TERFs and the Irish referendum

@TheLongRider , I'm sorry your mother had to leave her (probably public sector) job at the time of her marriage in or before 1973, but for more than half a century, under the present constitution, that has not been the experience of Irish women. The marriage bar in the context of this referendum is a red herring, and I wonder why you want to suggest it is in some way relevant?

Women are mentioned in two other places in the constitution (with men) where it is explicitly stated that we (like men) have a right to work for our livings if we so choose. It also mentions that young children should not be expected to work that could harm them. I wonder will they try to con us into removing that one next?

Anyone with experience of the way the HSE tries to transfer caring responsibilities not just to family, including extended family members, but even to neighbours (no kidding, that was suggested to me more than once wrt elderly parents need for emergency support) should be very wary of putting into the CONSTITUTION the idea that something woolly called a 'durable relationship' could make a person liable for care of another. Though the horrible situations that could produce might soften us all up for their next move, legalising killing people.

The constitution.

I lived my adult life in the arguments and the risk to women's lives and the expense of trying to unpick the meaning and effect of putting abortion into the constitution in 1983, and that was cut and dried compared to this.

Bottom line, in both cases, it ain't broke, it doesn't need fixing, and would you really trust the present batch of politicians to do the right thing for anyone, particularly for the vulnerable?

Vote NO and NO

Again, for those of the hard of understanding, the proposed amendments do not remove all references to women in the Constitution.

The article is not "robust", robust would imply that a woman compelled by economic necessity to stay at home would be able to claim for financial support from the State. This does not and has never happened and it has never been upheld in law.

I think your meaning of robust is as flimsy as a wisp of straw.

I have provided evidence to support my statement that the original Article is not fit for purpose. Where is your evidence?

I’m not sure anyone on this thread is arguing that the original article is for for purpose. I’m certainly not.

I’m arguing that we shouldn’t exchange it for an Article that is significantly less robust and removes women and mothers as a discreet category.

And you want to replace the 'so called protections ' with waffle and piffle binning all mention of women or mothers . Grand so.

Vote No for sure. ROG is a charlatan when it comes to women and children AFAIS. So I don't trust anything he says or advocates TBH.

The National Women's Council - a State funded NGO - has advocated a YES vote. That is another reason I'm voting no. They have a biological man on their executive board. They (trans) are a woman though for the Women's Council. Yep.

The vagueness of "Durable Relationship" is concerning. Also the fact that it is not defined in the proposal. So it will be left to the judiciary to define if challenged. That is a total cop out on behalf of the legislature. NO.

I might be voting with my heart not my head, but instinct is good in this case. NO.

If you don't know ; Vote No .

In the immortal words of Frankie Howerd - Nay , nay and thrice nay !

The so-called protections afforded to women and mothers under the current Constitution are not and have never been fit for purpose. It is like our blasphemy laws, again not fit for purpose and therefore removed.

A written Constitution is a living document in Ireland. That is why we are onto our 39th and 40th proposed Amendments to a Constitution that is not even 100 years old.

What is wrong with the wording of the proposed replacement Article?

"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."

A lot of the previous debate about this referendum was prior to the wording of proposed amendment. Now that it is available, would you care to discuss the wording?

I have provided evidence to support my statement that the original Article is not fit for purpose. Where is your evidence?

Yeah, I don't see the point in replacing what's there with something arguably worse.
I agree with this. It's not so much that the articles don't need uodating. It's that the replacement wording is worse imho.

Irish feminists have been fighting for their removal since the inception of the Constitution in 1937.
There are many Irish feminists who'll be voting no on this @TheLongRider. In fact, all the people I've heard arguing for a no vote are feminists.

It’s not misinformation, you’re being disingenuous.

The only other references to women in Bunreacht na hÉireann are when conjoined with men i.e. “men and women” as one single group with no separate rights or

the excising of woman and mother from 41.2 removes the only references where woman and mother are given specific and separate protections to men and therefore considered a discrete group. That is important.

When seeking significant changes such as these the better question is what happens if no changes are made? Given no one has benefited from its existence, what is the point of a more broadly drafted, less robust provision?

It doesn't erase women from the legislative framework, that's an overblown claim. It doesn't even remove the word women completely from the Constitution.

There's a Factcheck on that piece of misinformation. If you don't want to click on links, you can read a copy of Bunreacht na hÉireann and you'll see the other references to women. If the Amendment is passed it will remove the reference to the singular word "woman" not all references to women.

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-women-in-home-referendum-erase-irish-constitution-6279204-Jan2024/

Yeah, I don't see the point in replacing what's there with something arguably worse. The fact is that women do do the bulk of family care and pretending otherwise won't change that.

“TL:DR The article is not fit for purpose, it has been extensively discussed, no-one has benefitted from its existence, it needs to go”

it may well “need to go” but the alternative won’t add any benefits and erases women from the legislative framework.

You can vote in some elections though coz my ex was British and did so. I'm voting No. Once some sexist crap is written into the Constitution it can take decades to take it out. Witness Repeal and Divorce.

On "enduring relationships" my opinion is that the Government has muddied the waters by using this phrase rather than phrases such as "commited relationship" or "cohabitants" as are used elsewhere in Irish legislation.

I refer you to the record of the Dáil debates on a proposed amendment. The Minister sets out some of his remaining behind the use of the phrase "enduring relationships".

There are two votes in this referendum. The 39th Amendment and the 40th Amendment. The Electoral Commission website sets out the wording and legal implications of a YES and NO vote to each amendment.
https://www.electoralcommission.ie/referendums/referendum-information/what-are-you-being-asked-to-decide-on/

The 40th Amendment, in this amendment there is one vote for two proposed changes. The proposal involves deleting Article 41.2.1° and Article 41.2.2° and inserting a new Article 42B, as shown below:

Original

Article 41.2.1° “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”

Article 41.2.2° “The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”

Replacement

“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.”

I support the removal of Articles 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 and their replacement with the new text. The original articles are not and were never fit for purpose. Irish feminists have been fighting for their removal since the inception of the Constitution in 1937.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2024-01-17/11/

If they wanted to reword marriage as cohabiting they could have. They didn't.
What does enduring relationship mean?

We know it is of no practical use.
A gender neutral version is also of no practical use.
So why change it?

Disagree with what part of my post? I have stated nothing but facts as opposed to your opinion.

Show me the practical support the State has shown to women under this Article of the Constitution.

Respectfully, TheLongRider, I disagree.

https://citizensassembly.ie/overview-previous-assemblies/assembly-on-gender-equality/

We held a Citizen's Assembly to discuss this Article and all the information that informed the proposed new legislation is available at the link above. Including expert submissions and the decisions taken.

The current article in the Constitution is of absolutely no use to women, it has been cited in legal cases against the State to try and enforce the so-called rights in the article, but all of them have failed. It only pays lip service to the role of women in the home or in caring situations, the State has always weaselled out of actually financially supporting SAHP. My own mother had to leave employment because of the marriage bar in the 1970's and she certainly wasn't "compensated for her work in the home".

It is a bullshit, backwards article that needs to be erased from the Constitution. Since the introduction of progressive taxation, the only financial compensation available to a stay at home mother was the "home carers tax credit".

The Iona Institute is campaigning for a No vote and any argument that includes those anti-abortion, anti-divorce, pro-Catholic feckers means that I will be running fast in the opposite direction.

For those asking about cohabitation, since 2011 there are laws in place regarding the status of committed cohabitants. If you are financially dependent in a relationship, if the relationship breaks down you can make a financial claim on your former partner if the relationship is at least of two years duration if you have children or five years without children. This includes claims on the estate of a deceased partner. You can only opt-out if you have a legal agreement in place.

TL:DR The article is not fit for purpose, it has been extensively discussed, no-one has benefitted from its existence, it needs to go.

Personally, my intention (at the moment, unless something amazing happens) is to vote no.

First of all, I don't agree with the concept of durable relationships being equal to marriage. Marriage is opt in and open to all adults and some of the legalities surrounding marriage is quite onerous. I see no reason to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to those who don't make a positive choice and agreement to acquire them together. People should be free to have relationships that are not marriage if they want.

Secondly, regarding women in the home. I don't see the current wording as an impediment to me or any other woman and I don't see the change benefitting me or any other woman. In fact, nobody promoting the change has managed to come up with a single plausible way in which making this change will change anything. So I don't know what it's for. However, if O'Gorman's involved, I just feel that whatever comes of it won't be better for women. Had the proposal been to delete this article, I would have been disposed to vote in favour of that.

Having read both articles, my advice is to vote 'no', because the intention is to remove women from the constitution and to remove also the central importance of home, family and motherhood without which no society can thrive. The removal of 41.2 also supports neo-liberal ideas that only the economy matters and activities which do not make a profit in monetary terms are worthless - definitely a 'no' to that. Irish sisters, do not be angry that I should comment here. Women need to stick together for our rights are, again, under attack.

Enduring relationship is so vague.

What the hell is that? I had a longer enduring relationship with my dog than my son's father.

It will interesting to see the potential court challenge down the road to define it.