TERFs and the Irish referendum

This referendum is about saving money, it is always about saving the state money.

Everything government does is about money.

@Mermoose

I saw something about that case recently, I was wondering if that case has had something to do with this.

Let's face it, the length of time cases take to get to Court this is hardly a coincidence.

This case wins and state is on the hook just like with the widower's pension win recently.

I don't know how widely this case has been discussed but it does seem a bit of a coincidence that the proposed wording waters down the state's obligations.

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2024/02/19/legal-body-criticises-implicitly-sexist-referendum-on-carers-in-blow-to-yes-campaign/

https://archive.ph/WGH3I

FLAC has come out against the care referendum and for the family referendum but with reservations about the lack of definition or proposed legislation around the durable relationships bit

"It expressed concern that the likely legal consequences, and benefits to diverse families of the proposed amendment, “have not been explained adequately to date”.
It called for publication of draft legislation setting out what relationships came within the definition of “durable relationships” and the changes the amendment would require, it said. If the referendum succeeded and such legislation was not introduced, diverse families would have to go to court to have their new rights defined and given effect to, it said."

"In relation to the “care” amendment, Flac said it was “highly regrettable” voters did not have the choice to simply delete the so-called “women in the home” provision “which is ineffective, sexist and offensive”. Voters were instead asked to replace it with a new article 42B concerning “family care” with wording “just as ineffective”, Flac said.
This is unlikely to provide carers, people with disabilities or older people with any new enforceable rights or to require the State to provide improved childcare, personal assistance services, supports for independent-living, respite care or home or school supports for children with disabilities, it said.
Article 42B would “give constitutional expression to harmful stereotypes” such as the concept the provision of care is the private responsibility of unpaid family members without any guarantee of State support.
The proposal endorses “a status quo where women undertake the bulk of unpaid care work and places no obligation whatsoever on the State to redress this gender imbalance, rendering it an implicitly sexist amendment”."

Opinion piece in The Irish Independent by a woman who cares for a relative.
https://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/regina-lavelle-this-absurd-and-useless-referendum-wont-help-carers-like-me-one-little-bit/a287494390.html

"What families like mine desperately need are proper services; what we are being offered instead is pantomime."
...
"The proposed change would achieve nothing — by contrast, it is quite simply word erasure. It will not improve the lives of women — it will not improve the lives of male carers either — rather it removes the single acknowledgement of the work we do on behalf of the State. It is an insult to women like me whom the State treats as nothing more than a taxable unit. And all the better if we don’t have children, so that we might have more hours to care for other loved ones.

How much better it would have been had the Government spent the €20m-odd outlay on this referendum on real services for carers who need them, instead of the po-faced rhetoric we are offered?"

...

"Those families can share stories of their myriad daily indignities, coming face-to-face with endless penny-pinching bureaucracy that stonewalls services. The grinding phone calls and letters. The wondering just how much you might have to debase yourself to land that next necessity. The cul-de-sacs of care when you realise there really is nothing else. The cold wash of total powerlessness.

It is like living Edvard Munch’s The Scream. This is our reality.

And yet — somehow — the priority, the solution, is to take the word woman out of the Constitution?"

Rather susprising she has no issues with the "durable relationship" in the definition of family one.

The referendum is three weeks away.

it is scandalous that it’s going ahead with so much still needing clarification. €3m to “explain the issues” is too little too late

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/02/15/electoral-commission-to-address-uncertainty-over-next-months-referendums/
https://archive.ph/vyHkP

According to the chairwoman of the referendum commission Ms Justice Marie Baker post referendum the logical next step is that the Oireachtas defines durable relationship and then the courts interpret it.

I mean how is it logical that we vote on a term we have no idea of the meaning and then the Oireachtas ascribes meaning, which may not be binding given the Supreme Court could overrule it if they deem it too narrow

Also am I wrong or has no one in the Government ever said they do intend to legislate about this and they seem flummoxed when asked to define it?

100% agree. It is just bonkers. ROG has been spouting on that “we all have an idea” “we all know” what we think is a family. How stupid is the man that he thinks we all hold the same idea in our heads AND that the courts will interpret a specific wording to mean the same thing as this idea that we magically all hold in our heads. He’s an absolute idiot.

The only person I've heard give in any way a definition of what durable could be is current supreme court judge and head of the referendum commission, according to her a way to prove a relationship will be durable is if they get wedding invitations and christmas cards together https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/durable-relationships-could-be-defined-by-a-couple-getting-a-christmas-card-says-chair-of-electoral-commission/a1922458908.html

I think whats even more nonsense is that ROG etc seems to imply that there needs to be a romantic element for it to be a durable relationship even though to my mind that doesn't figure into what a durable relationship is at all, ROG said that adult siblings who live together would not be classified as a durable relationship. In reality he has no way of knowing what the Supreme Court will decide a durable relationship is and its nuts to leave it up to them to decide.

I was talking to a friend about it and shes been going out with a new fella for about 3 months, they recently got a joint invite to a party, lets say she dies, is he now entitled to her estate? They haven't considered any of these questions

The word "durable" is even less clear than "enduring" would have been. There are a number of posters using "enduring relationships" but that's not what has been proposed. "Enduring" would point to the fact of having lasted/endured (and still doing so). "Durable" points to some possibility that it has a quality associated with being lasting/enduring. It couldn't get much fluffier. If they have specific relationships and circumstances in mind, they should name them. If they don't they can feck off thinking I'll vote for something they can't/won't define. They were well capable of specifying the legislation that would follow Repeal. They have chosen not to do so with this amendment. I do not trust them to have considered the consequences of the amendment (and if they have they're not telling us what they are). I've lived with the fall-out of constitutional amendments relating to abortion. And more recently the consequences of the GRA (2015). They gave no thought to the consequences for women there and this is the same collection of half-wits.

I'm a No/No.

FFS

Why is it always women

Magdalene laundries
Mother & Baby Homes
Hepatitis C, anti D
Cervical Check
Symphysiotomy (not sure of spelling)

Could more there are just the recent scandals that jumped into my head.

For the more knowledgeable how/can the 2012 legislation which allows SAHP's claim stamps to qualify for full pension impact?

That clause was a solid basis not to impact on mothers who stay at home to challenge the system for financial support in later years.

Many people (mainly women) got pittance and financially struggled when they were older as they did not have enough.

Basically I am wondering was the government about to hammered in a court challenge which they were advised they would lose which brought that change. Bringing the change meant they could control the start date and therefore not have huge payout reward claims

I don't think that immigration is the greater plan, I do think the potential consequences of "endurable relationship " raised questions which were glossed over or kicked down the road.

Whether there is, or isn't anything in the unreleased paperwork, the lack of transparency is sinister

I agree @MarieDeGournay . Most unlikely there's an agenda to exponentially increase immigration. Could be an unintended consequence. This seems to be the case in the UK re Brexit. East Europeans and ppl from the Balkans have been replaced by ppl from South Asia , Africa , Hong Kong etc. The latter more likely to send for family to join them , also to settle permanently.

Rather as we often returned from England but stayed in Oz or the USA , at least in the old days. The child benefit and custody implications are great unknowns though. It's such a shame the Greens have gone full on ID politics and luxury beliefs. Their input is still actually needed on the issues they were elected to address.

That should have read 'arguably have equal rights . . .'

The lawyers are going to get so rich on this one.

It is going to get very complicated once durable polyamorous relationships have equal rights of inheritance, benefits etc with marriage - which is open to anyone, but only two at a time. Will they retrospectively try to define the maximum size of a polycule? And how will it mesh with the other constitutional requirement, that child custody arrangements must be in the best interests of the child? That isn't always decided well even now, when there is no conflicting constitutional claim based on 'durability'.

Oh well, at least Micheal Martin has made his view known now, so FF is off my list of voting choices in future.

Not wanting to release the minutes is reason enough for me to vote no.
You need to know what you're getting, surely, before voting yes?
Never a good idea to buy a pig in a poke.

There is something in those minutes which blow up this referendum and government are keeping it quiet.

Not a good, they control the narrative to push in a certain direction

www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2023-04-18/996/

www.irishimmigration.ie/coming-to-join-family-in-ireland/

Currently has per the link above the family members is fairly well defined, spouse, previous civil partnership, dependent children.

With the word endurable relationship as the basis how will it be defined for assessment?

I do think the hidden documents are about surrogacy (now it's been said) and the potential for an upsurge of family repatriation applications.

As it stands today, the state/government is not providing enough school places, doctor dentist places not to mention actually handing tents to people who present with nowhere to sleep.

Sure why not add more people to the powder key and watch it blow up.

And no I have no idea what the answers are but wasting millions on an apparently unnecessary referendum is most definitely not going to help with the above

I think the immigration issue is a red herring.

My big issue with the term "durable relationship" is that it is too vague. If it was replaced with something like a legally recognised official relationship or something I might be more inclined to consider a yes. A vague, wooly term like durable relationship means the courts decide based on legal and dictionary definitions rather than a clearly defined and limited legal definition.

A durable relationship could be a couple, both of whom have children from a previous relationship, that have been in a relationship for the past 5 years. However, neither wish to get married or enter a civil partnership for a variety of reasons, including protecting their assets for their children. The courts could decide this counts as a relationship (it is) and the length of time counts as durable (it is). One partner dies, does the other then have the right to make a claim on their estate to the detriment of the dead parent's children? I have no idea and neither does anyone else.

Basically, I think a family relationship should be something that requires some form of legally recognised event in order to be classed as such. So a child being born and the legal act of registering the birth results in a family. That covers single parents and doesn't allow either parent to claim not to be a family member with the child. A couple entering a civil partnership or marriage would also count.

We all saw the result of the vague wording of the 8th amendment. We don't want a repeat of that.

Repatriation TO Ireland? That's only possible for Irish citizens.

If the issue is something else altogether, i.e. allowing people who have legally settled in Ireland (NB legally settled, because obviously it wouldn't apply to anyone else) to be joined by their families, isn't that a good idea?
People say they feel threatened by asylum-seeking single men moving into their area, and in some cases express their feelings by burning down any building that is rumoured to be earmarked for single men, so presumably nice settled families would be more welcome.

I think the link to immigration is an over-reach. I can't see how the government would benefit from this- why would the current government want to increase the number of people coming to live in Ireland at present? Unless of course they are acting on the instructions of the WWF, or the WWW, or a bunch of lizards, or whoever it is who are allegedly pulling their strings..

Another question if a knock on affect is a to turn a surrogate into a job, how will that work for children born out of wedlock when the only automatic guardian in a that situation is the mother?

Is that in the constitution or just legislation?

Will it mean that the state assumes guardianship until such a time as the parents are granted same?

This is repatriation to Ireland so extended family joining the asylum seeker should be successful and receive leave to stay

@MarieDeGournay

I don't think they would want that out, the whole asylum issue is extremely volatile currently.

Between the murder in 2022, 2023 stabbing and riot, the arson and what appears to be police heavy handiness with protesters.

It could be really used to rally people who feel disenfranchised