO NO especially when none of us including Michael Martin know the implications if it’s carried.
NO NO… Sick of media pushing for a yes vote. Not gonna happen!
It’s No, No from me. Don’t trust this government, especially around providing care to children and the disabled.
Is there any substance to these claims that immigrants in polygamous relationships will be able to “bring their 4 wives and 20 children over”? There is nothing wrong with that per se, but are the courts likely to recognise these types of families and grant asylum to all based on the new durable relationships wording?
@Dee Hab: Polygamy is illegal in Ireland so, no, there is no substance outside of fearmongering.
@Dee Hab: maybe listen to Michael McDowell, former minister for Justice attorney General and Barrister . when it comes to legal matters he knows exactly what he’s talking about….or you could listen to Tricia G, who like Michael last night could only try to say that those with genuine questions were ‘fear mongering’….
@EMcD: just to clarify Michael McDowell is advising people to vote NO, while it was Michael Martin who was pushing the fear mongering narrative!
@Dee Hab: Yes.
@Tricia G: Until when somebody takes a case that Polygamy is a durable relationship and/or Ireland is discriminating against those who hold views that Polygamy is a ‘durable relationship’. The law of unintended consequences comes to mind.
@Tricia G: the law prohibiting polygamy could be ruled unconstitutional in court if the amendment is passed and challenges are brought to vindicate the rights of those with multiple marriages from outside the state.
Those polygamous marriages would not be recognised as marriages in current Irish law but they would be recognised as durable relationships by an impartial judge.
Thus would force a change in legislation (constitutional law takes precedence).
So the answer is likely yes.
I personally think that we don’t need a referendums at this stage, a complete waste of time and money, they keep talking about carers ,why don’t they just pay them properly. They have had numerous budgets
Vote no to the anti woman agenda
@pauley870: How is this ‘anti-woman’?
@pauley870: so u are saying “a womans place is in the home” is pro woman?
@Sean O’Dhubhghaill: Erasing mothers from the constitution is hardly a pro-woman move?
@Kenneth Mitchell: it doesn’t say that in the Constitution and you know it.
Nope.. no and no
No and No for me on Friday!
When is it stated that a woman’s place is within the home, as our government keep claiming?
What happened to the Information booklet the election commission was sending out?
I never got it, did anyone?
@John Smith: weird …. cause there was 2 in the postbox here couple weeks back— I must’ve got your one,lol, seriously you’re not missing much – tis’ as vague as water
@John Smith: I didn’t, and no one I have asked has either
@John Smith: I got it. Found it helpful. Seems messy if they didn’t manage to send it to everyone.
A biased ‘explainer’ from a one-sided Marxist online tabloid rag on how I should interpret proposed constitutional amendments?
I don’t think I need this at all thanks.
This has low turnout/mixed/rubbish messaging/confusion/political retaliation from angry voters due to the inept circus act of a dail, written all over this bloody mess of a referendum
This reminds me of Lisbon treaty, we voted no, but at the end we found something else.!!!!!!!!!
Well done to the Journalist who done this article.
In plain English.
Wish others others would follow.
Yes no maybe I don’t know
Actually thankfull
I normally vote, but not this time.
@Mick Hanna: They’re relying on voter apathy to get it over the line. Use your voice and vote NO, let them know that vague wording does not belong in our constitution.
@Mick Hanna: if you want to show this Government how disgusted you are with them wasting millions on a referendum no one asked for, use your vote and vote NO NO, so we can all listen to their justifications for wasting our money…again!
have your say