Sir, – Further to Justine McCarthy’s article “Trust the romantic French to come up with a pragmatic solution on ‘durable relationships’” (Opinion & Analysis, February 9th), the reason for a No vote has nothing to do with a lack of consideration or a judgment of another’s circumstances, nor does it reflect a lack of sympathy for the vulnerable or their carers. Instead, it has very much to do with an unsatisfactory legislative process and the rather dubious wording arising out of this neglect. This wording does not achieve the goal that was hoped for and in such circumstances, with the matter at hand being so very important, we are better off in the long run saying No for the moment, and then to go on fighting for amendments that would actually make a real difference in people’s lives. – Yours, etc,
ANNE WEADICK,
Headford,
Co Galway.
A chara, – Justine McCarthy sidesteps “durable relationships” but her novel approach is in choosing to tell us instead how they do things in France, a pact civil de solidarité – le Pac! So elegant! So irrelevant! Because while no one can tell us what a durable relationship might turn out to be, we know it is not a marriage or a marriage-lite, à la française.
Another amusing misdirection takes place when judges are chided for being scared of interpreting a teensy-weensy little amendment. It’s your job, sillies! Yes, it is their job, so when legal professionals warn us that they’re being handed a hot mess we should take their expertise in the matter seriously rather than accuse them of timidity in legal wrangling.
But we all catch it in the next section when we are warned not to vote in a way that might send an unpleasant message to politicians. It’s quite a bizarre take on democracy. Be kind to the Government which spent €20 million on two whole referendums, so don’t ruin it for them.
As for the last paragraphs, I see again the usual tactic to short-circuit critical thinking about the amendments. Raising the spectres of Old Ireland to freeze us in fear, to control us again, this time to blindly do whatever we are told is the opposite of what they did. I sense a grudging admiration in the choice of bogeymen.
So no, I won’t echo the fake enthusiasm, and no, I won’t blandly repeat the words that Joyce placed in the mouth of the paper doll he made of his wife, Nora. I’ll say the word that is so powerful when I put it there myself. No, I say, I won’t, no. – Is mise,
GERALDINE HALPIN,
Arbour Hill,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – Justine McCarthy raises a valid point about the absence of civil partnership as an option for heterosexual couples, which many might opt for, instead of marriage.
It would have made much more sense to introduce a clear and unambiguous relationship definer, such as civil partnership through legislation for heterosexual couples, than the completely unclear and very ambiguous “durable relationship” proposed, through a referendum into the Constitution.
In practical terms, Article 41 has not prevented the modern woman from taking her rightful place in society, as an equal in the job market and in society, as Justine McCarthy herself proves as an opinion writer for Ireland’s most prestigious newspaper. We’ve had women presidents, and half the doctors in the country are women. Most of the teachers are women. Women hold very many high-ranking positions in industry and in society today, including as Government Ministers.
So the text of Article 41 has not prevented women from getting ahead.
Misogyny has, and that is not exclusive to Ireland because of Article 41.
In virtually every country in the world, misogyny has kept women downtrodden. In many countries, it still does.
None of these countries have an article 41 and many aren’t even Catholic.
Justine McCarthy may feel offended by Article 41 and its recognition of the importance of women’s “duties” in the home and the completely ignored sentiment that mothers should not be forced, through economic necessity, to work outside the home, but it is not a crime to be offended.
Indeed, many are offended by the notion that a man can miraculously become a woman, merely by self-declaring so, or that people are expected to refer to an individual using plurals, when clearly there is only one person in front of them.
Offence is not a good reason to change the Constitution.
The lack of support provided by successive governments, since the writing of the Constitution, to mothers in the home, forcing them, through economic necessity, to return to work earlier than ideal, at a time when their child most needs them, might have been a better issue for Justine McCarthy to focus on, or even as she points out, bringing in, à la France, the option of clearly defined civil partnership for heterosexual couples, which is offered to gay couples in Ireland, but not heterosexual ones. Why not?
The machinery of State is an inflexible beast, which needs clear definitions and rules and regulations to function at all, including clear definitions as to what a durable relationship might be.
Marriage and civil partnership are clear definitions that a government and civil service can work with.
How can legislators think it is a good idea to introduce a new term into the Constitution, “durable relationship”, without putting in some sort of definitions to what it might mean? – Yours, etc,
DAVID DORAN,
Bagenalstown,
Co Carlow.
Sir, – I wonder how many women will have to take annual or unpaid leave to look after primary schoolchildren on March 8th? In this day and age, it is outrageous that some schools are still being used as polling stations. Why not local community centres, churches or vacant pubs? Or at least have the decency to hold the election during the school holidays so we (let’s face it: the women and mothers) aren’t scrambling for childcare on the very day that they want our contribution to society erased from the Constitution. – Yours, etc,
MARY McDONAGH,
Cleggan,
Co Galway.
Sir, – In “Our Constitution recognises an unfashionable truth: women do most of the unpaid work at home” (Opinion & Analysis, February 8th), Laura Perrins suggests that Minister for Children and Equality Roderic O’Gorman’s statement at the launch of the referendum that “a woman’s place is wherever she wants it to be” “feeds into a modern kind of self-obsession” and is a “selfish idea that you’re entitled to do whatever you want”.
I would rather suggest that supporting “A woman’s place is wherever she wants it to be” and a Yes Yes in the upcoming referendum add to social progress, acknowledge the importance of a woman’s autonomy, her personal fulfilment and the need to dismantle stereotypes and inequalities that exist. Embracing this idea is not selfish but rather a step toward a more inclusive and equitable society for everyone.
Our Constitution is a living document and it is important that it reflects the ever-changing and evolving developments in our society so that it remains relevant in today’s world. – Yours, etc,
ELLEN O’MALLEY
DUNLOP,
(Adjunct Professor,
University of Limerick Law School),
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W.
Sir, – I would like to point out an inaccuracy in Michael McDowell’s article “Yes vote on Family referendum will result in a mess: If it is passed, the durable relationship family will be elevated to an ‘institution’” (Opinion & Analysis, February 7th).
Writing on the cohabitation legislation that gives “qualified cohabitants” a right of redress, Mr McDowell states “cohabitants by law are not ‘qualified cohabitants’ if one or both of them is during their relationship married to someone else and at the time that the relationship ends has not lived apart from his or her married spouse for four of the preceding five years”. However, this has not been the case since the enactment of the Family Law Act 2019. That legislation amended previous legislation to remove this temporal requirement for qualified cohabitants whose cohabiting relationships ended since 2019, and as a claim for relief must be brought by a qualified cohabitant within two years of the termination of the cohabiting relationship, only relationships that ended since early 2022 now matter.
Further, when directing people to the cohabitation legislation to “know whether they are legally ‘qualified cohabitants’ with all that may entail’, Mr McDowell omits mentioning that one “qualified cohabitant” can in almost every case only seek redress from the other if they can prove that they were financially dependent. This can be a difficult hurdle to overcome, and it would have been useful not to alarm cohabitants into thinking that the legislation goes too far in creating reciprocal rights and duties. It doesn’t. – Yours, etc,
Dr BRIAN TOBIN,
School of Law,
University of Galway.
Sir, – I am writing to express my frustration and exasperation regarding the ongoing debate about amending Article 41 of the Constitution. Frankly, I am sick and tired of people asking why we want to change it. This question feels like a slap in the face. The language of Article 41 is not only outdated but also blatantly sexist. It is offensive to be repeatedly asked to justify the removal of language that clearly discriminates against women. We should not have to explain why we want to eliminate language that implies women belong in the home and assigns them specific duties based solely on their gender.
As a society, we should be striving for equality and inclusivity. It is disheartening that in this day and age we are still grappling with language in our Constitution that perpetuates harmful stereotypes and reinforces gender roles. Instead of questioning why we want to change Article 41, we should be asking why it has taken so long to address this issue. It is time to acknowledge that this language has no place in a modern, progressive society and take the necessary steps to amend it. – Yours, etc,
SARAH LAWLOR,
Dublin 3.
A chara, – According to the Irish Times Ipsos poll (News, February 9th) more than half of all voters say that they know “hardly anything at all” about the referendums.
The received wisdom about constitutional amendments for decades has always been: “When in doubt, leave it out.”
The logical position for such people is to vote No. – Yours, etc,
P J MATHEWS,
Drogheda,
Co Louth.