With just two weeks to go until the Irish electorate is asked to vote on two referendums on March 8th, The Irish Times asked readers how they intend to vote and why.
The Government proposes expanding the definition of family in the Constitution to recognise “durable relationships”, such as cohabiting couples and their children. It is also seeking to replace the language around “women in the home” with wording recognising care within families.
The majority of readers who responded intend to vote No on at least one of the proposals, with some recently having swayed towards rejecting the care amendment following criticism from the Free Legal Advice Centres (Flac) which labelled it “ineffective” and “implicitly sexist”.
Many readers wish to see the goals of the referendums accomplished but express concern over “vague” and “woolly” language. Confusion in general as to the purpose of the referendums has led to some saying they plan to abstain or vote to retain the status quo.
Broadcasting moratorium should be scrapped for future referendums, commission says
Referendums risked ‘legal uncertainty’ for migration rules, officials warned before O’Gorman’s reassurances
The Irish Times view on referendum information: a potential erosion of trust
Revenue officials warned privately that family referendum could force tax changes
Others said they simply wished to “punish” the Government by voting No, while some women found the vote being held on International Women’s Day “patronising”.
Here is a selection of the submissions received.
Tomás Heneghan, Co Dublin: “I’ll be voting Yes to the family amendment because families are – and have always been – wider than just two married individuals and their children.
“I’ll be voting No to the care amendment because it seems to reduce the voices and experiences of people with disabilities and doesn’t truly address the issue of care in a meaningful way. I want to see a proposal to either delete article 41.2 entirely or replace it with a meaningful commitment for the State to support care in society.”
Tara Hanlon, Co Kildare: “Yes to family. Although the definition of a durable relationship has not been clarified, it is apparent that this will be interpreted as something akin to marriage (long-term cohabitation) or other ‘vertical’ family relationships like grandparent and child, etc. Although there may be consequences for succession law and taxation, if it means more people are able to benefit from State supports or more beneficial tax arrangements, I don’t see the downside to this.
“No to care. My initial reaction to this proposal to remove the reference to the woman’s duty in the home was of course to vote Yes, but I always thought this was just a progressive gesture/platitude. When I saw people actively involved in the provision of care and other disabled people come out to say the amendment that is suggested to replace it is useless, falls short of what the Citizens’ Assembly suggested and is a wasted opportunity to enshrine better supports for carers regardless of gender, this made me reconsider. Flac’s opinion published recently cemented my vote. Why replace one meaningless clause with another? It seems like a wasted opportunity.”
Anne Weadick, Co Galway: “While I agree that the problems they are meant to address require attention, these amendments don’t actually remedy the issues at hand. With regard to the ‘durable relations’ clause, it is too imprecise and as such indicates a lack of thought and foresight. This is very likely to lead to very messy situations when what we require is a broadening of definition that includes families as we now know them to be but with a clear test on how to meet the new qualification.
“The ‘carers’ amendment is an insult to carers and the vulnerable people they care for. It is one more way of the Government saying something but doing nothing. The Government wants to enshrine in the Constitution the obligation of families to care for the vulnerable while not assuming its responsibility to provide services to our disabled citizens themselves.
“This opportunity should have been used to enshrine enforceable rights for disabled citizens that they could then use with force of law to ensure their protections.”
Anonymous, Co Galway: “Regarding the family referendum, I am fully supportive of families of all sorts having equal recognition. However, the term ‘durable relationship’ is completely vague and could be interpreted in a wide variety of ways. If the term used referred to a ‘legally recognised relationship’ or something similar, I would get behind it as that would require appropriate legislation to recognise a familial relationship.”
Cliodhna Ryan, Co Cork: “I’ve been following the reporting and trying to be informed about the purpose of this referendum and still find myself confused. The overall idea of the referendum feels woolly. I’m not sure what actual practical changes, to the lives of women and carers particularly, will result from a Yes vote. So far, the primary point I’m taking from the debate is that the notion of the durability of relationships will be determined by the courts in the event of a Yes vote. I’m hoping to gain some clarity in the remaining time. If others are as confused as I am, the voter turnout might be quite low.”
Shane Bermingham, Co Wicklow: “The rewording of the Constitution introduces more grey areas into the law. All the women in my household (mother, grandmother and three sisters) are voting No as it is an attempt to erase their status in the Constitution. For a referendum on a day that’s supposed to support women’s rights, it does nothing but dilute them. Article 41 may seem outdated in its language but it provides women and carers with the recognition they deserve.”
Anonymous, Co Offaly: “I voted Yes in favour of marriage equality and overturning the Eighth Amendment but this time around there just isn’t enough solid information on the consequences to make a decision on. The campaigns in favour honestly come across as sentimental fluff. There’s nothing to actually sell it.”
Anne Clune, Co Clare: “I don’t know how to vote so I shall probably abstain (for the first time since 1968!). I agree with extending the definition of the family and abolishing the references to women in the home, but I don’t think that the proposed wording achieved either of those ends. What is a ‘durable’ relationship? Why is caring restricted to the family only, and surely to ‘strive to support’ is no more than a pious aspiration? There are other things wrong with the wording and my fear is that passing the referendums in this form will lead to chaos and confusion and will prevent a more suitable wording from being produced in time.”
- See our new project Common Ground, Evolving Islands: Ireland & Britain
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Our In The News podcast is now published daily – Find the latest episode here
